He Ting Ru
Singapore
“When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that.”
“Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping.”
“With decisions like periodic increases to tobacco duties, I hope we are seeking to maximise the sin tax impact instead of considering its revenue impact. Similarly, we should be doing more to curb the health impacts of public smoking, for instance, by tackling smoking while walking.”
“Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.”
The complete record
Every one of 636 lines we hold for He Ting Ru, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The COVID-19 pandemic tested resilience of our open economy, bringing to light potential choke points in our access to labour and critical supplies. But today's crises are more complex and fractious, and the coming challenges may be even more wide-ranging and long-lasting. Deeply integrating contingency planning into the transportation plans at hand will help reassure citizens and partners alike. To conclude, Mr Speaker, as the world is becoming more volatile and less forgiving, Singapore must redouble efforts to remain globally indispensable and to work to fortify the stable international order on which our prosperity depends. In doing so, we must champion connection and collaboration instead of close-minded focus on competition. But this larger strategic view must never obscure the real value of economic success. We do not pursue growth or connectivity for their own sake. We do so for Singaporeans. We must pay closer attention to whether our policies are really helping our workers, households and businesses feel that our lives are getting better and that we are equipped to face the future economy. Even as we continue deepening our connections with the world, Singaporeans rightly want to know how we are buffering ourselves, how we ensure sufficiency of food and essential supplies, how we strengthen resilience in transport and logistics, and whether we have baked contingency planning into our economy and infrastructure. Singapore's development story, the role that we play in connecting the world, has never been just a "once-off" miracle. Instead, ours is a story of constant adaptation, renewal and resolve. We have to prove that our small open country can remain deeply connected to the world while retaining a fair, inclusive and ultimately resilient economy. Thank you.”
“Conflicts in Europe and the Middle East have directly affected everyday activity in Singapore, and we continue to feel the consequence today when we pay our utility bills, fill our gas tanks or shop for daily groceries. The expansion of modern conflict includes attacks on critical infrastructure, such as damage to submarine cables around the Baltics, Taiwan and the Red Sea, or the use of economic coercion and other grey zone tactics, whether these are blockades or disinformation campaigns, underscore how Singapore and Singaporeans may bear the brunt and costs of these apparently far away developments, even if we are not direct parties to the conflict. Faced with such tumult, we cannot afford to settle for being an oasis of superficial stability. Instead, we must actively assure both Singaporeans and international partners that Singapore will remain reliable, valuable and connected in any future scenario. So, while the current Government looks at enhancing Singapore's position as a transportation and communications hub, I would like to seek more details on our plans for making Singapore the location of choice, despite our earlier mentioned exposure. In the plans for transportation, could the Government lay out more fully how they intend to mitigate the risk of Singapore being cut off from global and regional transportation networks and communication lines? Could the Minister clarify the specific risk frameworks and contingency plans that would keep Singapore connected if key maritime, aviation, digital or energy supply routes are disrupted and how these plans and frameworks are coordinated across agencies? Singapore has been severely tested in the past.”
“Our SMEs too, may struggle to see how the high-level agreements signed by our Government have helped them, if the value of any unlocked opportunities are snapped up by larger players and they remain confined to an ever smaller margin. Could the Minister therefore share how the Government assesses whether our digital economy and connectivity strategies are translating into tangible gains for the average Singaporean and Singaporean firms, not only in aggregate data, but in an economy clearly oriented towards better jobs, stronger local enterprises, greater SME participation and a clear pathway for ordinary citizens to benefit from the future phases of growth? Any discussion about our role in global trade will not be complete without taking into account geopolitical complexities. Singapore needs the free flow of goods, people and data to survive as an island and prosper as a trade-dependent economy. This reality makes us susceptible to geopolitical upheavals, major power rivalries and conflicts, even those far beyond our borders and control. But none of this implies that Singapore cannot and should not do more to mitigate the transportation and connectivity risks we face. We cannot overstate how exposed Singapore is. News reports and Government data suggest that shipping, maritime, aviation and related industries account for around 12% of Singapore's GDP. For Singapore's trade flows, which are about three times our GDP, 90% depends on sea lanes. Furthermore, we continue to rely on imports to meet our energy needs and our nutritional needs, especially given our move away from the "30-by-30" sufficiency goal. If Singapore's connectivity with the world is disrupted, we will find it hard to make a living, to keep the lights on or even to put food on the table.”
“In particular, we must go beyond helping SMEs digitalise and instead equip them to take advantage of internationalisation in the digital economy so that they are not just moving more effectively digitalising as businesses but evolving to become more valuable in the digital economy. That Singapore is seen as relatively weaker in the people pillar of the digital economy could mean that there is room for improvement. It suggests that Singaporeans and Singaporean companies are benefiting less from the digital economy when compared to those in other economies. We must also concern ourselves with the possibility of large MNCs dominating high-value ecosystems while local enterprises take up low-value, low-margin activities. Thus, could the Minister provide more details on our efforts thus far in countering economic enclaving and on our plans to enable SMEs to continue playing their part and building Singapore's role as a connector? In view of this, we should think carefully about the apparent gap between our Government's efforts, whether domestic or international, and the actual benefits felt by our people and companies. While we were recently told that median household market incomes for residents crossed the $12,000 mark, many Singaporeans still worry about wages relative to housing, transport, caregiving and assorted cost of living. There is a sense that even Singaporeans earning decent wages cannot feel secure, particularly when contrasted against job security in an age of AI and digitalisation, and the safety nets available if they are rendered irrelevant by a fast-changing and cut-throat economy.”
“This platform was backed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and aims to streamline information flows and promote efficient data sharing across the fragmented global ecosystem through a common data highway. This new system was launched to facilitate digital trade and deter fraudsters, which became even more pressing in the wake of fraud allegations at trading companies and as demonstrated, itself, as a proof of concept. Yet publicly available data suggests that SGTraDex, like TradeXchange and the Networked Trade Platform before it, has not achieved universal use. Could the Minister thus clarify what progress have been made in terms of working towards the Government's declared adoption and value creation metrics, and to what universal usage of the system and also details of how this platform is used beyond our shores? Additionally, what were the learning points taken on board from the previous attempts and attempted roll-outs of proceeding platforms? More broadly, Singapore plays an important role in shaping the global digital economy, whether through its network of digital economy agreements or by co-convening the Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce at the World Trade Organization. Our agencies deserve commendation for their success in positioning Singapore as a connector despite the highly contested international digital trade landscape. Nonetheless, as Singapore plays this high-level role, we must look beyond the important but ultimately top-line questions of Singapore's competitiveness in such frameworks. Instead, we must pay more attention to whether such initiatives actually better the lives of our residents and generate value for our businesses.”
