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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”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 3 of 13.
“I thank Ms Tin for her explanation. I just want to explain our thinking behind why we actually called for the amendment. Our thinking behind is that if there is a serious harm needing immediate address, I believe the test of reasonable grounds to believe will meet the threshold upfront and therefore, allow a takedown of the content. However, when there is ambiguous harm that is worthy of further investigation, our thought process was that where this might not satisfy reasonable grounds to believe and therefore, we will actually use investigative powers, and for the Commissioner to satisfy himself that it is appropriate to take action.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have a clarification on Ms Tin's speech from earlier. I think I heard Ms Tin said on my amendment to change the standard from "reason to suspect" to "reasonable grounds to believe", I believe the Member said that this might actually prolong the process and cause further harms to victims. I just wanted to clarify how she thought that this would be the case.”
“I believe that all of us in this House, as Parliamentarians, as Singaporeans and as human beings, wish online harms were less common and less hurtful than they are. That said, we cannot uninvent the Internet and we are at a point in time where the digital world has made it so easy for people to harm each another without having to directly experience the hurt they have caused others. Our duty to remedy harms is highly complicated and the balance that we seek in legislation and practice will be tested by edge cases, unforeseen circumstances and changes in trends and technology. But today, to the best of my knowledge and from speaking to experts, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and everyday people who have to deal with these harms, we can legislate better with the amendments I have proposed and I hope that this House will accept them.”
“The proposed new clause E also gives the Commissioner explicit powers to require online service providers to disclose information about their own measures to tackle online harms. Such information is particularly necessary in line with the Institute of Policy Studies' findings that 75% think that, apart from Government and users, tech companies also must do more to tackle online harms and that the 2024 MDDI survey found that 80% of respondents who reported online harms experience issues with platforms reporting processes. These proposed amendments are driven by the need to ensure that our laws are better understood and remain ahead of the rapidly evolving landscape of online harms. They also provide that groups disproportionately affected by online harms – women, children and vulnerable adults – would also have their interests represented. NCMP Eileen Chong will speak more on these amendments. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that these proposed amendments aim to strengthen and develop this Bill in line with the Government's stated intentions. With this Bill, we believe that there is an opportunity to act more effectively against material on suicide, self-injury and sexual grooming of minors and vulnerable adults. We have the chance to legislate more clearly to ensure that victims can efficiently, effectively and safely get recourse for online harms. We should also work to make online harms less likely to happen in the first place through education, research and by ensuring platforms are aware of their role in facing up to this challenge, all the while ensuring the justice system works effectively and as intended.”
“Educational efforts should also be sensitive to and address research findings that those exposed to online harmful content seem to display a higher probability of becoming offenders themselves and then be designed to target those who may be causing both criminal and non-criminal harms. Now, I will turn to the other categories of amendments. While we take a strong stance against online harm, we must balance it against the risk that overreach will strip away the normalcy of our online usage. As such, we have tabled amendments to clauses 9, 11, 19 and 26, to ensure that individuals can communicate online material that constitutes fair comment on matters of public interest. The Commissioner can still issue directions or orders when it has reasonable grounds to believe that online harmful activity was conducted. To further strengthen our understanding and faith in the regime, we have also included new clause C, allowing appeals to the judicial system. This will allow both online entities and individual users transparency. My colleague, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Mr Andre Low, will elaborate more on these points. The final group of amendments that we have tabled call for the Commissioner to prepare and submit an annual report to Parliament and specify the areas which should be covered by the report. These include the number of reports received by the Commissioner, the categories of these reports, the number of directions and orders issued by the Commission, the categories of persons or entities who have been issued with a direction or order, and findings by the Commissioner on the risk assessment and trends of online harm.”
“Rehabilitation is thus as important as deterrence. As the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) has recommended, would counselling orders for perpetrators be one of the tools that could be given to the perpetrators so that, where appropriate, they will receive appropriate treatment to stop them from re-offending after their sentence has been meted out? In this vein, I believe that, aside from providing psychological support for victims, the Commission should prioritise education as an inoculator against these harms. For OSC officers, this should mean ensuring evidence-based, up-to-date victim-centric education and training for those handling reports or complaints to continually incorporate latest victim-centric approaches to provide victims the support they need. Ground-up knowledge sharing is also important, given that so much of online behaviour is driven by social media culture that is global, fast changing and trend-driven. We must continue and step up cross agency and sectorial education efforts for both children and adults to increase awareness of online harms and the help available to them. These efforts have to continue to be informed by updated research on the evolving nature of the harms, how they are propagated and take on board the latest online trends, which often move rapidly. Apart from targeting the broad public who may be or were exposed to harmful online content, they should also be proactive in nature and target perpetrators or those at risk of offending.”
“And since under the Bill, the Commissioner is to use quasi-judicial powers who will sit in judgment, and handling reports and complaints filed by victims or agencies, the Commission must be staffed and resourced like a quasi-judicial body, not a customer service centre. Decisions to be made by the Commissioner are not mechanical run-of-the-mill decisions. They require legal, psychological, societal and cultural sensitivity. Will the new agency have specialists, such as psychologists who understand trauma-informed approaches, gender-based violence experts, lawyers experienced in not just defamation and harassment law, but who also understand the often insidious and subtle means in which perpetrators of online harms attempt to assert power and coercive control over their targets, sometimes in the context of post-separation abuse. This means that our processes to address online harms and provide redress and justice for victims must incorporate a victim-centric and trauma-informed approach. Staff from frontliners receiving reports from victims, to decision makers within the agency should be supported by professionals who understand how best to continue to support and protect victims. Trying to take a stand against harassment, humiliation and abuse requires much from victims. It will run contrary to the intent of this Bill if victims instead find themselves with no support or even met with disbelief when seeking justice. The principle behind tackling these harms would be to ensure that there is restorative justice, especially for non-criminal harms, which we, as a society, have decided do not warrant criminalisation. As for perpetrators, we too should try to get to the bottom of their motivations and what causes such behaviour.”
