Jasmin Lau
Singapore
“Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think there are many skills that are key to our students' future development and career success, so this is not a competition between subjects. We must ensure that all students have good access to both knowledge acquisition as well as career preps for the future.”
“I thank the Member for the clarification. I think this is something that we should discuss together with all of our tripartite partners, whether it is with unions as well as business leaders, to make sure that any of our grant and support schemes do not end up making things even harder for companies that want to transform.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. I think the first question was more of a comment, I did not really catch the specific question, the first part of it. Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh: Yes, it is more of a comment in response to her point about capping potential of high performance.”
“Mr Speaker, globally, our students from higher socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds tend to perform better academically than students from lower-income backgrounds.”
“I thank the Member for his questions. MOE does provide additional support to many students with higher educational needs. And we continue to do so in programmes, even though the names may have changed from those that we understood and knew when we were students and those that students experience today.”
“I thank the Member for his question. In response to his first question, yesterday, I did explain how our system of Posting Groups and Full Subject-Based Banding now do allow many more of our students to experience social mixing in our schools.”
The complete record
Every one of 100 lines we hold for Jasmin Lau, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“On average, 36 minutes are saved on documentation per conversation. That time is not just a data point. It is time returned to care. If LEGO connectors were redesigned every year, no one could build anything coherent. In Government, incompatible systems have the same effect. Previously, agencies often built separate systems for different needs, believing that every need was unique. While well-intentioned, this led to duplication and integration challenges. Citizens feel the fragmentation when information cannot be shared across systems. So, our approach must be modular. We must provide and use common digital components, like secure logins and payment processing, built on shared standards for security and resilience. Agencies should not rebuild what already exists. They should reuse, recombine and focus on what makes their missions unique. When the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) stepped up vaping enforcement last year, they needed a new system for their operations. HSA built on shared tools from GovTech and OGP, such as Ownself Gather, a case management system, and Plumber, which allows officers to automate manual tasks, like tracking repeat offences. By doing this, their enhanced Vaping Information System was live in just three weeks. A system built from scratch, would have taken months. When we build faster, we enforce faster and citizens are better protected. 5.00 pm Some services need simple, reliable components and we must resist the temptation to over-engineer. But sometimes, we do need advanced tools that can help us build better services and do so more quickly. Mr Henry Kwek asked how GovTech is embracing AI-centric IT development and encouraging its vendors to adopt such practices.”
“Our advanced shared tools, such as AI platforms and coding assistants, support us in building specialised components at scale. Not every problem has complex needs. But when complexity is needed, the capability must already be there. Secure, integrated and ready. To do all of this well, some of our habits must change. Sometimes, digital transformation becomes a collection of projects. New apps and new pilots. Transformation is not about the number of digital projects launched. It is whether citizens find it simpler, faster and clearer to deal with the Government. This requires discipline in problem definition. It also requires discipline in experimentation. In the Public Service, caution is natural. But doing nothing, while expectations move ahead of us, is a risk. We must learn to manage that risk, not eliminate experimentation. Through initiatives, like Open Government Products' (OGP's) Hack for Public Good, our officers work closely with users to understand and address real pain points. A team observed that medical social workers spent long hours writing case notes after emotionally difficult conversations. Their first instinct was to build an automated transcription and summary tool. But the tool did not fully address the users' needs. Our social workers wanted greater control over how case notes were structured, so that important information can be retrieved easily. When the generated notes were not organised clearly, they rewrote them. The team refined the tool into Scribe, an AI-powered tool that transcribes conversations and generates summaries according to the topics and writing style chosen by the user. Scribe is now used in over 100 social service agencies and all public healthcare institutions.”
“Mr Chairman, in today's world, many businesses provide seamless, effective and reliable digital services. Singaporeans expect the same from the Government. While we have made good progress, we can do better. We must acknowledge that citizens still encounter services that are slower than they should be, forms that ask for information we already have or systems that do not speak easily to one another. My speech is about what must change. Let me borrow an analogy from a familiar childhood toy – LEGO sets. There are a few things that we can learn from LEGO sets. First, they are based on a strong understanding of their customers and how preferences change over time. Children grow. Attention spans evolve. LEGO designs have adapted accordingly. Second, modularity. Every brick is designed to connect seamlessly with one another. Builders do not need to reinvent the basic structure each time. They reuse, recombine and build upwards. Third, customers can choose how simple or complex a model to build. For some, a simple LEGO DUPLO or LEGO City set is sufficient. And for others who want complexity, LEGO Technic or LEGO Education SPIKE sets offer advanced mechanical components. These are optional but easily added on. The analogy may sound simple, but the engineering discipline behind it is not. What do these lessons look like for us, in the Public Service? We must understand our citizens continuously, not episodically. Singaporeans' expectations evolve. Their life journeys change. A service that felt intuitive ten years ago may feel slow or fragmented today. We must design modular systems and digital components that work across agencies. When systems connect seamlessly, citizens experience Government as a whole. And we must be able to provide services that meet complex needs.”
“How do we help them understand the value of problem definition and design? How do we help them sharpen their judgement skills, especially in uncertain situations? These are all areas that we will be working on, so that our children grow up confident that they remain the master of AI – and not the other way around. In closing, let me be direct about what I believe. AI is here and its possibilities are endless. This matters, because it means AI can improve the lives of our people. But this journey, no doubt, will cause much disruption. Because we feel the fears, because we feel the anxieties, we must find a way forward that keeps our people together. Most importantly, we must always be in control of AI. Not the other way around. We must intentionally decide what AI should be used for, even if it nudges us to think otherwise. This is how we can build not just a smarter economy, but a wiser and a more confident society, ready for the journey ahead. [Applause.]”