“We should move away from thinking about how we compete with other great ports of the world, how we capture trade flows at the expense of other hubs or to chase that higher ranking on a league table of port throughput, of airport connectivity. We should not see our role as accumulating trade flows for ourselves, but instead as a connector for which we make the movement of goods, people, capital and ideas between other parties, smoother, safer, faster and more reliable. I now turn to our trade infrastructure. Apart from more obvious physical infrastructure, such as roads container ports and airports, we should stay attentive to the growing importance of digital public infrastructure. This is defined generally as foundational hardware, software, regulatory frameworks and networks which allow cross-border exchange of digital ordered or delivered goods and services. Singapore already has an advantage in this area, particularly in terms of digital intensity. An Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) report published in 2024 ranked us among the best performing economies in terms of our overall digital infrastructure and digital governance frameworks. However, the same report shows a dip in Singapore's relative rank in the people pillar, defined as how well the economy's human capital leverages technology. This seems to be borne up by our attempts to digitalise our logistical supply chains. Way back in 2007, Singapore launched TradeXchange to provide seamless interconnectivity among commercial and regulatory systems for the Singapore trade and logistics community. In 2018, this was replaced by the Networked Trade Platform. However, this now appears to have been replaced by SGTraDex, the Singapore trade data exchange launched in June 2022.”
“Mr Speaker, in a world that is in turmoil, in retreat from multilateralism, it is often tempting and, even some say, intuitive for us to hunker down and look to protect our own first. Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, Brexit, the success of the far-right in many democratic systems are all reactions to the sense that many across the world have – that globalisation has failed, that we must batten down the hatches to ensure we work toward Singapore – whether me, we or otherwise – first. Yet, I would argue that this world view risks going down the very same pathways that would further entrench polarisation. Competition and remaining competitive may have been Singapore's lifeblood, but I fear that focusing solely on competitiveness and protection would cause us to leave out areas of growth or potential that we must keep our sights on as we search to find ways and means in which to build a better future for our economy and our country. It also becomes important to have a hard look at where we stand in a world where truly global supply chains are being unpicked, localised, rewired, where sanctions and trade barriers are being erected and weaponised. And the role that I believe we must play has to revolve around trust. Trust that we remain open, predictable and never an instrument of another's strategic goals. And it is also why I believe that our way forward has to be a reframing of the role that we play in the world. Our foreign service teams and Government agencies have done well in promoting and upholding Singapore's role into the international economic order, but more can be done to emphasise Singapore's facilitative approach, that is, to promote Singapore not simply as a competitor but a connector.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of supplementary questions. With the background that water scarcity has been intensified by climate change and the estimate is that there would be possible implications of up to 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050, an impact on the GDP, and also, given that the World Bank has recently stated that the water will shift from a background resource to a binding constraint, then also, bearing in mind that if there is not good water management, there will also be constriction or a negative impact on the economic growth and given our expected increase in demands, including plans to build databanks and climate change driven increases, how is this systemic risk framing being incorporated into our fiscal and also forward estimates for public infrastructure demand planning parameters? And the second supplementary question relates to the current Middle East conflict and the war in the Middle East. The current one in the Middle East has driven up the cost of energy, and the cost of oil and natural gas has been extremely volatile. Given that a lot of our water supply comes from very energy-intensive sources, like desalination, what is the impact that that increase in energy cost have had on the cost of our desalinated water? And how are we responding to this prolonged energy price volatility, to moderate impact that the energy cost is having on our desalination cost modelling?”
“When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into. We must ensure Singaporeans are in the room where these technologies are being built and not merely be on the receiving end of decisions made elsewhere. Our global AI leadership is ultimately an investment in ensuring that the answer is the former. This approach also ultimately has the added benefit of creating more jobs and opportunities for Singapore in what would be a true trickle-down effect. I support the Motion.”
“Singapore comes from a place of strength and we are already intentionally deciding to lead the way when it comes to setting the agenda in global AI governance. Our stewardship role must extend beyond frameworks, and we have to play our part in addressing global imbalances in AI development and use reflected in recent data. World Bank 2025 data show that high income countries account for 87% of notable AI models, 86% of AI startups and 91% of venture fund capital funding, despite representing just 17% of the global population. There is justifiable concern about how vulnerable groups and the global South are woefully underrepresented in the AI space. As responsible world citizens, we can do our part to address this. Recently, we have already begun developing AI tools tailored to Southeast Asian languages through Project Sea Lion, recognising that much of the developing world risks being left behind by AI systems built on Western data. We should build on this by championing equitable AI access across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), exporting our governance expertise to nations that lack the capacity to develop their own frameworks and ensuring that the rules governing AI reflect not just the interests of the powerful, but the needs of the many. This is not merely an abstract foreign policy and ambition. It has direct consequences for jobs here at home. Singapore's standing in the global AI ecosystem, gives us leverage to shape how AI tools are built, deployed and adopted across the region. We should use that leverage intentionally. When our researchers —”
“Founders have to make decisions with incomplete information and meaningful innovation has to be backed up by some freedom to fail. We have to treat failure as a stepping stone rather than a stigma, or we end up stifling the very ecosystem we are trying to build and leave our youths ill-equipped to flourish in an age of disruption. We can do so by beginning our own transition towards a better space for entrepreneurship, encourage experimentation and normalise entrepreneurial failure as growth and experience. Failure should be a stepping stone, not a dead end. And we began this transition within schools where we have to move away from perfect scores, where we have entrepreneurial projects in schools which expose students to the inner workings of a startup. We should also showcase failed projects for their bonus. Singapore's current bankruptcy framework can also be re-examined to better support entrepreneurs. Currently, founders who fail face the same restrictions as any other bankrupt, with travel bans, director disqualification and no automatic discharge, regardless of whether their failure was the result of genuine risk-taking or financial misconduct. Could we explore a dedicated pathway for bona fide startup failure, one that allows founders to be discharged sooner, resume directorship more quickly and have their experience recognised as something valuable rather than a liability. It is not to make failure consequence free, but to ensure that the cost of an honest bet gone wrong does not permanently deter our most enterprising young Singaporeans from trying again. Finally, it is also my hope that we use our experiences navigating the AI transition to play a regional and global role as other economies too attempt to navigate the disruption.”
“While we have anchors like Grab and Block 71, the Asian Development Bank has noted that our ecosystem trails others because our collaboration remains policy-driven rather than organically clustered. How can we reduce administrative burden on founders to ensure that they do not become overly occupied with meeting grant milestones instead of establishing the market competitiveness they need to survive AI-driven disruption. One possibility is to limit formal reporting to end of grant rather than more regularly to strike a balance. Singapore must also better leverage our anchor firms. Companies like Grab, Sea and Singtel hold deep reservoirs of technical expertise and industry networks that largely remain locked within the firm. Could we use targeted tax credits or co-investment matching for peer development programmes to encourage anchor firms to run structured mentorship and spin-out programmes for early-stage founders? This will allow organic networks to form around existing reservoirs of excellence, rather than hope that Government grant cycles will do so. The private sector must lead, and the Government's role should shift from convener and gatekeeper to catalyst. This is how we can start to grow our entrepreneurial system from within industry. We must also learn to value failure. Singapore's culture of economic emphasis and social conformity makes us sometimes afraid to fail. A 2018 piece of study by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that Singapore students expressed a greater fear of failure than their peers compared with any other participating country. Yet entrepreneurship means being tolerant of failure.”