“This is backed up by a SHE survey, which found that two in five victims of online harm experienced serious emotional or mental health impact, such as depression or fear for safety. Many withdrew from social media entirely, as documented in one of the case studies from the Institute of Policy Studies survey. A handful of respondents even contemplated harming themselves physically or attempted suicide. Even more crucially, for each person who steps forward, how many decide against pursuing matters through the justice system because it is daunting, because they are fearful of it or decide they did not want to re-traumatise themselves by recounting and reliving what has happened to them many times as they go through the systems to seek redress. Thus, we also have concerns about the access to justice for victims who are contemplating pursuing justice under the statutory tort provisions. The inclusion of these statutory torts is welcome and empowering, but we must not forget that to file a civil claim, victims must gather evidence, bear legal costs and relive the harms done to them time and again. Many would be young people, students, workers who already feel powerless. For them, the idea of commencing a lawsuit is unimaginable. So, how do we tackle concerns that a fragmented system of relief may emerge that those who are resourced can fight and those without must simply tolerate and try to move on? Will the legal processes be simplified for victims to obtain remedies that they deserve? Directions or orders issued by the Commissioner should also be granted swiftly.”
“Thus, the harm posed by content posted to glorify suicide or self-harm and sexual grooming of minors and vulnerable adults is substantial. Thus, we hope that Singapore takes a strong stance against such online content by accepting our proposed amendments and including them under the scope of this Bill to provide more tools to tackle these types of online harm. Next, victim protection and support. This is complex, as harassment, humiliation and abuse of victims comes in various shapes and forms. Harassment, as we all know, is not limited to just physical stalking, sending thousands of text messages or making dodgy phone calls. For example, our Family Courts are now also enroute to recognising that it is not just physical abuse that causes real and sometimes lifelong and life-threatening harms to victims. Increasingly, they know that other forms of abuse can be just as harmful and online media can be one means through which they are propagated. We already have laws on the books regarding self-harm, sexualised grooming of minors and protecting vulnerable adults. But they do not explicitly extend to online behaviour. Our amendments seek to harmonise the laws and extend protections given emergent risks in the online space. Additionally, we have to understand that the harm experienced by victims does not end after a report or complaint is filed. It could also extend beyond when the perpetrator has been sentenced, long after the justice system has taken its course. If there are any parallel processes, such as actions taken out of statutory torts or Penal Code offences, the victim would often have to relive and recount their experiences, the impact it has had on them and if there is a trial, subject to cross examination of the extremely traumatic event or events.”
“Thus, with easy access to posts and content online, the high risks of sexual grooming of our minors and vulnerable adults are also of grave concern, but do not appear to be explicitly covered by the provisions of this Bill. Even though the OCHA covers certain sexual offences and various Codes of Practice have been introduced over the years, these harms do not appear to benefit from the full suite of mechanisms in this Bill, which I believe are more responsive and effective in tackling online safety issues that are highly context dependent and time sensitive. In particular, I refer to the Bill's ability to request to restrain or stop the communication of a class of material by an administrator or communicator. Furthermore, perpetrators seeking to groom minors or vulnerable adults may share online content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions of sexual communication or sexual activity to minors or vulnerable adults. Additionally, publication or communication of such online content, which may be directed at certain groups of persons, not just an individual, would appear not to be covered by the OCHA. Thus, by excluding sexual grooming of minors or vulnerable adults under this Bill, we miss out an important protection of our children and vulnerable adults in the form of, for example, allowing takedown orders to be made. As the European Union (EU) has pointed out, the risk is that when a child is exposed to or engages with inappropriate sexual content, they risk ending up at greater risk of related content, be it in the form of becoming targets of or perpetrators of sexual grooming of minors, because it has become normalised or desensitised for them. These children may also then become targets for sexual exploitation or streaming of child sexual abuse material.”
“In our amendments, we proposed a statutory addition of two sets of activities and a definition of online harm activities. First, sexual exploitation of children or vulnerable adults, otherwise, known as sexual grooming, with wording proposed in a new subsection O to the definition of online harmful activities contained in clause 3 and expanded definitions of what this comprises in the new clause A. Second, publication of online material, encouraging or promoting suicide or self-harm, with our proposed insertion of new subsection O to clause 3's definition of online harmful activities and expansions on this in the new clause B. In a study published by the Institute of Policy Studies in October 2025, child sexual exploitation and promotion of dangerous behaviours were identified as top harms and perceived as online harms of greater security. Yet, the Bill before us does not include the publication of online material, encouraging or promoting suicide or self-harm. This is concerning, as in September 2025, it was reported that teenagers on Instagram were still able to access content relating to suicide and self-harm, and that its teen account's function did not appear to be stopping sexual content being uploaded by children. Instagram is not the only platform noted for the risks associated with the promotion of self-harm and suicide. In Singapore, SHE's survey ranked sexual harassment as the top online harms encountered by survivors and witnesses, with female youths aged between 15 and 34, more concerned about sexual-based harms. An MDDI survey also noted that 26% of the respondents reported that they have encountered harmful content of a sexual nature.”
“With the subject garnering greater concern in recent years, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill is now before us. The Workers' Party (WP) agrees that tough measures are required to tackle these harms to allow victims to seek better redress and healing, and to ensure that platforms act responsibly. Whatever the online harms, be they categorised by content, contact, conduct or contract, or by types of harm, such as aggressive sexual or extremist values, the thing that unifies them is that their effect on victims or witnesses are cross cutting. All these harms have effects which are threats to physical or mental health, threats to privacy in the forms of violations or further promote inequalities or discrimination. However, our position is that the Bill before us leaves certain areas of concern unaddressed. It is, thus, in the spirit of strengthening our online protection regime to better protect victims of such harms that we propose these three main areas of amendment. First, the Bill leaves out certain harms which result in severe impact on victims. Second, we have concerns about the legal procedures enabling the Commissioner to be the final arbiter and that certain clauses of what constitutes an online harm need further refinement. Third, that there should be reporting requirements from the Commission, which will enhance public understanding and education about the harms, our protection regime and ultimately, build confidence in what we are doing to tackle it. I will focus my speech on the first set of amendments and how we can better ensure that our tackling of online harms puts victims and vulnerable persons front and centre of our efforts. My other WP colleagues will also cover the other sets of amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, I believe that Members of this House appreciate the growing concerns relating to online harms, and also the complex and evolving nature of these potential harms. From cyberbullying, rise in hate speech, to AI generated content, online exploitation, misinformation and gender-based violence, we are having to deal with a wide variety of harms which have the added threat of going viral. Singapore has a virtually 100% Internet connectivity rate and consequently, everyone is at risk from online harms. Research in Singapore appears to bear out this fear. A survey released by MDDI last month found that four in five respondents have encountered harmful online content. In May and June 2023, SHE's survey on online harms found that one in two respondents aged between 15 and 24 reported having been victims of online harms. The same survey also reported that two in five victims reported experiencing at least one form of severe adverse impacts, including suicide ideation and physical and mental health issues. To further add to this, a World Economic Forum article published at the start of this year noted that there is a broader trend where online platforms move away from centralised content moderations and instead, rely more on user contributions to address potentially misleading or harmful content. This has led to various groups being concerned that this shift would worsen the situation for vulnerable groups and create a less safe digital environment. And this is concerning. As I mentioned during the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Home Affairs, in my cut on safe AI this year, women and children are two groups that have been found to bear disproportionately the harms associated with such online activities.”