“But recently, I tried to build my first web app. It is called "Family Fun Time", and it is designed to give me one activity a night to do with my kids. The activity must be dinosaur-themed; take less than 15 minutes; and should not require any equipment. Over time, based on my rating for every activity, it will give me customised suggestions. Yesterday's activity was about dinosaurs' feelings and letting the kids suggest what to do when their favourite dinosaurs are scared, hungry, lonely, happy or angry. Unfortunately, I only get to try it with them tonight, because I had to work on this speech last night. The real fun and the real learning does not come from the app or from AI. It comes from the minutes we share as a family, the conversations and laughter, and correcting each other's silly responses to our dinosaur's feelings. I did not know it was now so easy to build an app, until I had tried it myself. Only in doing, trying and experimenting, will we find out the value of AI and shape our own relationship with it. And only in doing, trying and experimenting, will we find out the real value of ourselves as humans and understand what AI cannot and should not replace. In the years ahead, as AI continues to evolve, we will need to review what education means for our children. AI will force us to sharpen the focus of education on what truly matters – judgement, values and the ability to work with AI rather than compete with it. How do we teach our children about AI, in particular its limits, biases and blind spots? How do we balance the weightage of our education to emphasise character and social development? Beyond content recall, what higher order thinking do we want to equip our children with?”
“Our funding support will shift accordingly towards implementation, business process redesign, reskilling and the much harder work of changing how an organisation actually operates. We will make sure we are accountable. But we must also make sure that our SMEs, most of whom are genuine and often already tight on resources, we must make sure they do not get turned away too early by onerous and cumbersome paperwork. These are all ideas that our Economic Strategy Review Committee 2 on Technology and Innovation will continue to work on in the months ahead. I would like to take this chance to thank my co-chair, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan, and all our committee Members for their time and thoughtful contributions. And we are encouraged that the Prime Minister had mention many of our recommendations in his Budget Speech. For our young people, economic resilience begins long before workforce entry. It begins in how children and students learn to think. As a parent, I am often tempted to help my children find the answers instantly, when they begin to struggle. Sometimes, we see this as our way of protecting and teaching our children. But when answers become instant, the more deliberate we must be in protecting the struggle. Because it is in the struggle of making mistakes, trying again, finally breaking through – that real learning happens and confidence grows. We want more young Singaporeans to learn about AI. Not just learn how to use it, but learn about it. Not just to do their homework in routine and repetitive ways, but to create new value for themselves and others. And to actively decide when not to use AI. A student asked me recently, whether I use AI. I said yes, often, especially for research, summarising articles or preparing speeches.”
“But we need more people to learn about AI and learn how to use AI, and not just observe to see which way things settle. Moving, building and doing, does not mean rushing or speeding. It means getting started and moving at a pace most suitable for ourselves. And whether you are an employer, a worker, a student, a teacher or a parent, the mission is to turn your anxiety into action. And over time, into confidence and mastery. For our businesses, especially our SMEs, who form the backbone of our economy, you do not need to have all the answers before you begin. We heard in our Economic Strategy Review committee consultations that many SMEs feel they cannot afford to be guinea pigs. They tell me: "Jasmin, you want us to be early adopters, but we do not want to be the first movers." They have personal experiences of trying out new technologies and then realising that the technologies became outdated too fast. And they are right to be cautious. We will create lower risk, structured ways for our SMEs to experiment. The hackathons and collaborations between students, SMEs and business leaders over the past year were not just photo opportunities. In those sessions, our SMEs got access to low-cost AI prototyping. The students gained domain experience and learnt about real problems that businesses deal with on a daily basis. Business leaders spotted talent they then went on to hire. We will systematise this, to ensure that more SMEs and students benefit. We are also refining our funding schemes. When IT adoption was the main challenge, the barrier was set-up cost, so we subsidised set-up costs. Today, an early-stage AI prototype can be built in just a few hours. So, the barrier now is capability and workflow redesign.”
“And accountability means developing AI governance frameworks that are robust and ethical. It means being more transparent with citizens about how AI is being used in Government services and allowing them to still connect with human Public Service officers, if they need to. Accountability also means recognising the risks and dangers of AI, developing regulatory frameworks on what AI content should be disallowed for certain audiences and making sure there is a clear chain of accountability. AI can process, but it cannot be held responsible on its own. AI can generate lots of options, but it cannot own the consequences. We will still need humans: for ethics; for creativity and imagination; and for the ability to look someone else in the eye and say, "I take responsibility for this." So, what do we do? We are not starting from scratch. Our education system has consistently produced people who can learn and relearn, not just people who know things. We have a population that takes education seriously, that invests in their children. Our people are discerning and curious about the latest technologies available. More than half a million Singaporeans used their SkillsFuture credits last year. Mid-career workers are reskilling, not just because they are told to, but because the system makes it practical and financially accessible. We will build on this and guide Singaporeans towards the capabilities and qualities that AI cannot replicate. And tripartism. In Singapore, we have a labour union that is aware of the impact of AI on workers and already putting together plans to make sure that we are ready for the workforce disruptions. So, we are starting from a good position.”