“AI has greatly reduced barriers to starting a business by being deployed to build websites, analyse data, run marketing and even automate back-office tasks. We have many schemes for startups, such as grants and boot camps, but do these initiatives adequately provide sustained long-term support across the full lifecycle of a burgeoning firm? Moreover, our grant architecture remains milestone heavy and programme bound, encouraging compliance over competition. We need a culture and framework that recognise the value of a failed startup, or that support founder-led networks over time. Drawing on lessons from other entrepreneurial hubs, what are the areas that have inhibited Singapore's ability to establish a more sustainable ecosystem conducive for entrepreneurs? First, we must continue to build sustained informal networks that made an entrepreneurship culture self-sustaining. Our current networks are often programme based and time limited, skewed towards short-term coaching. Yet research shows that informal mentorships arising from mutual choice and affinity are far more effective than administrative matching. If mentorship is only linked to short-term grants, our youths may miss out on the benefits that accrue from the trust-based guidance that can be seen in, for example, Silicon Valley. In leading entrepreneurial hubs like Silicon Valley and Shenzhen, informal founder networks have been a critical but often overlooked driver of success. They enable knowledge sharing, supply chain connections and a spin-off of new ventures from anchor firms. Singapore can gain much from this.”
“It is a good start, but they do not tell us the effects of AI programmes and disruptions on different groups of society. These measures focus on throughput rather than equity. We need data on wage trajectories, job quality and retention in AI roles two to three years after the programme is completed. We need more data. First, the participant data profile should have more details made public. This can include previous occupations, income band before training, age, gender, education and disability status. This allows us to see where participants come from. High exposure, low complementarity roles, or already high complementarity roles. This will inform if vulnerable groups are even putting their feet through the door. Next, more accurately measuring AI disruption in the wider labour market can come in the form of exposure complementarity mapping, thus understanding whether jobs are high exposure and low complementarity, and to establish a tuned framework to track displacement, wage changes and job quality across demographic groups. Such data gives the Government a clearer picture of how AI is affecting different communities, so that support can be directed where it is most needed. I will now turn to some thoughts on how our youths can address the challenges of AI. If AI displaces a significant share of entry level roles, young workers may find fewer opportunities to build the foundational experience traditionally needed to progress into senior positions. One of our nation's solutions could be to better encourage and support entrepreneurship amongst youths. This will allow them to also gain valuable skills independently, rather than wait to be picked up to be employed by an established firm. This approach builds on an already open door.”
“If left unaddressed, then this risks hardening inequality across generations. Measuring impact on Singapore beyond economic output, what does this all mean for Singapore? Just this past week, we have seen the launch of the Marriage and Parenthood Reset Work Group. What is the effect of AI advances on our birth rate? Economic insecurity has already been cited by young Singaporeans as a reason for delaying or foregoing parenthood, but the barriers go beyond finances. Job uncertainty erodes a sense of stability and confidence in the future, the feeling that one has a firm enough footing to build a family and put down roots. If AI-driven disruption deepens this broader sense of insecurity, we can reasonably expect further downward pressure on our already tragically low total fertility rate. The Government has to be even more targeted in ensuring that all workers, regardless of their gender, age, occupation, income and accessibility needs, are fully prepared for the disruption caused by AI, to ease financial pressures on vulnerable workers who are made redundant. This will minimise the uncertainty and toll of unemployment on both workers and their families as AI displacement becomes more commonplace. To ensure our policies are working, we need more public data for us to measure AI-driven disruptions on our labour market. For example, how we measure the success of our AI programmes. Following up in response to my Parliamentary Question on 24 February this year, I noted that the AI apprenticeship programme is currently assessed through three primary indicators: one, the total number of practitioners trained; two, the percentage of AI Apprenticeship Programme graduates who took up AI engineering related roles, and; three, the completion and supervision of project quality.”
“Additionally, International Labour Organization data, released in March 2026, found that occupations dominated by women are nearly twice as likely to be exposed to GenAI risks compared with male-dominated ones, with even stronger differences presenting when looking at high automation risk. Taken together, this creates a double disadvantage. Female workers are less likely to gain from AI's benefits, while remaining more vulnerable to displacement. In short, women face higher risk and have fewer opportunities. For our young graduates, new uncertainty has been introduced by the way AI has been reshaping jobs. The erosion of entry-level jobs has presented a catch-22 dilemma for Generation Zs. While companies are still looking to hire professionals for experienced roles, young graduates have fewer opportunities to gain such experiences as jobs are absorbed by AI. With more than 20% of graduates unable to secure full-time permanent roles in 2025, a nearly 5% increase from 2023, and over 60% of graduates claiming that the job search has become difficult, it is only natural that young graduates have become more anxious about landing full-time employment. Adding to this is recent research, which has shown that simply being aware of AI's potential to augment or threaten one's job can increase burn-out, mainly by heightening job insecurity and emotional exhaustion amongst workers. While AI is often associated with disruption to white-collar work, vulnerable workers and families face significant risks too. Unequal access to AI tools and training could entrench existing disadvantages. Those without the resources of home or home environments conducive to learning new skills may find themselves falling further behind.”
“Would AI's effects drive further unequal wealth accumulation? It is, therefore, a fair and pressing question to ask: could AI-driven economic activity inadvertently add to daily cost pressures? Beyond broad economic pressures, we must turn toward the human face of this transition. As jobs continue to be reshaped and workers continue to be upskilled, we cannot leave behind those who face systemic barriers as our nation progresses towards an AI-ready future. Amongst them are persons with disabilities, women, lower-income Singaporeans, as well as young graduates. AI can introduce new forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities. As AI algorithms are often trained via pattern recognition, they arrive at determinations based on common patterns within datasets. Thus, if skilled historical data is being used to train AI for, for example, recruitment processes, AI might reinforce this bias for job applications from persons with disabilities and any other group which historically, is not well represented in this space. Female workers, too, face a heightened risk of marginalisation from AI. A 2024 IMF report on Singapore's labour market found that women are under-represented in AI-intensive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) roles, and among workers with AI engineering skills. Women in STEM held 29% of entry-level positions, 24.4% of managerial positions but only 12.12% of C-suite roles. Altogether, this means that they are less represented in what is regarded as the safe side of AI. They would thus be less well positioned to benefit where AI compliments high-skill work.”