“To eradicate workplace discrimination, we must ensure that the processes for workers to seek recourse do not themselves create barriers or cause further harm to the workers who have decided to stand up for themselves.”
“One, the requirement for mandatory mediation may unnecessarily risk the re-traumatisation of the worker and cause more harm. Instead, the commissioner should be given the discretion to make an exception from the mandatory mediation requirement in serious cases where a worker is able to obtain supporting evidence that participation in the mediation will put their mental emotional well-being at risk. Two, approved mediators. ECT, tribunal members and judges should be provided with training and support so that they can conduct the dispute resolution process in a trauma informed manner to minimise inflicting further harm on the aggrieved worker who is navigating a complicated legal process to seek justice. In this regard, it is also important that they receive sensitivity training that helps them to understand the lived experiences of workers with the different protected characteristics, so that they can make meaningful and fair decisions. Third, the timelines for the dispute resolution mechanism should be fast as administratively possible to minimise workers having to deal with the uncertainty and anxiety that come with such legal proceedings. In particular, it will be helpful to provide claimants and employers with clear guidance on the expected timelines. The guidance can also help the Ministry to evaluate whether more resources and manpower need to be dedicated to the dispute resolution mechanisms so that claims can be processed and resolved in accordance with target timelines. Mr Deputy Speaker, as former President Halimah Yacob said, discrimination of any form and against anyone has no place at all in our society and most certainly not at the workplace.”
“As it currently stands, the SG Courts website contains an accessibility statement stating that a sign language interpreter may be requested only in certain types of cases. This should be expanded to include employment cases before the ECT. It is also not clear whether claimants who are blind or who have low vision will be able to effectively use the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS), to file and manage their claims under this Act. Can the Minister confirm that accommodations will be made to workers with disabilities at all stages of the dispute resolution process, when they make a claim under this Act, on workers who have suffered both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment? The current framework could create unnecessary barriers as they attempt to seek justice. First, they must file a claim with the ECT in respect of the discrimination they have experienced. Then they must file a separate claim with the Protection from Harassment Court in respect of the harassment they have been subject to. This imposes another layer for those seeking redress to navigate and may deter a worker from seeking recourse. This, in turn, may contribute to under reporting and allow errant employers to get away with their bad behaviour because workers are not able or willing to meaningfully engage with the legal process. Would the Minister consider allowing a worker who has experienced both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment to have both their claims under the Workplace Fairness Act and the Protection from Harassment Act heard before the ECT? Finally, on workers who have been traumatised by their workplace experiences, I have three recommendations.”
“However, as mediation and hearings are formal processes, they will undoubtedly be daunting for workers. It would thus be particularly nerve wracking for a worker to journey through this process alone. Can the Minister confirm if employees will be entitled to have support persons accompanying them in these proceedings? If so, can the Minister confirm if this will be set out in the regulations or guidelines as to who can serve as support persons and proceedings under the Act? Third, like my colleague, MP for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan, I would like to ask that the Minister also clarify about the support available to workers who struggle to navigate the various proceedings because they are not so conversant in English or struggle with digital literacy. Such support should at the very least include help to submit claims, file documents and genuinely navigate the procedural parts of the entire process. All of us have seen residents who find it particularly challenging to commence claims or to continue pursuing claims through the tribunals, because they are either unable to or lack confidence in navigating the system, and this is particularly important since legal representation is not allowed in ECT proceedings. Four, there are three particular groups of workers whom we should pay particular attention to, in relation to the dispute resolution mechanisms: one, workers with disabilities; two, workers who have suffered both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment; and three, workers who have been traumatised by their workplace experiences. On workers with disabilities, the dispute resolution mechanisms should be accessible for different types of disabilities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, following this House's legislating against workplace discrimination earlier this year, the Bill before us provides clear steps for aggrieved employees to seek recourse against errant employers who have wronged them and I support the Bill. However, I would like to raise several issues that we should consider to ensure that the path to justice is kept accessible to all workers. First, there usually exists a great imbalance between the employer and employee when it comes to employment disputes. While it is encouraging that both parties cannot have external legal representatives before the ECT, this may not be sufficient to level the playing field, especially, as some employers may have legally trained in house legal teams who would be appointed to represent the company. Will the Minister consider setting up a specialised office to provide legal information and advice to aggrieved workers who require assistance in filing their claims? In this regard, I note that there appears to be no legal clinic focused on workers' rights or employment law. Notably, while the NTUC runs a Law Works Legal Clinic for Union members, the Pro Bono SG website appears to state that this legal clinic excludes employment issues. The Ministry should also continuously work with civil society and community organisations to ensure that workers are empowered to obtain justice under the Workplace Fairness Act through initiatives like education and awareness campaigns, the development of guidance materials and pro bono referral schemes. Second, I appreciate the importance for proceedings under the Act, including mediation and ECT hearings to be conducted in private in the interest of workplace harmony.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have got two supplemental questions for the Minister. The first is, whether the programme is expected to result in net positive movement in congestion and what are the considerations? Taking into account that there is a quite a number of Build-To-Order (BTO) and condominium projects coming up, will that be taken into account when deciding whether to continue this programme? The second supplemental question is, earlier, my colleague Mr Chua said about the 7% shift from when we did a similar project in 2013. I am just wondering what happens if we hit or we do not hit that 7%? What is the decision going to be either way?”