“What is our relationship with AI and who gets to decide? We know that AI can give us significant economic edge and amplifies the abilities of our people, but we have to carefully define our relationship with AI as individuals and as a society and we can only do so if we first get to know AI. We need to first understand what it is, what it is capable of. We must understand the motivations of the people behind it. We must understand the risks and the invisible dangers that it can come with, and understand how vulnerable you can be to it, even if you think you are the most educated person in the room. Singapore's job and this includes my job, is to make sure that we as humans remain in control of how AI is used and not let it dictate our values. Now, what will not change? A world where everything is changing feels unsettling. But there are some things that will not change. What will not change, is the value of genuine relationships. Relationships that build trust and deep human connection. In my dialogues with young Singaporeans, many can see clearly how AI makes their lives more convenient. But when I ask them, "What you do with the time freed up?", they pause. Some will murmur, "Sleep", some say, "League of Legends", and a few say they will spend more time with their families. But the pause is telling. Convenience is not the same as connection. The things that make a life feel worth living – being known and loved by a real human, building something and celebrating achievements with other people, showing up for people when it is hard – AI cannot replicate these. And the more automated our world becomes, the more these human connections and capacities will define what differentiates us from the machines. What will also not change is the need for human accountability.”
“What is really changing, what will not change and what must we do together? So, first, what is really changing? Let me not sugarcoat this. AI is here, AI is not arriving, AI is not five years away, but it is already reshaping industries, changing how some tasks are being done and it is moving faster than most forecasts predicted even three years ago. What AI does best today and will get better at doing tomorrow is work that is repetitive, rule-based or data heavy. Processing, summarising, triaging. These are not special tasks. Machines can now do these tasks faster at lower cost and often with greater consistency than humans and this performance gap will continue to widen and not narrow. So, when young Singaporeans tell me that they worry that what they are learning today in school will be obsolete by the time they graduate, I do not brush that aside. They are reading the situation clearly. Many are already encountering this as they start to apply for jobs. And when workers in their 40s and 50s tell me they have spent twenty years building expertise in a domain but now worry that AI is helping junior colleagues close that gap much faster. I do not tell them that their concern is misplaced because all of their anxieties are rational. But what matters more is what we do with it. I asked AI to give me an analogy of itself. It suggested the following with very nice elaborations for each suggestion. Bicycle, electricity, calculator, turbo engine, all of these sound very useful. Then I asked it, give me the scary analogies. AI suggested fire, pandoras box, trojan horse, puppet master, among others. The range of answers in itself is telling, because that is exactly the question we have not yet settled as a society. What is AI to us?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, first I want to wish everybody "新年快乐" and Happy Ramadan to everybody who is celebrating. Many of us find it hard to picture what the world will look like in the years to come. There is the geopolitics, a world that feels less stable, less predictable and less governed by rules that we can rely on. And then there is AI, which, in some ways, feels even more unsettling because it is not happening out there in some distant theatre, it is happening all around us. In the classrooms that our children will enter, in the industries that Singapore has spent decades building. My husband and I wanted to protect our two children from online content. They are still very young, so we decided to try and stop giving them screentime sometime last year. I told them that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said "Screentime is bad." They looked a little bit confused, and it was tough for us for two weeks, but since then, they hardly ask for screens anymore. But I know that this artificial safety will not last. They will grow older. They will become curious. They will have friends or classmates who will tell them about the fun and exciting AI content online. They may learn about the companion AI tools. They will need to differentiate between content generated by humans versus AI and they may ask: "What is the point of striving to learn and becoming good at something if AI can do it so much faster?" All of this can feel very frightening whether we have kids or not. My speech today has no new announcements. My fellow colleagues may share some of them during the Committee of Supply debates, but there is no new list of programmes that you will hear from me. Instead, I wanted to try to address three hard questions.”
“MAS does require the banks to have alternative methods for verification. And for digital services that are offered by Government, we do make sure that we engage citizens across all ranges of abilities to test out our services, to ensure accessibility for all. On the point about public education, we can definitely do much better in communicating and explaining these different methods of access to our citizens.”
“On dietary teachers, I think that was the term the Member used, and food safety officers, in Singapore, we do work closely with the Health Promotion Board to ensure that the food that we provide to all our students from preschool to primary school to secondary schools have good nutritional value and meet the needs of our students. We also have food hygiene officers in our schools with the Central Kitchen Meal Models, and they do make checks on the way that the food is handled to make sure that the food is safe. On the second question, I would suggest that the Member wait for the investigation results before talking more about the River Valley Primary case. 1.45 pm”
“I thank the Member for his questions. First, I need to reiterate that the investigation is still underway. So, we should not assume that the Central Kitchen Meal Model was the reason for the gastroenteritis cases. But indeed, if the results do show that, I think we would definitely have to take a look to ensure that central kitchen models do not undermine the safety of the food that we give to our students. I mentioned in my reply earlier that we will look at all types of ways to support our stallholders better. As Mr Foo Cexiang had asked, we are open to all possible models, including paying the stallholders, if need be, to and again, ensure that our students have good access to healthy and affordable food.”
“I thank the Member for his question. First, in the Central Kitchen Meal Model, in many of the operations now, there is still a live stall where students can interact with stallholders and humans as they decide what kind of food they want to buy. But we are not closed to the idea of any model at all out there that could give our students access to good, affordable and healthy food. We are not closed to any model.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators currently have between six and 14 options a day, and the menu does change on a weekly basis. The meals are also checked by MOE to ensure nutritional sufficiency. In fact, many parents of students who are in the schools with Central Kitchen Meal Models now do say that now they know what their kids are eating in school and they are able to view the meal options as well as the nutritional value of the meals through the apps where they do the pre-ordering.”