“In such high exposure, low complementarity white-collar roles, employers can consolidate positions, slow hiring or redesign jobs to ensure that fewer people are expected to do more with AI as a simple justification. If we do not address this, the benefits of AI will end up with only a small group of workers. Research suggests that productivity and wealth gains could disproportionately accrue to those best positioned to leverage AI capabilities. One documented economic effect of high-skill job creation is increased local service demand. Studies from major tech hubs, including San Francisco, indicate that each high-end job is associated with the creation of approximately four jobs in local service sectors, such as retail and food services. Even if such spillover effects generate more jobs, the quality and availability of these jobs for vulnerable workers is less certain to me. In Singapore, lower wage and routine-intensive roles are more likely to be held by vulnerable worker groups who may also face greater displacement risk from automation. International institutions, including the IMF and World Bank, have noted that AI could exacerbate income inequality in the absence of policy intervention. The extent to which spillover effects from AI-driven growth would benefit lower-income workers remains uncertain. We need Singapore-specific research, modelling these distributional impacts and to make this data publicly available, to inform more targeted policy responses. We must also remember that Singaporeans are already feeling the strain of rising property prices and higher cost for essential services. These pressures are real. They have been building for some time as we are a small, open economy, significantly dependent on capital inflows.”
“Clerical support workers and many business and administrative associate professionals, whose work is built around routine documentation, basic processing and standardised customer queries, face the highest risk that their roles will shrink or even disappear. Advances in agentic AI technology and models have only sharpened this impact. In the UK, some financial institutions, like investment banks, have relooked their hiring of fresh graduates for certain roles because of AI's automation capabilities. Third, AI will also create new jobs and new demands. We are already seeing rising demand for AI engineers, data scientists and AI-product specialists, but also for data-savvy professionals across finance, healthcare, logistics and education. These new roles tend to offer higher wages, but only for workers who can supply the right mix of technical and complementary human skills. Yes, indeed, the AI job transformation is already here and we are in the midst of a major disruption. Yet, the impact will not be uniform across all professions, nor is it, and will it, affect our society and economy evenly. For now, AI disruption is strongest amongst white-collared workers, especially entry-level roles. Unlike previous technological disruptions that have historically affected blue-collared jobs, AI today will most affect cognitive, white-collared roles – a call centre agent, an admin officer or a junior business support executive, whose workday is built around standard processes, routine reports and scripted responses, is in a role where AI can perform almost all core tasks.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore's approach to AI is often cited by international institutions and consultancies like BCG, and prominent figures, such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva. Our technological infrastructure and initiatives to upskill our workers are key parts of how we plan to confront the disruptions and opportunities presented to us by this new and rapidly developing technology. However, we must also recognise and act on an additional uncomfortable reality. Singapore is one of the most vulnerable economies to AI disruption. International estimates suggest that around 60% of workers in advanced economies are in jobs that are highly exposed to AI. For Singapore, that share seems significantly higher. Because we are a high-skill services-oriented hub, estimates from the IMF indicate that approximately 77% of our local workforce is highly exposed to AI disruption, and our transition is likely to be sharper and more acute than in many other economies. How is AI fundamentally reconfiguring our labour market? This can be understood through three distinct shifts. First, many existing jobs will be transformed from within. AI is taking, or has already taken, over routine information processing tasks – drafting, summarising, extracting data and standardising analysis. Managers, health professionals and legal professionals are already using AI tools to handle these types of tasks, freeing up time for judgement, complex problem-solving and human interaction. Second, some jobs will be displaced. In what economists call high exposure, low complementarity roles, AI can perform most of the core tasks on its own and there are fewer reasons to keep humans in the loop.”
“While skills important to the social sector, such as social services, youth development and casework management, are included in the CASL, I believe we can do more to drive up our social service manpower capacity and overall interest in the sector. As I previously mentioned in my Budget 2024 speech, I hope that the agency would platform these skills in addition to economic growth drivers, such as tech and AI. To conclude, while the SWDA drives economic growth by widening and deepening our talent pool, the agency work also affects the livelihoods of individual Singaporeans, and we must ensure that it is people centric. This involves untangling unnecessary red tape for training providers and broadening the types of data collected to monitor the agency's effectiveness in securing fruitful employment opportunities and outcomes for Singaporeans. Furthermore, the agency should also boost its capabilities serving marginalised communities, such as PwDs and ex-offenders, whilst promoting the people sector, not just focus on areas with strong economic potential. Notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.”
“Many PwDs were affected by the recent closure of Mountbatten Vocational School, which provides PwDs with higher support needs and avenue to pick up skills in preparation for a subsequent education at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or entry into the workforce. For PwDs with lower support needs, many have cited difficulty participating in SkillsFuture courses due to accessibility issues. This is backed up by the 2024 Disability Trends report highlighting that 61.6% of PwDs noted that they found it difficult to attend training programmes due to barriers because of their disability. While the Enabling Academy's work in developing training courses catered to PwDs on topics, such as AI and cooking, is important, in the spirit of inclusivity, SkillsFuture courses should be made accessible to all via the provision of reasonable accommodations, a point that I and others in this House have previously made. Finally, what it means to be a people-centred economy. During the recent Budget Statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the outsized role AI plays in our economic strategy. In the domain of reskilling, this includes revamping the SkillsFuture website with an increased focus on AI and offering participants of select AI courses, a free six-month premium AI subscription. Similarly, the recently updated criteria for courses to obtain Government funding requires either certification from a course endorsement body, or 50% of the skills taught should be listed on the Course Approval Skills List (CASL). For the CASL, in particular, the skills listed support good growth jobs and are important for Singapore's economy.”
“Coordination with SG Enable needs to take place to collect and publish data surrounding the retention of participants under the School-To-Work and Place-and-Train programmes to ensure these programmes' effectiveness and boosting full-time employment amongst PwDs. As many job seekers with disabilities experience demoralising hurdles when job hunting, a people-centric and inclusive SWDA should be attuned to the needs of PwDs, thus helping to address under employment among PwDs. Although the employment rate for PwDs has increased to 34.7% in 2025, many PwDs have expressed concerns that the roles offered to them by employment support services often do not meet their career aspirations and skillsets. Interviews with PwDs by the DPA also highlighted the tendency for jobseekers with disabilities to be pigeonholed into certain roles, especially within the services industry. If we wish for PwDs to thrive in our society, they should not be constrained to a select few job scopes. I hope that the SWDA would factor in the prior skills and experience of jobseekers with disabilities when job matching. Additional support could be regarded via an in-house accessibility office, which could provide services, such as consulting with employers regarding reasonable accommodations. We must additionally ensure that PwDs have fewer barriers to access the wide range of courses available for re-skilling and upskilling. This is in alignment with Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which calls on governments to enable PwDs' effective access to general technical and vocational guidance programmes, placement services and vocational and continuing training.”