“And, in fact, this was a point that was raised in 2018 by the Leader of the Opposition when he actually stated, noting at the same time the then-health Government Parliamentary Committee Chair had also called for how we can move towards gender neutral premiums, and Mr Singh at that time also said that it would mean men will pay more and women less, let it be so.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I have a couple of clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. The first being while we acknowledge that women are at risk of longer-term disability and living more years in ill health and this I acknowledged in my speech. I think the point I was making is and this is why I raised the New South Wales study, which found that even though the level of disability in their case was about 50/50 between women and men, they found that women actually only made up for 37% of the claims and one of the reasons or the concerns raised there was that women were actually not, for whatever reason, not claiming as much. So, I was just wondering whether we are facing similar challenges here in Singapore and whether the Senior Minister of State can share some data about the differentiation between the claims because biology, lifespan, health span all that is one thing. But, of course, what matters in the case of an insurance scheme is the actual claims and the actual data and who is actually claiming and for how long. I think it would be helpful for the House to understand this. And the second point would be about, again, more on the gender-differentiated premiums. I just wanted to note that yes, we understand, at least I understand that the cohorts is by age cohort and I think the point that I was making was how can we work towards making each cohort gender neutral?”
“These details alone should cause alarm, and we must urgently build stronger, more holistic support, with solutions that better capture and respond to the time, skill and emotional resilience needed in their unpaid care work. This can take the form of accessible interventions targeted at realities rather than add to their workload, whether it is in form of mental health support or rallying better social connections within our communities. Underscoring this, during the launch of our Caregivers’ Wishes initiatives last week, we heard many stories from Singaporean carers and recipients, with a common thread of caregivers needing not only more financial support, but more time, more skills and more understanding. Giving this support is not charity, it is an investment into our society’s care resilience. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, after our transition from ElderShield to CareShield Life, the next step is to ensure that CareShield Life remains true to its founding purpose: to stand beside every Singaporean in times of need. This means ensuring premiums grow transparently and remain affordable, gender-based differences are regularly reviewed as our care needs and demography changes, and caregivers are given training, respite and recognition beyond financial means. A truly caring nation should not measure support in actuarial tables only, but in how we treat and support those who give and those who need care. Let us continue towards our goal of a system that reflects our shared values of fairness, inclusion and solidarity, so that every Singaporean, regardless of gender, income or circumstance, is able to live and age with dignity and support. I support the Bill.”
“One of the changes in this Bill too is the reinstating of the underwriting criteria for those born before 1980, which means those with severe pre-existing disabilities would no longer be able to sign up for the scheme. Given this is a finite group who already currently live with severe disabilities, I would like to seek clarification on what support would be available to these individuals who may in the future be faced with an unexpected exigency, for example, in the form of suddenly losing coverage under their own plans, which were meant to cover their long-term care needs. In this case, would the Ministry be willing to consider any appeals on an exceptional basis to be included in the scheme after the reinstatement? Finally, financial protection is only one part of the long-term care story. For many families, day-to-day realities and challenges of caring for loved ones means a constant juggling of the invisible mental load and unpaid work involved in caregiving, arranging for services, balancing work while simultaneously facing exhaustion and burnout. And for caregivers who take on much unpaid and unseen work, it bears reiterating what my colleague Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC) MP Gerald Giam said during this year’s Committee of Supply debate, that care recipients and carers have different needs and that our support system needs to reflect this. A 2023 survey found that more than 40% of caregivers in Singapore are at risk of depression. The typical caregiver is a married woman between the ages of 45 and 60, simultaneously holding down full-time employment, spending an average of an extra 6.7 hours on caregiving a day.”
“And when that threshold is crossed, a mandatory review of the existing policy should take place. Finally, we need to work towards greater equity in the form of exploring gender-neutral premiums. After all, MediShield Life already does so, and we should explore how CareShield Life can be structured to phase towards this approach once we have adequate claims experience available. If we accept that CareShield Life is a national insurance rather than a commercial insurance product, given the constraints that women face, there is value in building equity into the design of the scheme rather than attempt to patch up any inequalities using subsidies or ad hoc support of cash offsets. A baseline protection against disability should be universally accessible to all Singaporeans. And inherently, it does not sit right to penalise a group, that is, women, by making us pay more for what are often factors beyond our control. After all, globally, it has been found that women have a higher prevalence of disabling conditions, such as arthritis. And to achieve our aims towards a Healthier SG, I hope, too, that we continue to work on various preventative and early intervention initiatives to address the various health challenges that women face, to do what we can to minimise women's time in ill health and address these concerns about a double or even triple whammy facing women as we age. These suggestions are not about favouring one group over another; they are about ensuring that the principle of shared risk applies equally to everyone and to address any systemic issues at the root that may be causing the inequity. Our goal should not be to rebalance inequity with subsidies but to explore how we can remove inequity from the structure itself.”
“In view of the above, I hope that we could consider the following: first, greater transparency; second, mandatory periodic review triggers of premium structures; third, explore how best we can close the gender gap. On transparency, the Ministry should publish actuarial data regularly, including average claim duration, payout levels and fund solvency, as it currently does, to a certain extent, for MediShield Life. Publishing such data of what is, after all, a national insurance scheme will allow the public to be better understand the financial reasons as to why policy shifts occur when they do and to equip us, in this House, with a full picture as we strive to understand the trade-offs to be made within the policy. Second, given that we are announcing the doubling of payout increases five years after the scheme started, I believe that it would help the public to understand at what point we would need to, again, review the adequacy of payouts, given changing costs of care. Additionally, the longevity gap between men and women has narrowed over the last two decades from about six years, to around 4.4 years today. If this narrowing of life expectancy between men and women continues and if we were to succeed in our aims to close the gender health gap, it would be remiss not to ask whether there is still a place for gender-based pricing. We, therefore, hope that the Government can commit to reviewing this policy when a specific threshold is crossed. This could take the form of a review of gender-based premiums that gets triggered when the differences in payouts narrow to a specific threshold on average over a few years. The exact threshold should be determined by actuarists with access to full data and the threshold should be published.”