“I thank the Member for her questions. First, when suspected incidents do happen, the schools monitor the well-being of the students very closely through daily checks on attendance or when students exhibit or report symptoms. They then check with students who are absent from class to make sure that the students are okay, or to check in if there is a pattern of the cases emerging. Both cases are still under investigation, so we are not able to say for certainty if the incidents resulted from the operators' management of the food or from the stallholders' management of the food. But indeed, in both cases, the schools have reminded the students about good personal hygiene and have communicated throughout the incidents with parents to assure them that sanitation and cleaning has been done throughout the school premises. We definitely hope to do more education about food safety, but also about the Central Kitchen Meal Model in general to Singapore. Again, because this is really to ensure that all students have access to good and affordable options.”
“While the Central Kitchen Meal Model operators have had some initial pre-ordering problems in the first few weeks, the situation has stabilised. We will continue to monitor the performance of the operators closely and also actively take in feedback from students, parents and teachers. I want to end by thanking Members for the concern for our students and for the stallholders, and for the many good suggestions that had come in. We are committed to providing every student access to affordable and healthy meal options in our schools. We will continue to listen, to learn and to adapt to serve and support our children better.”
“Throughout both incidents, the schools maintained close, regular communication with parents and caregivers and continue to work vigilantly with SFA and CDA to monitor any developments. At both schools, all affected students have returned to school. While the investigations continue, we have reinforced with the Central Kitchen Meal Model operator at River Valley Primary School and also with the stallholders at North View Primary School the critical importance of maintaining the highest food safety standards and full compliance with SFA requirements. This includes kitchen cleanliness and safe food handling practices. Ms Eileen Chong and Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about our protocols for suspension, termination and contingency measures. Where food safety breaches are detected, whether at central kitchens or individual stalls, SFA takes immediate enforcement action and requires rectifications. Operations may be suspended or terminated for severe food safety breaches or ongoing disease transmission, with other punitive actions considered based on the findings. For schools using our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators, MOE has established contingency protocols to ensure that students will continue to have access to school meals. These include activation of alternative central kitchens, while implementing more permanent solutions. We have also taken a cautious approach by limiting each operator to just serving just four or five schools. This helps to contain the impact of any operational issues and also allows us to observe different operators' performance and have back-up options ready if needed.”
“Several Members asked about food safety measures and the applicable good hygiene standard. Food prepared by central kitchens is not inherently unsafe or less safe. Central kitchens are licensed by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA). They are subjected to more frequent inspections, as explained by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan, as they have a larger scale of food processing or preparation. In addition, central kitchens are graded under the Safety Assurance for Food Establishment framework. In the event of a major food lapse, they will be downgraded and inspected even more frequently. MOE will continue to work with SFA, the Communicable Diseases Agency (CDA) and the operators to strengthen food safety management systems. This covers everything from preparation at the central kitchens to transportation, storage and eventually, when the food is served to the students. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked for data on gastroenteritis cases from January 2022 to December 2025. The number of gastroenteritis incidents in schools have averaged six cases a year in the past three years across all food service models. Many Members also asked about the recent suspected gastroenteritis incidents in River Valley Primary School and North View Primary School. SFA, CDA and MOE are still investigating the causes for both incidents. River Valley Primary School currently uses one of our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators, while North View Primary School has traditional stallholders. Both schools immediately stepped up the cleaning and sanitisation of their canteens and premises. Students were also reminded about good personal hygiene and to rest at home if they are unwell.”
“We have no intention to scale this to all schools, nor do we have a target in mind. Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Elysa Chen asked about our openness to other models. We are indeed taking an open and flexible approach, and hence, we are trying out a range of possible models. Some schools are using hybrid models, where operators both deliver pre-ordered meals as well as prepare fresh food onsite. In several schools, students can still choose and watch their meals being prepared at live cooking stations, alongside having the pre-ordered options. We will continue to look at different options that best serve our students’ needs and refine the model based on feedback. We do see some positive outcomes in our schools. Students spend less time queuing for food during recess and have more time for play and interaction with one another. Parents have also shared that they now know what their children eat in school and can better support their children in achieving a balanced diet. Our teachers also now have access to a wider range of meal options in school. We appreciate the concern that many Members have shown towards the stallholders affected by the transition in schools that are trying out the new models. I want to assure Members that our schools have been actively supporting the stallholders throughout this process. Several of them have joined our three operators and now enjoy more stable income. Others have found placements at different schools, pursued new opportunities, or chosen to retire. MOE continues to welcome applications from anyone interested in operating school canteen stalls, including private entities for schools with persistent vacancies. All available opportunities are listed on our website.”
“We also seek preferential electricity tariffs through demand aggregation and we pass these savings directly to stallholders. We regularly review our food pricing guidelines to ensure that stallholder operations can remain viable while keeping the meals affordable for our students and their families. But the challenges go deeper than just costs. School canteens have a small customer base and limited business hours due to the school schedules. Elderly stallholders may also start to have regular medical appointments and may not be able to operate their stalls daily. This is a complex issue with no easy solutions, but we will continue to explore new ways and different ways to support our stallholders. Mr Louis Chua asked about the number of schools that MOE expects to adopt the Central Kitchen Meal Model by 2030. We did not start the Central Kitchen Meal Model so as to replace the traditional canteen model. We wanted to explore alternative models to help our schools that were struggling to attract stallholders and had severe shortages of functioning stalls. We want to avoid putting students in these schools at risk of not having good access to affordable, nutritious and balanced meals. So, we started with a pilot at Yusof Ishak Secondary School, which relocated from Bukit Batok to Punggol and did not have existing stallholders at the Punggol site. After seeing positive results, we decided to try out a range of Central Kitchen Meal Models in 13 additional schools that faced challenges in securing sufficient stallholders. This allowed students in these schools to continue to have access to healthy and affordable food options. We will explore the Central Kitchen Meal Model only with schools with such difficulties.”