“While it can be argued that having these schemes are reflective of a government willing to invest in building the capabilities of its people, the jury is still out on their return on investment without sufficient data publicly available. The Workers' Party manifesto includes calls for the Government to track and publish clear KPIs on the effectiveness of SkillsFuture and career coaching programmes. Such data may include the take-up rate, duration of employment and post-training placement. Having public data allows the public to know about the effectiveness of their schemes and will aid to pinpoint potential areas for improvement. Also, while the Government is an active creator of early career opportunities, such as internships and traineeships, I also hope that we can work towards providing more opportunities for mid-career transitioners as well. I would also like to make a few remarks on how we develop a significant part of our workforce – persons with disabilities (PwDs). If we wish to see the greater integration of PwDs into the wider community, the targets we set must encompass a wider range of factors. For instance, while the Enabling Masterplan 2030 aims to achieve a 40% employment rate among PwDs by that year, there are other factors to be considered as well. While skill and qualification-related underemployment within the overall labour market was tracked in a recent NTUC study on underemployment, the Disabled People's Association (DPA) suggested in 2024 that these metrics should also be tracked for the PwD community.”
“As mentioned by my Sengkang colleague, Jamus Lim, during Committee of Supply this year, we could allow a maximum number of times for an employer to participate in a programme but not employ any trainees upon completion of the programme. This could be a start to help us identify if there are employers who may be exploiting such schemes for cheaper labour, ultimately running counter to the spirit of such programmes. There was also a rush by many Singaporeans to redeem their expiring SkillsFuture credits last year. Yet were these credits utilised for courses and programmes that genuinely improved our people's employability or offer positive contributions to personal growth and development that trickle into other dive domains? A Forum letter to The Straits Times at the end of last year voiced a concern about the quality of some SkillsFuture courses – overpriced, with poor learning outcomes and laughable assessments. Currently, SSG-funded courses are evaluated via the training quality and outcomes measurement framework, which surveys participants. However, such self-reported surveys may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of these courses in enhancing the employment prospects of their attendees. To measure employment outcomes, we need to focus more on objective metrics, such as longer-term post-course employment status, in order to more accurately evaluate whether these courses genuinely improve employment outcomes. This analysis could be carried out, for example, using Central Provident Fund (CPF) data to determine the effectiveness of each SkillsFuture course.”
“This is established under clause 5(1)(g), which articulates the agency's responsibility to collect and publish data on career, employment and training matters alongside labour market insights. WSG's annual report noted that in 2024, around 40,000 local workers managed to secure employment via WSG and e2i's career matching services. Do we have data that shows that the opportunities matched and employment secured via these services do match jobseeker skills and qualifications? Effective job matching requires career advisers with wide networks and a deep understanding of their industry. What is the Minister's assessment of the Volunteer Career Adviser Scheme's effectiveness in job matching and what are the Government's future plans regarding the scheme? Drilling down further into our existing programmes, the Career Conversion Programme and GRIT programme are aimed at mid-career workers and fresh graduates respectively. In addition to providing work experience, these programmes also provide participants a pathway towards full-time employment with their host organisation. How do we ensure that employers are not exploiting these schemes as a revolving door of Government-subsidised labour, instead of meaningfully inducting participants into full-time roles in their host organisations after the programme is completed? Although retention data is available at the industry level via Parliamentary Questions, it would be informative to study the proportion of participants retained as full-time employees by their respective host organisations at the employer level, including how long such employees stayed.”
“Mr Speaker, today, workers have to reskill and upskill amidst a rapidly evolving economy in order to remain relevant and competitive in a challenging workforce. One of the ways that our policies seek to do so is by getting workers to undertake further training and education. Yet this, in itself, is challenging. Attending courses, often whilst juggling work and other life commitments, requires a significant expenditure of energy, time and also money. As we debate the merger of SSG and WSG into the SWDA, we must ensure that processes and policies instituted in the new agency are ultimately rooted in people, a people-centric approach. They must lead to fruitful employment opportunities for workers and result in a deep pool of talent for employers to draw from. A people-centric approach to skills upgrading should also be easy for training providers to navigate. Adult private education institutes established under clause 78 of the Bill will be under the purview of two Ministries: MOE and MOM. However, given that institutions would have to satisfy both academic standards and industrial needs, can the Minister clarify what would be the new agency's approach should there be any tension between these two aims? For example, how do we resolve competing aims that may arise out of the short-term workforce needs of industry against a longer-term educational and development lens? How will we end up preventing the creation of a two-headed monster in this new agency? Specifically, what safeguards will we put in place to prevent fragmented oversight or conflicting directives within the agency? Another crucial aspect of a people-centred SWDA is to ensure open availability of granular information for the public and policy-makers alike to analyse the outcome of the agency's policies.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that. And also, in terms of the actual victims of the bullying incidents, so, how do you track, for example, the interventions taken, the punishments given, the disciplinary measures taken? How does and whether the Ministry tracks on the actual victims of the bullying incidents?”
“Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping. Moreover, our law should aim to rehabilitate and integrate rather than ostracise and stigmatise to curb smoking and vaping all together whilst preventing damages to lives and livelihoods.”
“This has grave implications for our public health. According to the Global Burden of Disease survey, some 66,000 disability-adjusted life years are lost per annum to smoking. The effect of nicotine on young brains, especially those under 25, are even more pronounced, given they are still not fully developed. This is why banning smoking for those aged 21 and below may simply not be enough. Mr Speaker, I therefore repeat our call to consider instituting a tobacco cohort ban. While the Government might write fully point out that New Zealand scrapped the ban in 2023, it was done so to subsidise tax cuts. Furthermore, although the country has legalised vapes as a tobacco cessation device, thus leading smokers to turn to vapes instead, targeting the tobacco cohort ban at people born after a certain year, when they are still young children, will significantly minimise the exposure to both tobacco and vapes. Although New Zealand may have made a U-turn, other countries such as the Maldives have also implemented a similar ban, with the United Kingdom (UK) seeking to implement a similar measure. Our smoking rate has dropped to an all-time low of 8.4%, in no small part due to the efforts of the Government and society at large. Nevertheless, I believe that we can and should do more. After all, if the authorities have the wherewithal to impose bans on chewable tobacco and vapes as well as leave the door open to a ban on flavoured tobacco products, I am confident that we can also move decisively to impose a smoking cohort ban, as I have previously mentioned during my Committee of Supply cut for MOH. I also hope that we can set out targets for complete smoking cessation over time as an end game that we can all work towards.”