“Closing this gender health gap could add over US$3 billion annually to Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) by 2040. So, when we ask this very same group, women, to pay more for CareShield Life, we risk deepening structural inequities. The caregiver who has spent years enabling others to work is in effect asked to bear a greater cost for the very care safety net her unpaid labour helps sustain. This can also be compounded by findings in jurisdictions, like New South Wales in Australia, which noticed that while both women and men experienced disability at similar rates, women only made up 37% of claimants of its national disability insurance scheme. One of the more sobering findings was that because women shoulder more of the care work in the family, they end up with less time to manage their own disabilities and take on the administrative work associated with disability claims. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether a similar picture exists in Singapore and if so, what is being done to address this additional challenge? Just as importantly, by making women pay more, are we sending a signal that society does not provide for both men and women at the same rate? Women could be perceived to be penalised financially for two things they cannot control: living longer and providing the majority of unpaid care. When a woman reduces work hours to care for an ageing parent or a disabled relative, she loses income, retirement savings and then pays higher premiums for this privilege of having provided that unpaid care. This is not risk pricing. It is compounding disadvantage.”
“Women pay higher premiums, and this is still the case, with the reasoning that women live longer and claim more. Given that CareShield Life has been running for five years now and the Ministry would, presumably, now have some data about claimants under the plan, could the Minister share whether the assumptions that women would claim more and for longer have been borne out? Even if the actuarial reasoning and data makes sense, actuarial fairness is not always the same as social fairness. Applying a strict actuarial lens when deciding to charge women more for enrolment in this compulsory plan does not take into account the following factors. First, women in Singapore have lower lifetime earnings and smaller CPF balances on average. The Ministry of Manpower's 2023 Gender Pay Gap report found that women earn 14.3% less than men on a gross basis, with an adjusted gap of 6% still. CPF Board data also shows that women's balances at age 55 are approximately 55% lower than men's. It is widely accepted that career decisions have a significant impact on the gender pay difference and that societal, cultural or even biological factors mean that women in Singapore continue to shoulder more caregiving work compared with men. It is often the default position that women are the ones who reduce their working hours, turn down promotions or increased responsibilities at work, or even leave the workforce altogether in order to care for a parent, spouse, child; sacrificing income, retirement adequacy and sometimes, even at the expense of their own health. Add to this, that globally, women live longer but spend more years in ill health. Studies show they spend about 12% more of their lives in poor health than men.”
“Even with payouts for the severely disabled, costs for long-term care are still significant, with 2024 numbers indicating that it can cost on average between $1,800 to $2,500 a month for home-based long-term care, depending on care intensity and subsidies, rising to an estimated average amount of $2,200 to $4,200 a month before subsidies for institutional-based care, such as in a nursing home. Given that long-term care costs have been outpacing general inflation since, the increase in payouts will be welcome by families. However, could the Minister explain ongoing and future monitoring mechanisms and calculations for Singaporeans, as policyholders, to better understand what would be taken into consideration for the Government to once again assess whether the current payouts will be adequate? After all, we can anticipate that any future increases in payout rates would also have consequent increases in premiums and, thus, a direct impact on Singaporeans as we continue to age. Thus, I would like to repeat the call made by the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh in his speech when CareShield Life was introduced and debated in this House in 2018, where he asked the Government to reveal actuarial principles and to publish investment returns and premium adjustment factors regularly. On premiums, I note that while premiums will go up to support the changes to the scheme, the Government has put in place various support measures. However, I wish to, today, again bring up the issue of gender-differentiated premiums because how we price care says something about how we value those who provide it. This is not a new point and WP Members of Parliament (MPs) shared their concerns about this when CareShield Life was introduced in this House in 2018.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, how we view and ultimately support the long-term care of the vulnerable in our society should be a reflection of what Singapore values. Care recipients are our parents, our partners, our neighbours and perhaps, even ourselves. Every Singaporean hopes that when frailty comes, they can look to a system of support which includes not only from family and loved ones but from the society that we live in, through a national system that spreads the risk equitably, offers dignity and lightens the load on those who give care. As a developed, wealthy country, the principle of shared responsibility through CareShield Life should rightly form one of the key pillars of our social safety net, providing financial support for Singaporeans faced with severe disability. This is why the Workers' Party (WP) has supported it conceptually since its inception in 2020. As the scheme matures and as our society continues to age, we must ensure that it continues to embody the spirit of fairness and solidarity that should be a bedrock of a truly caring society. Where we can do more, we must do more. CareShield Life marked a shift from its predecessor, ElderShield, by extending coverage to provide for lifetime monthly payouts from when an insured becomes severely disabled and becoming compulsory for younger cohorts. Since CareShield Life was first debated in Parliament in 2018, we have seen significant increases in the cost of living off the back of global events like the pandemic, wars and geopolitical tensions. The increase from 2% to 4% of the annual growth rate of CareShield Life payouts is, thus, welcome as an acknowledgement that long-term care costs have outpaced inflation.”
“And for that, all of us here in this House should hold our heads high as we work for the betterment of Singapore, for the safety and the future of those whom we love, more than love itself.”
“Institutional safeguards also come in a form of oversight in a way our public bodies and public service operate, a clearer perceived neutrality of institutions, like the People's Association, to ensure public resources are not enmeshed with political goals, even in the way we allow the media an independent voice, voices to thrive without the shadow of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) overreach. These are important foundational pillars to ensure that the excesses of no individual person or party can undo the successes we are proud of and that we will get policies right more often than we will get them wrong. They are not perfect, but they are designed to hold back the worst excesses, even when politics get heated. We need to ensure our guardrails are robust. We are also working to hope our politics never gets to that point of needing it, because no country, not even Singapore, is immune to shocks, to mistakes, or to excesses and we must design processes to ensure continuity and resilience To close, I also believe that the Government has a clear mandate with much political capital to spare in order to allow longer-term policies. But many Singaporeans would join my party colleagues and I thinking that the sign of a truly healthy Singapore is one where the colours worn by an elected MP should not matter when we work within the community. I wish the new Government all the best and success for delivering for Singapore because that is good for all of us. For while we may disagree on approaches, policies, implementation of economic strategies, the one thing that truly unites all of us here is the staunch belief that we will see Singapore succeed.”