“My response will also cover related oral and written questions filed for subsequent Sittings from Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Joan Pereira1, Ms Elysa Chen2 and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. As parents and Members of this House, we all understand how important school meals are for our children's growth and well-being. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is fully committed to ensuring that every student has access to affordable, nutritious and balanced meals. For decades, we have relied on individual stallholders running our canteen stalls – the familiar model many of us grew up with, where we fondly remember our favourite uncle or auntie serving our go-to dishes. We always looked forward to recess and lunch. Today, 95% of our schools continue with this trusted approach, and stallholders have been doing an excellent job providing affordable and healthy meals to our students. However, we do face a real challenge. An increasing number of schools are struggling to fill their vacant canteen stalls, leaving students, especially those with dietary needs, very limited options. In some cases, these students may have to eat the same dish for weeks; and as parents, all of us would want our children to have a better experience. Mr Louis Chua, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Foo Cexiang asked whether additional measures would be provided to sustain individual stallholders. Let me first assure all Members that MOE provides substantial support to help our stallholders succeed because we believe that their food and their presence can add to the positive school experience for our students. Stallholders pay very low rentals of between five and 15 dollars per month, and we waive these during school holidays when there are no customers.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will address the questions raised by Members on the Central Kitchen Meal Model and other school canteen matters. May I have Mr Speaker’s permission to answer oral Question Nos 14 to 20 and written Question Nos 45, 46 and 54 on today’s Order Paper?”
“I thank Member for the supplementary question. I think there is a variety of feedback and experiences on the ground. By and large, parents are supportive of the ban. Schools are in the process of implementing the new measures. Some continue to have questions about how it ought to be done and how it ought to be implemented. And MOE continues to engage the schools and the school leaders on how best to do it. I think we are also mindful that the ban should improve the overall experience of both teachers and students in the school. If there are further feedback and questions from school leaders or teachers, we remain open to engaging them on this.”
“Mr Speaker, my response will address Ms Poh's question and related oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs) set for subsequent Sittings. To support secondary schools in implementing the tightened guidelines for use of smartphones and smartwatches, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had engaged school leaders and provided resources such as implementation guidelines, answers to Frequently Asked Questions, and we have also shared good practices by schools that have seen positive outcomes. On enforcement, MOE provides schools with guidelines to formulate their discipline policies and school rules based on their student profile and student needs. Secondary schools already have existing school rules and discipline policies to manage students' smartphone use during lesson time. So, these continue to be applicable with the implementation of the tightened guidelines. Schools also have protocols for emergency communication with parents. Should parents have an urgent message to relay to their children, they can contact the school's general office. Students who need to contact their parents may also do so using phones in the general office. There is no need for students to own or use a handphone.”
“On the first question, contractual liabilities. And I think on the second question, we have said that we will review what is feasible as we gain more experience with this Bill.”
“So, in the same explanation in the speech, I went on to say that there are also contractual Terms of Use that public agencies must impose on external partners for the receiving and use of all data. Those Terms of Use will hold our external partners liable, should they misuse the data. On the point about public register, I think I mentioned in my speech, that we will consider what is possible, what is feasible, as we get more experience with the Bill. The reason why I said that the Member may have misunderstood was that the point raised earlier was about whether our citizens will benefit from the data sharing. I needed to clarify that the PSGA only allows for data sharing for Public Service objectives. There is no sharing for commercial gains and therefore, there is no need for citizens to check whether or not private companies or organisations are gaining from this.”
“I thank Mr Tiong for his clarifications. I spent quite a bit of time just now explaining how organisations will be liable if they misuse data: there is an existing PDPA, as well as Terms of Use.”
“We are committed to this responsibility, as we strive to serve all Singaporeans better. I beg to move.”
“Allowing individuals to opt out would lead to incomplete data, which will fundamentally undermine our ability to plan, formulate policies and deliver services. Take planning for social services as an example. If individuals opt out, the data that public agencies and external partners have will be incomplete. This could mean under-provisioning services for groups with specific needs simply because public agencies and partners are unaware of those needs. Partners will also find it more difficult to optimise their resources for more targeted outreach or service delivery. Complete data is needed for more informed planning and decisions. And this is why the Bill builds in oversight of each data sharing arrangement. The Bill restricts sharing to public sector objectives under the PSGA and provides for criminal offences to ensure that external partners take their duty to protect the information seriously. Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their thoughtful speeches. The concerns raised – about purpose, authorisation, partner readiness, accountability and incident response – are precisely the questions we must ask when we expand data sharing. This Bill enables public agencies to better use data to serve Singaporeans and this goes to the heart of the public sector's core mandate, which Ms Tan has noted, has made real and meaningful differences to Singaporeans. When more people rely on a bridge, we do not slow down progress. We build and we strengthen the foundations, we tighten the controls and we inspect the bridges more rigorously. That is the approach we are taking, with this Bill. This is how we serve more Singaporeans while safeguarding trust. Progress that lasts is progress that is built on trust. Keeping data safe is an ongoing and shared responsibility.”