“Although addressing mental health issues is targeted at a broader group, it has a knock-on effect of reducing the likelihood of people turning to vapes in the first place. Therefore, I hope that the Government could work to strengthen mental health support interventions, especially amongst children, to be much more accessible and age-appropriate. Even as we work to address vapes, we must also continue to play close attention to another societal health risk – smoking. The increased enforcement against vapes might inadvertently cause users, especially those who use it as a means to quit smoking, to shift back to cigarettes for their nicotine fix. Notably, this Bill's Second Reading comes at the heels of this year's Budget, where it was announced that tobacco excise duties were increased by 20% from 49.1 cents to 58.9 cents per cigarette. For financial year (FY) 2025, tobacco duties are expected to increase by over $92.9 million, compared to financial year 2023 when tobacco duties were last increased. Instead of viewing it as merely a sin tax, another revenue stream, I hope that the Government would explore more ways to use tobacco duties as a tool to tackle the negative externalities brought about by smoking to smokers, their loved ones and society at large. The health implications of smoking are well known. For smokers, these include the increased risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. Their loved ones, who would likely be subjected to second-hand smoke, would experience an increased cancer and stroke risk. Meanwhile, people walking past smokers or the neighbours of smokers would likely be exposed to second-hand smoke and their associated risks while society at large would have to partially bear the cost of treating smoking-related health issues.”
“Therefore, I hope that the Government exercises understanding to its victims and abusers of vapes, whose lives and livelihoods are upended. On the other hand, we must clamp down heavily on those who profit off the vape trade. Hence, different penalty regimes and the move to impose a fine of up to $200,000 and six years' jail for vape sellers is one which I support wholeheartedly. Mr Speaker, aside from imposing bans and handing out fines for vaping, we must also be cognisant that solely relying on enforcement might not sufficiently address underlying systemic factors that result in people turning to vapes. A 2012 study highlighted a lower socio-economic status and associating education level was associated with a higher prevalence of smoking and nicotine addiction. Although it seems unrelated at first glance, our efforts to stamp out vaping can be a socio-economic one. We can do so by ameliorating the undercurrents of inequality in our society. Aside from socio-economic factors, we should also aim to tackle or at least mitigate the psychological vicious circle that connects vaping and poor mental health. A New Zealand study found that people who did not smoke or vape were 40% more likely to do so if they are experiencing mental distress. However, vaping does not provide the path of least resistance for someone who wishes to escape their circumstances. In fact, nicotine and vapes is associated with increased stress and anxiety. Vape users are also more likely to attempt suicide compared to non-users. This ultimately causes a vicious feedback loop that cycles users between poor mental health, vaping and back again.”
“Mr Speaker, the renaming of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, to the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act is symbolic of the Government's increased focus on tackling vaporisers, also known as vapes, which have seen increased usage over the past few years. The Bill notably increases the fine amounts for vape users, sellers and smugglers. While this is welcomed, given the proliferation of etomidate-laced vapes or "Kpods", I hope that enforcement efforts will provide users the opportunity to turn over a new leaf instead of inadvertently stigmatising them. This is especially pertinent as vaping is prevalent mainly amongst children and teens who have a long future ahead of them. The recent popularity of Kpods too has further added to the risk that our children are exposed to. This is especially so as our brains continue to develop way into our mid-20s and vape use is especially harmful to the prefrontal cortex. This means that the brain's neurocircuits end up being dysregulated. That is detrimental to attention, impulse control and mood. Vape and nicotine use is associated with dependence, mental health problems and use of other addictive substances. This is why even though enforcement checks in school to stamp out such behaviour are welcome, we must also be cautious about being overly punitive with our approach to prevent students from being unduly stigmatised. Instead, the focus has to be on giving them the opportunity and support to change. For instance, expelling or suspending a student might set them back academically, especially if they are already lagging behind their peers. Because vape and nicotine use is ultimately addictive and causes brain changes, it should be treated as a chronic relapsing disease that may require multiple quit attempts.”
“Sir, I have three clarifications for Senior Minister of State Koh. The first relates to the new accelerated pathway for clinical psychologists. So, my clarification is, what is the projected increase in the number of entrants to the profession as a result of this, in the future? My next clarification relates to the announcement of the registration of psychologists. I want to thank MOH for announcing this. I know there are a lot of people in the profession who actually really anticipate this, and they are very happy to hear this. I have two clarifications relating to this, and they were actually part of my cut. The first is, what is the support for people who are aspiring to enter the profession? Because as I mentioned, the practicums and the supervision costs can be quite prohibitive. My clarification relates to what is the Ministry doing, or how is the Ministry looking to address some of the concerns about barriers to entry for professionals who are interested in entering the professions? And then, the second point is, for people who are actually seeking these services, for clients, what support is available if they have, in the meantime before these registration requirements come in, what recourse do they have and what support do they have if they have concerns about professional ethics and standards?”
“With decisions like periodic increases to tobacco duties, I hope we are seeking to maximise the sin tax impact instead of considering its revenue impact. Similarly, we should be doing more to curb the health impacts of public smoking, for instance, by tackling smoking while walking. Singapore takes a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and vaping. We must do the same with tobacco. Thank you.”
“Smoke-free Generation For years now, the Government has been studying the possible roll-out of a tobacco-free generation policy. Earlier this year, the Minister of State for Health said in an exchange with me that the effectiveness of implementing such a policy is not straightforward and that we are already at an all-time low smoking rate of 8.4% with the existing suite of measures. Mr Chairman, I agree that implementation of a tobacco-free generation policy is not straightforward. Black markets already stop Singapore from being completely drug-free and vape-free. Similarly, places where smoking is banned are not completely smoke-free despite the efforts of our enforcement officers. Nevertheless, while New Zealand repeals its laws partly on grounds of political ideology, we should continue to study how to roll out a tobacco-free generation policy once there is real-world evidence on its efficacy and implementability. Maldives' policy has already come into effect, while the United Kingdom (UK) Bill is on track to becoming law, is set to be implemented at the start of 2027. Like the UK, we are well-placed to introduce a similar policy precisely because our smoking rate is already low. The latest studies, including a Nottingham University study published in January, suggest that a cohort ban will bring forward by decades a smoking prevalence of under 5%, which is defined as an effective endgame for tobacco. I highlight the end-game because it sets out a target I hope we can work as fast as possible to achieve. Although associated with the smoke-free generation policy, we should state the endgame as an overarching policy objective.”