“What is needed is mutual tolerance, humble listening, honest sharing and seeking common ground whilst respecting differences, rather than deliberate avoidance or unnecessary reservations, and certainly not one-sided discourse. After all, a gentleman seeks harmony but not uniformity, whilst a petty person seeks uniformity but not harmony. Forcing others to accept oneself does not necessarily lead to greater harmony or inclusiveness. In an unpredictable environment, what is needed is bold thinking and bridge-building. We must understand that diversity is strength, not fearsome opposition or division to be feared. Singapore needs confidence, courage and magnanimity to face multi-faceted reality head-on. For Singaporeans of different backgrounds, the key should not be whether national consciousness is proclaimed verbally, but rather seeking understanding, giving each other support and encouragement, and working together to move forward. (In English): Finally, the health of our governance institutions, as a reminder of what we must do to set us on a path for an even brighter tomorrow. Singapore is safe, stable and in many ways, successful. But as the saying goes, "past performance is not a guarantee of future success". It is timely to ask if we have the right governance processes to safeguard these outcomes in the long term. In a changing world, we keep emphasising the need for institutional safeguards, such as ombudsmans, Select Committees, entrenching the independence of the Elections Department, not to check a box or just because it is an abstract concept we deem important. We do so because these are real important mechanisms for any nation to ensure that its future stability and gains are protected for many generations to come.”
“We must allow space for some rewilding. Stop worrying overly about the precise shape of our community. We must trust that by removing barriers, the inherent wisdom of a population with a mindset of abundance will eventually guide itself to an ever-evolving system that encourages us to flourish together. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you very much for the support you have given me and my WP colleagues in recent years. Besides serving constituents, in this term of Parliament, we will continue to diligently carry out the mandate that Singaporeans have entrusted to us. In the legislative process, we will continue necessary governance oversight, and checks and balances. A sound political system needs to effectively and reasonably reflect different voices in society, including minority interests, avoiding monopolisation of politics by the majority. As one of the few opposition voices in a chamber dominated by one party, our responsibility is even greater. This year marks the 60th anniversary of independence. As Singaporeans, we should be proud of the achievements we have achieved together and feel fortunate for our success. Singapore, whether after independence, during the colonial period, or even earlier, has always been a society that accommodates various ethnic groups, religious beliefs, languages and cultures. Mutual respect, integration and maintaining an open attitude are the foundations behind Singapore's success. Facing turbulent and uncertain externality, we need to cherish our diversity even more, which allows us to communicate and have dialogue with people of different positions and find space for cooperation. We hope for sincere exchange and learn from it.”
“The first step to do that is to start ways in which to quantify these sources of wealth, as I have called for previously with the developmental dashboard. It is, thus, very exciting to learn more about initiatives, such as the collaboration between NUS and the Tsao Pao Chee Institute to explore, using Singapore and China as case studies, a new framework integrating environmental, social and governance principles with inner development. The hope is that this work can help governments design systems rooted in sustainability, dignity and shared purpose beyond GDP as a measure of success. The Government also paints a tender picture of a community where the opposite of "me first" comprises citizens who give up seats on trains, taking initiatives. But there are also things which the Government should not directly try to affect. Using the analogy of a garden, we should note the symbiotic interactions between those living in it, the harmony between macrofauna and microfauna, down to tiny insects, and the essential interactions in the soil to help a garden thrive. As policy-maker and enforcer of the law, the Government plays the role of a gardener who occasionally pulls out infestations, provides bigger plots and waters the plants during times of drought. Having good intentions to prune carefully and balance fertiliser and pest control is essential, but not enough. The Government must also support the garden to grow, to allow it space to breathe. We must have reliable, physical and intangible spaces within the garden, combined with accessible ways of moving, that allow people to meet one another, like the void decks of old. How can we have a target population for a garden when we have not made space for denizens to discover themselves and grow?”
“We have moved from the first formal residence hundreds of years ago to informal immigration from the region and our merger and de-merger with Malaysia. I have noticed, too, that "me first" is often said to be a natural response to our highly financialised and immigration-centric society and economy: owning the fanciest cars, getting the top MNC jobs, owning freehold landed property as a means of overcoming the constraints of the country that we live in. Yet we are always told that everything around us will change, everything is insecure, we risk losing it all. And under this cloud of scarcity, leaving out "me first", it is no wonder that we often see this response as greed, selfishness, sharp elbows, no care for the weak in the society, no care for those without a voice, no care for the planet we share. Our response to this less-than-ideal state is not to be anti-immigrant or anti-capitalist, particularly as our country has been built of an environment that is the opposite of that. But as a first response, I hope we can once more look at the dashboard of how to measure progress, which I spoke about during the last few Budgets. This measurement of outcomes, apart from GDP, would help us to ensure that some things in the public sphere would not change so that we may find alternative spheres of wealth, rather than just be guided by economical thinking. Heritage should be kept alive, including our schools, community spaces, natural spaces that we and our parents went to. We should stem the erasure of community heritage currently perceived to be under threat from forces, such as rent and high operating costs. Our non-physical cultures in the form of languages, arts, hobbies need to be supported as they are threatened by "me first" ideology.”
“However, they have given my party colleagues and I invaluable insight and a chance to explore these additional facets of the community and to get to know our people better as their elected representatives. This will eventually translate and inform our work as legislators here in this House. They are also an important acknowledgement that the voice of our people matter, that their collective choice to send my colleagues and I into this House is legitimate and accepted. I also hope that this trickle will eventually bring us to more collaborations, more acceptance that political diversity is important and here to stay. Community partners should eventually see us as nodes through which we will help our communities overcome challenges, fix problems and grow beyond their current limitations. Ultimately, my hope is that this leads to a shift toward working for a country that is ultimately better able to adapt to myriad challenges. And as I have mentioned earlier, while knowing our strengths is key, we also have to sit with our limitations to truly see our flaws candidly. This can be discomforting, even raw and terrifying. But this honesty and ability to sit with our past and current shortcomings is how we enable our growth as a country to happen. So, I believe that it is not just about whether it is "me first" or "we first", but "us together". We have spoken about the Government's planned evolution from "me first" to "we first" here. The Government has rightly, like any sensible government, spoken about national security, nimble economy and increased assurance at every stage of life. But what I hope to add is a recognition of why "me first", as an ideology emerged amidst the wider formation of our nation.”