“Liability is assessed in context: we look at all of the facts and the circumstances, and we consider the nature of the incident, whether reasonable safeguards were in place, and the actions of the parties involved, including their response to the incident. Partners who act in good faith and made reasonable efforts to implement proper safeguards will be treated fairly. Those who are reckless or negligent will be held to account. Mr Tiong raised TraceTogether as a cautionary tale. Let me address this directly. First, on the facts. When the issue arose, the Government came to Parliament, explained the position and clarified the legal framework. That is accountability. We did not hide from scrutiny, we addressed it openly in this House. Parliament subsequently passed the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill to restrict the use of TraceTogether data to serious offences. So, the system worked as it should. Second, TraceTogether did not undermine public trust in the way Mr Tiong suggests. Singaporeans continued to use TraceTogether. They understood the Government's explanation and the safeguards that were put in place. To characterise it as a fiasco that broke public trust is not borne out by how Singaporeans actually responded. The lesson from TraceTogether is not that Government cannot be trusted with data. It is that when questions arise, the Government must be accountable and transparent – and we were. Mr Yip asked whether citizens can be permitted to opt out of data sharing with our external partners. This is not feasible. The data sharing serves broad public sector policy, planning and service delivery objectives.”
“The Bill amends the PDPA to make clear that offences relating to personal data under the PDPA will still apply so that individuals that intentionally carry out unauthorised actions can be taken to task. Fourth, coverage of non-personal data. The new PSGA offences cover non-personal data. And this means that all data shared by Government, be it personal or non-personal data, is covered either by PDPA or PSGA in terms of penalties for misuse. Mr Yip also asked if the severity of offences is large enough to deter bad actors. The penalties are aligned with current PDPA offences for external partners and PSGA offences for public officials. The possibility of imprisonment for misusing data is a significant deterrent. Mr Kwek and Mr Yip have raised concerns about data incidents. We take these very seriously. All data incidents reported to Government will be properly looked into. When significant data incidents occur, we have strict requirements for public agencies to be accountable to the public and to affected individuals. And when incidents are likely to result in significant harm or impact on individuals or entities, affected individuals will be notified, except where it would adversely impact public interest. Public agencies will take remedial actions to limit the impact of an incident, investigate and address vulnerabilities, and also to recover equipment and data. The Government will also continue to report on data incidents. External partners are obligated to report to the public agency or to PDPC when significant data incidents occur. Mr Kwek asked how Government will assess responsibility in a way that is firm, fair and predictable, if a serious incident happens despite reasonable safeguards.”
“Mr Kwek also suggested for MDDI and the Government Technology Agency of Singapore, to provide common tools or shared platforms to help smaller organisations and partners meet the requirements. We will consider this. Mr Cai asked whether the Ministry will consider financial penalties against organisations that misuse data. Mr Tiong also asked about organisational accountability. This is an important question. And Mr Cai is right that not all data incidents can be traced to a single employee. Failures may be organisational in nature, arising from weak internal controls, poor access governance or inadequate training. And in such cases, organisational liability matters. Let me assure Members that such a framework already exists. First, organisational liability under the PDPA. External partners must comply with the obligations under the PDPA, such as maintaining reasonable security requirements preventing unauthorised access. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) can impose financial penalties on organisations for intentional or negligent contraventions. This also applies to personal data shared under the PSGA framework. So, the organisational penalties that Mr Cai asked about are already available under existing law. Second, contractual liability. I earlier mentioned many times the Terms of Use that public agencies will impose on external partners. Organisations receiving Government's data must comply with the data protection and security safeguards in the Terms of Use and may face liability under these contractual terms for breaches. Third, individual criminal liability.”
“Individuals with concerns about how their personal data is being used can approach the relevant public agencies or the external partner. They can also report suspected misuse of their personal data or report data incidents through the Government Data Incident Reporting Platform. Mr Cai and Mr Kwek asked about cybersecurity expectations for our external partners. And Mr Cai also rightly noted that no organisation is immune to cyberattacks. As I shared, our approach is to set standards proportionate to risk. We have baseline standards that all partners must meet, with more stringent requirements when sensitive data is involved. When the data security space evolves and new requirements are needed, public agencies will also update the Terms of Use so that our external partners are well-positioned to protect data. Mr Kwek and Mr Yip asked about smaller partners who may lack resources. And Mr Cai similarly asked about how external partners would be expected to maintain safeguards against sophisticated attacks. While well-intentioned, tiering cybersecurity requirements so that smaller entities face less stringent standards is not advisable. A smaller entity may handle data sets that are as sensitive as larger partners and hence lowering the requirements simply due to them being smaller entities will not be proportional to the level of data risk. Instead, our public agencies will work with our external partners to build the capabilities where necessary for the proper and responsible management of data shared with them. This was a point raised by Mr Sharael. As Ms Tan had suggested, this may involve ensuring robust systems, strong training and proper controls.”
“As Dr Choo noted, public agencies also use privacy-preserving technologies to limit unnecessary exposure of data. Where personal data is concerned, public agencies must continue to exercise judgement even if the statutory requirements allow for sharing with external partners should this Bill be passed. In the instance of health information, which Dr Choo had asked about, for health information that is used for employment and insurance purposes in particular, there will be additional requirements under the Public Service's rules to seek consent and to conduct a personal data protection impact assessment under the PSGA. In cases like this where the data use is highly sensitive, an additional impact assessment may be made and consent sought, even though, it is not statutorily required. This is another example where more safeguards are put in place in proportion to the risk. To Mr Yip and Ms He's questions about re-identification of anonymised data, this was already debated in 2018. Re-identification of anonymised data can be allowed only when it meets public sector objectives. For example, when certain datasets are corrupted or destroyed and re-identification is needed to continue delivering services to citizens. Unauthorised re-identification remains an offence. Several Members also suggested providing a list of external partners authorised under the PSGA. We will consider what is practical. Today, public agencies work with many partners on diverse purposes, often on an ad hoc basis, and it could be challenging to share, in detail, a list of external partners or notify citizens for every use, given the dynamic nature of these partnerships. But we thank Members for the suggestion and we will review this at a later date once we have sufficient experience with the Bill.”