“They also include time-bound targets and outcomes beyond broad focus areas. This aligns with recent World Health Organization guidance on policy and strategic actions to promote and protect mental health and well-being across Government sectors. The guidance calls for: one, active engagement with all stakeholders and ensure meaningful participation of those with lived experiences; two, regular reporting and clear commitments; three, allocating fully costed and dedicated funding to support policy directives and strategic actions to prevent implementation delays. I would like to seek four clarifications. First, what is the picture of success of the National Mental Health and Well-being strategy? To coordinate efforts across policy areas and sectors, the strategy should outline a few key outcomes and have clear targets. Second, how does the NMHO plan to work with Ministries and agencies to engage Singaporeans on current initiatives and future plans? Incorporating ongoing feedback from those with lived experience, communities and civil society will ensure the strategy remains relevant and grounded in real needs. Third, how will the NMHO coordinate reporting, monitoring and evaluation through regular updates? For instance, Scotland's January 2026 monitoring report track key performance indicators across nine strategic outcomes to enhance agency accountability, responsiveness and effectiveness. Fourth, is there dedicated funding for mental health and well-being initiatives to support the strategy? If so, what is it? Between 2020 and 2022, MOH dedicated around 3% of its healthcare expenditure towards mental health treatment, promotion and prevention. Has this amount increased, and what are the projected amounts going forward?”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a practitioner in the well-being space. With the mental health crisis showing no signs of abating, would the Ministry provide an update along with a firm commitment to fixed timelines to regulate mental health professionals? I would like to repeat my call to regulate professionals, such as therapists and counsellors, who play key roles in supporting individuals with mental health conditions. Regulation is important as clients may not know where to go for help if they have concerns about professional standards or ethics. At the same time, we must also ensure entry barriers are not prohibitive for professionals. Most therapy and counselling qualifications require minimum supervision hours and practicums costing upwards of $200 an hour, which can be difficult for fresh graduates and mid-career entrants. I hope we can explore more ways to reduce such barriers. Beyond subsidies, could the Ministry also consider the use of SkillsFuture credits? Mental Health and Well-being Strategy The set-up of the National Mental Health Office (NMHO) is a first step to a vision where mental health sits on a continuum with socio-economic determinants and is not merely the absence of illness. That said, we still have to work towards a clear vision to improve Singaporeans' mental health. For example, Scotland's Mental Health Strategy 2017 focuses on reducing inequalities for mental health and treatment and access using a life stage model and Malaysia's National Strategic Plan for Mental Health aim to reduce adolescent depression rates from 18% to 10%. These strategies clearly outline a vision of success for improving mental health and well-being, describing what a mentally healthy population looks like.”
“This makes it more possible to go beyond the historical narrative of trauma surrounding being kicked out in Singapore, as we look to advance ties with our closest neighbour. Elsewhere, opening the Epstein files enabled some of the richest and most powerful people in the world being held to account for wrongdoing, and led to figures like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Peter Mandelson to be arrested. Access and accountability are especially important when the concerned persons remain alive, regardless of whether an issue is particularly heinous or more mundane. Minister Josephine Teo stated that when deciding on access to public archives, state agencies take into consideration, and I quote: "supporting research into our collective past while safeguarding sensitive information and complying with relevant confidentiality and other obligations". We should add timelines, holding state agencies and political authority to public account and avoiding confusion as well as misrepresentation. We pledge to aspire towards democracy. In a democracy, state action needs to be defensible to the public it serves, and from which it derives funding. Publicly indefensible positions and actions should not be undertaken. Therefore, these decisions must be ready to stand to public scrutiny at any time. Knowledge of this possibility encourages greater prudence and responsibility.”
“The question is therefore whether we should allow platforms to deploy attention-capture dark patterns against children without legal consequences. Could the Minister thus clarify three things? One, does the code of practice require designated services to submit a design risk assessment, covering recommendation systems, auto play and scroll architecture? And does IMDA have power to act on those assessments independently of content classification? If so, will we commit to a timeline for doing so? Two, given the findings about TikTok's addictive design, has IMDA reviewed TikTok's compliance report with this in mind? Three, would the Ministry consider my call last week to use a Select Committee to better examine global efforts to protect children from the harms of social media, especially in the light of momentum building to outrightly ban social media for children? Both children and their parents deserve a framework that holds platforms accountable, not just for what they show, but how they are built. Digital environments do not shape themselves. They are designed. And design, when left unchecked, becomes policy by default. Lessons from the Albatross Files Sir, history is not one dimensional. It constantly awaits further completion with access to more information. Knowledge about the past is important in shaping how we think and act in the present in tangible ways. Declassification is critical to this process. More credible and independently verifiable information is crucial when disinformation, misinformation, confusion and uncertainty arrive. Transparency is not just for transparency's sake. Recent access to the Albatross Files underscores that separation with Malaysia was by mutual agreement.”
“More concerns beyond our existing legislation may become pertinent, such as content that does not involve specific victims, but nonetheless have societal concerns, such as AI-generated child pornography. Social Media and Children Sir, a child doom scrolling past bedtime is not making a choice. They are responding to a system designed to make stopping almost impossible. The current age assurance assessment, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill and the code of practice for online safety represent a concerted effort to protect children online. Today, I want to ask whether it addresses a distinction not yet resolved. The difference between content harm and design harm. Singapore already understands this. Regulation of the Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands casinos builds deliberate friction through entry levies, exclusion orders and visit limits. This recognises the need for behavioural design interruption, not just better information about the risks. On social media platforms, infinite scroll, autoplay videos and algorithmic feeds are attention-capture dark patterns designed to maximise engagement by exploiting reward-seeking and eroding self-regulation in children whose brains are still developing. Last month, the European Commission made a preliminary finding that TikTok's addictive design itself is a legal violation. TikTok is designated under our own code of practice, and the commission found that its screen time tools and parental controls do not effectively address these risks. Silence from Singapore adds a reputational risk. An article in Nature Health last week stated that we must hold platforms accountable for their addictive design. These platforms exploit children's brains and erode children's capacity for self-regulation.”
“Sir, the upcoming enactment of Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill increases support for victims of indecent online content. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been engaging with X over Grok's generation of non consensual intimate images that were distributed en masse on the X platform. IMDA said that X has taken measures to address the issue, including stopping Grok from producing such content. Even as we ensure that the operating environment for tech platforms is not overly restrictive, could the Government explain further the outcomes of its engagement with X? Were any punitive actions taken over the matter? After introducing the spicy mode feature, Grok rose to the top 25 apps in the free Singapore Apple App Store in January this year. Secondly, I quoted in my intervention during last year's Committee of Supply (COS) that there were reports of students generating deep fake news of their classmates and sharing them in WhatsApp groups. We must thus tackle the real problem. The existing and increasing demand for sexualised images, which is exacerbated by accessibility. Given that most victims are women and children, the increased accessibility puts further pressure on these groups. We must do much more to educate our youths on the usage of AI, especially if increased exposure to it, and as early as Primary 4. Given concerns about how children handle AI, how do the Ministry of Education (MOE) sexual education approach and AI framework cover the issue explicitly? And how does MOE negotiate students' emotional engagement with AI chatbots? The relationship between these images and the development of young Singaporeans is especially relevant as platforms work to become more addictive.”
“Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $50,739,900 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $12,792,700 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Okay, thank you, Mr Chairman, much obliged. I think I have two quick clarifications. The first is, I heard the Minister's explanation earlier about how as long as you tell people that you have stepped down from your partisan role or your non-partisan role, and you are switching over to the other side. But I think I quoted earlier that there is a code of corporate governance which has a three-year cooling off. So, is the Minister saying that if directors or formerly executive officers in a company actually step down and declare that they are henceforth independent, that that would suffice? And then the second point, I believe, was the Minister saying about conflicts of interest. I just wanted to set the record straight that even though some of the WP MPs were tasked by the WP Central Executive Committee to look into the matter of our Secretary-General, Mr Pritam Singh, this was an internal party disciplinary matter. Proceedings are ongoing. I do not want to pre-empt nor speak for the panel at this stage. But also just to clarify that the Motion that was tabled before Parliament was on many limbs. None of them were about contravening the party's constitution, which is what we were tasked to look into, and when it came to actually voting about the Motion, I felt that because of the many limbs in there, I felt that was something that I could not support.”
“It would be helpful to provide clarity on which side grassroots advisors fall on. This also has implications on how grassroots activists see their role. If grassroots activists are involved in electioneering, what are the lines between partisanship and non-partisanship? 10.45 am The rules are apparent for civil servants but less so for grassroots activists and PA staff. If the grassroots advisers structure is genuinely non-partisan and functions like part of the civil service ecosystem, would partisanship be appropriate? If grassroots advisors are an extension of a ruling party's political machinery, then we should be candid. And relatedly, we should scrutinise the PA budget, which is provided by taxpayers with these considerations, particularly when it shapes whether Members of this House are able to access the state resources that they come with. Ultimately, this will ensure that our institutions uphold the principles of a parliamentary democracy where the will of the people is respected. It would be a shame if the lack of clarity of whether something is partisan or not, takes us back to the days when voters were threatened to have public funds withdrawn, upgrading pushed back should they not make the right choice. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In 2012, the Indian Election Commission muted a cooling-off period clause to prevent civil servants from joining electoral politics straight after they resign to give these persons time to dissociate from their previous roles and deter civil servants from acting or auditioning to gain favour for candidacy. This idea was previously raised by Leon Pereira and I want to repeat this call. These restrictions are not about in the individual trustworthiness. They exist because systems must provide clear, defensible boundaries against conflicts of interest, perceived or real. This is about enhancing and concretising protections for the integrity of political institutions, especially at a time when lines may be easily blurred in the public eye. Next, grassroots advisors. The PAP's position is that grassroots advisers under the People's Association (PA) advances the policies of a sitting administration, or the PA does important work and may bring into and policies into our communities. This is also where the complexity begins. Is the role of the grassroots advisor a non-partisan public function or is it a partisan extension of the governing party's ground operations? How do we tell? If the role is a non-partisan extension of the state, then individuals occupying those roles must be non-partisan, like the civil service. Civil servants serve a sitting administration. They do not carry partisan loyalties into their roles, nor do their appointments hinge on electoral fortunes. Their credibility depends on discharging their duties without fear or favour, regardless of administration. The present design of the grassroots advisors system attempts both: non-partisan in theory while requiring political alignment in practice.”
“Otherwise, how do we stop ourselves from wondering whether a Member is auditioning for another role or a different office each time they rise to speak? I would not be breaking any rules if I retired from electoral politics, quit the WP, left my seat, declared myself non-partisan and applied to be an Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the next day. If I did this, Singaporeans would and should ask whether this passes the smell test, wonder about our parliamentary institutions and whether it is enough to just keep to the letter of the law. Distinctions between partisan and non-partisan roles should apply to those leaving political appointments, the presidency and senior public sector roles too. Public servants seeking political office should observe a cooling-off period. Political appointees and senior public servants leaving service office should not immediately be employed in areas they last oversaw or regulated to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Cooling-off periods are not novel. Jurisdictions from the United Kingdom (UK) to Canada impose various cooling-off periods, prohibiting Ministers, backbenchers and senior civil servants from joining private entities or undertaking lobbying activities to better manage potential revolving door conflicts of interest, along with the risk of undermining public trust, or even the perception of regulatory capture. In Singapore, under our Code of Corporate Governance, independent directors must generally have a three-year gap from any prior executive role before being regarded as independent. It appears that our civil service has similar restrictions and principles.”
“Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head F of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Singapore has come a long way since independence and much of our progress will be was built on the bedrock of political stability. Yet, we must not mistake political dominance for political stability. Single party dominance brought us here, but we cannot assume it will guarantee stability ahead. Even the People's Action Party (PAP) acknowledges a growing appetite for more voices in Parliament, more diversity in policy-making. This is why the Workers' Party (WP) continues to push for the further strengthening of our parliamentary institutions, whether through electoral reforms or select committee work, as previously called for by Aljunied Member of Parliament (MP) Gerald Giam. Parliament is sovereign and the bedrock on which our Government derives is legitimacy. We should not view increases in legislative work, including Select Committee work as a drain on time and resources. Parliament's duty and responsibility to the public is to continuously strive for rigorous oversight and active legislative work. To strengthen our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that we have safeguards and institutions to define our politics, particularly, the delineation and interaction between partisan and non-partisan roles. And as we move forward towards a more diverse and representative political and parliamentary landscape, it is reasonable to properly delineate what is and what is not partisan. A step is to introduce cooling off periods between partisan and non-partisan roles, allowing individuals to meaningfully detach from previous associations. This is especially important when we turn our attention to who sits in this House.”
“Frameworks already exist in the form of efficiency standards and grants to support progress. What is needed is ambition to scale up incentives and disincentives, alongside more clarity on what our emissions roadmap looks like in the industrial sector. Competitive Decarbonisation”
“Mr Chairman, the Prime Minister signalled in his Budget speech that the Government is considering the lower end of the planned carbon tax range for 2030, citing weaker global climate momentum. While we still have time before deciding, how does the Government ensure that there is enough pressure on large emitters to decarbonise? With the recent carbon tax increase, how does the Government evaluate its impact and progress on decarbonisation, given that the allowance system makes the decision-making process more complex, both for firms and for price setters? Is progress fast enough? Have key performance indicators (KPIs) for allowances been met? Which allowance recipients are resisting decarbonisation? What is the Government's evaluation of the carbon taxes effect on the development of domestic renewables projects and projects importing low carbon electricity to Singapore? Has the constrained supply of high-quality international carbon credits pushed Singapore towards higher reliance on low carbon electricity import projects? These are pertinent questions as our electricity use accelerates, particularly with the expansion of data centre capacity. While the Government should support higher levels of low carbon electricity use in data centres beyond the 50% stated in the second data centre call for application, is the increase in demand for electricity hampering our decarbonisation efforts? Are big tech firms also out competing smaller users, like small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and households, for cheaper renewable electricity? Even without the AI-driven expansion, green electricity is in high demand due to increased electrification. The Government should consider tougher measures on data centres and other key polluters alongside the carbon tax.”