“Not because we have given up, but because we feel pressured up against forces that are just so strong. So, what have we done to prevent this feeling of helplessness in the face of global uncertainty and challenge from taking root? I believe that the answer to this is in the power of community, of a people-centred community. Human beings are essentially social in nature, relying on one another for our well-being. In a world where scarcity starts to dominate, it is where we have to band together to make best use of whatever resources we have to pool our strengths. Thus, I have been deeply heartened that in the month since our election in May this year, we have been approached by numerous organisations and individuals seeking to partner us toward the betterment of our community of our Sengkang residents. This deepening of the networks of our community in Sengkang and beyond is something we deeply appreciate. From initiatives to create strong connections within a community to be friendless programmes to better support those in distress, to fostering deep and meaningful integration with those living with disabilities and encouraging residents to explore and engage more with home-based businesses within the community. These are some examples of groups that have reached out to us. They hope that by working with the elected MPs, the elected councillors of the Town Council, they could join us in ensuring that our resources are maximised for the good of our residents. These efforts may seem small, particularly, when compared against huge movements or organisations, such as national-level agencies, like the People's Association.”
“Compared with five years ago, the world has undergone many changes, even as memories fade, of the pains and coming together in the face of COVID-19, we see living pressures continue to mount. Global conflicts and the straining of the previously accepted world order, add to concerns about climate change and it is no wonder that there is so much talk about climate anxiety, a mental health crisis. We are also faced with ongoing challenges to our own food security in Singapore and how to forge forward to balance where our country sits in a world where sustainability challenges seem insurmountable. Additionally, when financial pressures grow, community often takes the back seat. Individuals, families and social relationships are put under strain: physical and mental health declines, civic engagement drops and people withdraw from social activities to save money or because they feel ashamed. In communities, social capital may be weakened, diminishing community resilience, risking a downward spiral where vulnerable groups end up even more disproportionately affected by weak economic winds. These are not just abstract concepts. Ask ourselves, compared with five years ago, are we a stronger, kinder, more inclusive society? In my maiden speech in 2020, I talked about how I felt that the perception of a lack of social mobility and the presence of elitism, regardless of data, is a real and often overlooked danger. More than five years on, where are we? This year, business and employment sentiment survey show dips and many expect these to remain depressed. How are we faring in terms of the perception that our people have of our much cherished system of meritocracy? How often, too, have we over the last five years had fellow Singaporeans give us a shrug and say, what to do?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, over four months have flown by since the GE and it feels like we have since lived a lifetime. Our journey in Sengkang started in 2020 and the next five years went by like a roller coaster. We were carried through ups and downs, in no small part due to those who stood by us and who were our rocks as we were tossed around by turbulence. Through this, our team of volunteers showed up every day, week after week, all doing their part to make sure that we were able to carry on our work within the community for our residents in Sengkang and for that, we are deeply grateful. These five years have crystallised how being an elected MP is an incredible privilege and responsibility afforded to us here in this House. We saw joy and pride in the eyes of parents sharing pictures of how much their children have grown visiting our meet-the-people's sessions (MPS) to show us with excitement their children's EduSave awards. We also sat with residents grieving loved ones and other losses. Thank you for sharing these precious moments with us. We look forward to working alongside you to deepen and continue the relationship to work together to make Sengkang and Singapore a better place for all. A theme that has played in my mind on results night and ever since, is the power of us and not just the strength of us but also the full spectrum of who we are as a people, our resilience, our skills and our values, but also our limitations, mistakes and flaws. And instead of viewing these as opposite sides of the coin, I have come to see these as part of the richness of the tapestry that comprises our towns, our society and our people.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply earlier. I would just like to check with the Minister of State where he mentioned there were eight complaints received by MAS, so, whether the Minister of State can share if there is further action to be taken or if MAS is still further investigating these complaints that were made in 2025 – I assume that it is for the first quarter of this year. The second supplementary question: I was wondering what efforts have MAS made so that finfluencers actually understand their obligations not to provide financial advice, and what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do under the existing regulations.”
“Thank you, Sir. A clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I think Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that they are working towards registration for a subset of psychologists, if I understood him correctly. So, I just wanted to check with the Senior Minister of State whether there are plans, as I mentioned in my cut, to also include other mental health professionals, such as psychotherapists and counsellors, just because these are also professionals who work with vulnerable clients. I believe that, anecdotally, some practitioners have also shared with me their concerns that there are people out there holding themselves out to be therapists after doing some online courses or a weekend class in an area. I think this causes a little bit of concern because, after all, the clients who come to them for help are usually pretty vulnerable individuals. And relatedly, I was also wondering what sort of public or consumer education is being undertaken so that members of the public who are seeking help can understand, for example, what is the difference between a psychotherapist, a counsellor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist. A lot of my residents who come to me, struggle to understand the difference and know where is the best place to seek help. And also, if they have some concerns about the person they are actually seeking services from, where do they go if they have got a complaint or they have got some concerns about some of the sessions that they are having with them.”
“Singapore has the potential to make great strides and lead in precision medicine. But leadership is measured not by infrastructure alone, but participating in global research, increasing our ability to develop and test new treatments and most importantly, ensuring that the accessibility of these advancements are available to all Singaporeans. We have to move beyond data collection to implementation, working to make the promise of precision medicine a reality for patients.”
“This goes beyond our obstetrics and gynaecological conditions. I brought this up in this House previously, how researchers now know that the same condition can present differently in men and women. As a Time magazine article notes, women are not just smaller men. And while progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. Apart from reacting differently to medication and vaccines, there remains significant gaps in areas, such as autoimmune disorders, which affect women more; and also mental health, where, for example, women are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, but most pre-clinical studies on treatment were done on men. I would, thus, like to seek an update from the Minister about whether and how our efforts in personalised medicine will also cater to these gender gaps in medical research and treatment. Additionally, for precision medicine to fulfil its promise, it must go beyond collecting and analysing data to deliver real, tangible benefits to patients, and possibly even be used as tools to tackle concerns about ageing demographics and increasing care costs. A data-driven approach is valuable, but it should serve as an enabler, not an end-point. While we move towards turning research into more effective treatments with fewer side effects, such as precision gene therapies, these treatments remain expensive, raising concerns about inaccessibility, which would only accelerate as the field advances. Aside from increasing inclusivity in research, our health systems need to cater to the risks of inadvertently leading to greater disparities. I would, thus, like to seek clarification from the Minister about the plans to ensure that advances in precision medicine translate into real benefits for those who need them most.”