“Even if there is a valid purpose and proper authorisation, public agencies must assess the external partner's ability to meet the requirements in the Terms of Use and impose these terms on them. Let me elaborate on these requirements, which Members have asked about. These Terms of Use will include data security and protection safeguards, such as using anti-malware software with up-to-date signatures and performing regular vulnerability assessments. Retention periods for the data will be specified and requirements to purge data when the retention period has ended will be mandated. External partners will also have to provide yearly declarations of compliance with the Terms of Use. Non-compliance needs to be rectified. Failing which, data access may be revoked. On top of these, there will also be higher requirements for more sensitive data. For instance, periodic audit checks at a higher frequency when more sensitive data is involved. These checks will be conducted by the agency or qualified third parties appointed by the agency. Highly sensitive data will also require reviewing of privileged accounts monthly for access rights. Before any data sharing is established, such terms, of course, will be discussed with the external partner to ensure that they are able to comply. As our trusted external partners may face liability under the contractual terms, both the public agency and the external partner must be confident that the requirements can be complied with. Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Yip asked about our principles for data protection and sharing. The starting point is this: where identifiable personal data is not needed, anonymised data will be provided to external partners instead.”
“That is, data will be used for better delivery of services to the individual and for policy analysis and formulation. Ms He Ting Ru claimed that we are shifting from a rule-based framework to executive discretion in data sharing. Let me be clear, there is no such shift. Again, there is no such shift. The existing PSGA stipulates seven purposes under which a Ministerial direction may be made for data sharing these clear purposes, as well as all existing data governance rules remain fully in place. These purposes make it clear that citizens must benefit before data can be shared. So, Mr Kenneth Tiong may have misunderstood, but there will be no situation where we share data with partners for their commercial benefit. What we are adding is a second layer of checks referred to as the "further authorisation" in the Bill for cases of sharing with external partners. This authorisation by the Minister is not a replacement for rules, but an additional safeguard. There must be proper authorisation. Before data is shared with external partners, it must go through careful deliberation within the Public Service, culminating in a sign off by the Minister or his or her delegate. Each authorisation must clearly state the purpose for sharing the scope of data to be shared and the specific external parties receiving the data. To Mr Yip's question on the delegation of Minister's authorisation, delegation if done, will only be to the senior leadership level of the Public Service. Any delegation will be made public as provided for under the Interpretation Act. The third safeguard is that our partners must comply with Terms of Use.”
“Mr Henry Kwek asked for concrete examples of how the Bill will improve outcomes – particularly for those around us who need social and financial assistance, especially for our seniors and our children. I shared a few examples in my opening speech on how the PSGA framework has enabled more integrated delivery of support within Government. With this Bill, we can extend this approach to partnerships with SSAs, community partners and self-help groups – organisations with deep networks, cultural understanding and presence on the ground. Mr Cai Yinzhou mentioned many social service providers that support his Toa Payoh Central residents – Care Corner, TOUCH, Dementia Singapore, NTUC Health and others. These partners can benefit from data sharing with public agencies, serving the same community needs. Our seniors can receive more coordinated care. Families in difficulty need not repeat their circumstances to multiple parties. And the staff working in these social service providers can focus their time and their energies on providing tangible help, rather than collect duplicative information again. Mr Kwek, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the public can be assured that their data would be used appropriately. And central to all of this is our focus on building and safeguarding trust, as noted by Mr Sharael Taha. Let me explain the three safeguards that must be met before data is shared with external partners. First, there must be a valid purpose. Data sharing must serve public purposes as provided for under the PSGA. To borrow Ms Tan's words, data is not shared just because it is convenient or efficient for public agencies, but it must clearly support a real public need. The two main categories where Government will share and use data for remain unchanged.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support and their questions. Several Members raised questions on the scope and the safeguards for data sharing with external partners. Expanding PSGA is like building more bridges to help more people cross safely and access support earlier. Every bridge must be built with a clear public purpose. Not for curiosity, not for convenience and not for commercial gains, but to connect our people to something essential. Likewise, data will only be shared when there is a clear public service objective. Access to the bridges must also be properly authorised. Not everyone can direct traffic across the bridge or change its structure. And likewise, data access will be tightly governed, with clear and defined approval processes, roles and responsibilities. As the usage of these bridges grow, we must ensure that those who operate and maintain the bridges are capable and ready. This means that we will assess and uplift both the public sector and our trusted partners' capabilities so that they can be trusted custodians of the data that they receive. Trust is sustained through accountability and transparency – through regular inspections, monitoring and audits. And when something goes wrong, a responsible system responds decisively. We close, we fix, we make the bridge safe again. That is why we have clear incident management processes. We do not give up on building the bridges altogether. This is how we help more people while strengthening trust. Because trust is not meant to be a brake that holds us back. Trust is what makes progress possible. I will now address specific points that Members raised.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions and for his concern for the lower-income students. To his first question, I think we would first encourage students to approach their schools and their teachers to explore possible interest groups to be set up in the school. Otherwise, to work with our communities, through our grassroots leaders, to provide for such programmes. And these programmes are not limited to our young students, but also, then, become accessible to lifelong learners across all ages. And to the second suggestion, I think we will continue to look at how to open up access to funds so that our students can access opportunities both in and outside of the classroom.”