“A United Kingdom (UK) study of nearly 40,000 patients from 2010 to 2013 found that an above-average therapist can achieve a recovery rate of above 80% over 16 sessions, instead of close to 0% for a below-average therapist. The UK has also set a recovery rate target of 50% for all mental health services. Having real-time data about the efficacy of our mental health services allows both practitioners to recognise how they are performing and will inform the Government when developing a plan that includes standards on service quality. I have two areas of clarification for the Minister. First, how will the National Mental Health Office track indicators relating to the quality of mental care, which should include recovery rates and deterioration rates? Will the office also set minimum standards of quality across the services outlined under the tiered care model? Second, can the data be readily made available in order for practitioners to use it to identify areas of strength, concern and ultimately, provide service quality. Precision Medicine Cutting-edge research and development (R&D) in the medical and health sciences appears to show great promise. Of these, developments in precision medicine has shown up the potential to, in the words of the Singapore National precision medicine strategy, benefit groups and individuals through early detection, refined diagnosis and tailored treatment. We have had announcements, such as the introduction of the Helix platform, to consolidate healthcare data and the SG100K initiative launched to log the blueprint of 100,000 participants through time, specifically, with the aim of understanding interactions of the genome within the Asian context. These are welcome, but one area that warrants attention is how gender affects health and illness.”
“Madam, calls to regulate mental health providers are not new and I recently did so in early 2024. Such professionals include psychologists, therapists and counsellors, the roles and work of whom many lay people struggle to grasp. Concerns that the shortage of professionals will be exacerbated by introducing regulation have to be balanced against the real potential harm to already vulnerable clients seeking support from inadequately trained individuals purporting to provide therapy and the like. Just last week, worrying reports, emerged about unqualified individuals offering counselling services on platforms like Carousell. Regulating this area also means that clients seeking help know that a professional has met a baseline level of training and understanding of the often-challenging ethical concerns that arise. It is also a first step for our existing financial health for healthcare financing to be used to expand access to such services. I, therefore, hope that the Ministry will develop a long-term plan to regulate the industry, taking into account the views of professional bodies while keeping an eye to make sure that barriers to entry are not overtly high. A key part of this is to work with training providers and to increase the supply of qualified professionals to ensure that Singaporeans' mental health needs are adequately and safely met. Improving Mental Health Tracking and Outcomes The National Mental Health Office has committed to tracking indicators measuring access to mental healthcare, such as medium treatment delay for common mental disorders. While access is important, the quality of mental healthcare services has to be ensured.”
“Our officers handling such cases should be given regular and updated training to support victims of such crimes from a victim-centric approach, as some may feel hesitant reporting such crimes out of shame or fear of inadvertently triggering the Streisand effect. It should also be easy for victims to be channelled to train mental health professionals to support them throughout the entire process. For education, it is crucial that agencies also work across departments to ensure that both children and adults are aware of the real harms that such deepfakes can cause. Finally, I hope that the Ministry can start collecting and publishing granulated data that show and track the issue over time, paying attention to particularly vulnerable groups of victims, such as women and children, so that we can all play our part in fighting the scourge of these crimes. Helping Vulnerable Road Users”
“A fellow delegate at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on AI and misinformation last year shared that when both female and male politicians in his country fell victim to sexually explicit deepfakes, hardly anyone clicked on the links for the male politician while the deepfake content for the female politician went viral. There is thus, clearly, a gender perspective to harms caused by AI that we need to be mindful of and our measures to deal with the problems has to address these. MHA announced last year that there will be amendments to the Penal Code to make clear that our offences apply to sexually explicit deepfakes produced through AI and I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on when we can expect these to be tabled. There was also an announcement of a new agency to tackle online harms announced by Prime Minister Wong in October last year, as a joint Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and Ministry of Law effort. I support this as no victim should have to submit individual take down requests. Equally welcome are the laws that MDDI announced will be introduced to allow victims to file civil claims against their perpetrators and I look forward to hearing more details about these upcoming changes. I asked the Minister for Home Affairs in August 2024 to consider an anti-scam centre-like model, to allow a centralised response to deepfake related crimes and hope that the new online harms agency can be the base from which we work and include both psychological support and education.”
“There is also often a long tail of effects that stretch beyond social and emotional damage, especially as these child victims sometimes end up being unable to attend school because they are suffering so much. Next, minding the gender gap. While both males and females have been victims, women are still very much the overwhelming target of deepfakes, particularly those involving sexually explicit images. A 2019 industry report found that 100% of examined content on deepfake pornography websites targeted women. Some commentators are also worried about the weaponisation of AI against women, particularly when facial search engines can scoop up these deepfake images and link them to one's Internet identity for a long time. There is thus concern about a chill effect on women's career progression. A 2020 study by the Economist Intelligence Unit notes that 7% of women surveyed lost or had to change jobs due to online violence, with 35% reporting mental health issues. Even more alarmingly, nine in 10 women restrict their online activity in an attempt to protect themselves. This increases the digital gender divide and limits access to employment, education, healthcare and community through digital spaces directly correlating with lost career opportunities. This also has implications on our efforts to get more women into politics. A 2024 Oxford study notes that women may be discouraged from running for public office when female politicians are targeted.”
“Sir, legislators around the world are worried about the risks associated with generative AI and efforts are being made sometimes on an inter-parliamentary level to work out best practises to address the risks of this rapidly developing field. Singapore actively participates in such fora and regularly shares our experience with counterparts internationally and I support such moves across borders to take a firm stance against such malicious and downright criminal actions. 7.00 pm My cut will focus on how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), through improving deepfake technology, is able to supercharge the effects of online violence against individual. I am mindful that some in this House have been victims of such deepfake online violence and have reported these matters to the relevant authorities, and wish to acknowledge the real harm that such actions have on all victims. My cut today will focus on areas where I feel special attention is warranted. First, children. The Centre for Democracy and Technology (CDT) in the US reported in 2024 that 40% of students and 29% of teachers were aware of a deepfake depicting individuals associated with their school being shared. In Singapore, reports in November 2024 emerged that students from one of our schools were investigated for deepfake nude photos of female classmates shared amongst WhatsApp groups, illustrating that we too are experiencing this problem. There is increasing acknowledgement that because of their young age and still developing brain, children are more vulnerable to the long-lasting psychological damage caused by harmful deepfakes. Victims of such crimes end up with significant distress, anxiety and depression, and some even experience post-traumatic stress disorder.”
“Sir, just a quick clarification in response to Minister Chee. It is not to say that I do not support businesses. It is just that the concerns that I raised in my cut were systemic to the long-term effects for what was initially meant to be a temporary scheme.”