“At the secondary level, schools provide students with out-of-school opportunities, such as befriending and mentoring by community partners and volunteers, as well as interest-based activities that build peer support and relationships. These are provided free-of-charge to all students in the programme, including students from lower-income households. In our post-secondary education institutions, out-of-school experiences are woven into their curriculum through internships and other industry-based programmes. These provide students access to industry networks and real-world opportunities to apply their skills and gain hands-on work experiences. Institutions also work with community partners to provide additional support and opportunities beyond the curriculum, including youth befriending, career exploration and mentoring programmes. Students also have access to overseas exposure opportunities through our educational institutions with financial support for those who need it. MOE will continue to review and strengthen our programmes and partnerships to bring affordable learning opportunities to students from low-income families. We are encouraged that there are active community and corporate partners who run or sponsor suitable programmes which complement school efforts to support our lower-income students. In this way, we build a "we first" society in Singapore and we hope more partners will step forward and participate.”
“I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Education (MOE) provides all students with opportunities to discover and develop their potential. Our schools curate and structure such opportunities for them based on their learning needs, interests and strengths. At the same time, we do offer financial support for lower-income students so that they are not deprived of opportunities to access these programmes. This is a more effective approach than subsidising access to a wider marketplace of out-of-school programmes through a SkillsFuture scheme. In terms of after-school programmes, our schools run a wide range of co-curricular activities, and talent and enrichment programmes for our students. For example, for students with sporting potential, MOE runs the Junior Sports Academy Programme, which allows primary school students from all backgrounds to participate in a range of sports and discover their sporting strengths and interests. MOE also provides Opportunity Fund grants to schools for them to subsidise co-curricular development opportunities for students from low-income households. Beyond these, all primary schools have Student Care Centres that provide a conducive and structured after-school environment for students to develop their 21st Century Competencies. Student Care Centres also work with community partners to offer enrichment in areas, such as reading, speech and drama, creative writing, music, or explorations in science, engineering and technology. After the subsidies from the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Student Care Fee Assistance programme, lower-income families can pay as little as $5 per month for the child to attend the Student Care Centres in our primary schools.”
“Through the work of GovTech and our agencies, we will ensure that Government digital services are not only efficient but also inclusive and trusted. Our public service must continue to be best-in-class, setting the tone for how technology can serve and strengthen people, not the other way round. Mr Speaker, every generation of Singaporeans had anxieties, and what has defined Singapore is not the absence of anxiety, but the imagination to dream big in spite of it and the courage to act in spite of it. Our pioneers built homes while anxious about survival. Our parents built industries while anxious about recessions. As leaders, our role is not to erase anxiety because that is impossible. Our role is to steady the anxious hearts and to channel the restless energy into constructive action. Years from now, people may ask, “Jasmin, did you live up to these words? Did you hold true to your commitments? Did you carry through on what you promised?” I hope that when that day comes, I can say, “I gave it all I have got. Yes, I was anxious but I took action. Yes, I spoke of assurance, and I worked every day to provide a little bit more of it.” Every evening, I see the real reason for my work – my children, sleeping soundly, full of unspoken trust that tomorrow will be okay, that the world will be kind. In their faces, I am reminded of why I stand here – to help build a Singapore where every child can grow up confident, kind and courageous. Mr Speaker, I commit myself to this work. To serve with both head and heart, to walk alongside Singaporeans in their anxieties, and to help transform those anxieties into action for a kinder, more resilient, more compassionate and confident Singapore. [Applause.]”
“My other portfolio, Digital Development, brings me face to face with a different kind of anxiety. We worry about children glued to screens, exposed to online harms, workers displaced by AI and seniors left behind in a fast-changing society. Yet, just as with anxiety, technology can either paralyse us or propel us. Our youths wonder if AI will take away the jobs that they aspire towards or if they will be able to keep up with machines that learn faster than humans. Yet, when I meet students at hackathons, I also see their excitement. They want to experiment, they want to create and they want to shape how AI can be used for good. So, I believe, that if we guide them well, our youths will not just adapt to AI, but they will help define the future with it. As we embrace technology and prepare our young for an AI-driven future, we must remember never to lose our humanity. Machines can process faster than us, but they cannot feel for one another. They cannot comfort a friend in pain, forgive a mistake or show compassion to a stranger. These are deeply human capacities – empathy, kindness, moral judgement – that no algorithm can replace. So, as we advance, let us hold firmly to the values that make us human because it is these values that will guide how we use technology and ensure it serves people, not the other way around. These values of empathy and kindness also guide me, as I fulfil my duties as the Minister-in-charge of GovTech. I will be a watchman, not just to keep Singapore at the forefront of technology but to guard the values and integrity of our society, so that technology and AI do not become our digital opium. We will continue to strengthen our public digital infrastructure.”
“" These questions are not unique to me. They are questions every parent would ask themselves in quiet moments. And I want to say here, as a parent and as a policy-maker, I see you. I hear you and I carry the same questions. Education, at its heart, is not simply about grades. It is about confidence, character and resilience. Part of nurturing character is tackling the difficult issue of bullying. Bullying, whether in the classrooms or online, corrodes the very values we hold dear as Singaporeans – respect, responsibility and care for one another. It also feeds the anxiety among our children, leaving scars that can follow them well into adulthood. So, I take very seriously, my role, in the review of anti-bullying efforts because it will help build a kinder Singapore. The best way to defeat bullying is to make kindness our norm. The real revolution is not against bullying but for kindness. Let us not just tell our children to be kind to each other. Let us, as adults, be kind and respectful to each other, so that our children in Singapore, watch, learn and mimic the kindest generations of adults. I will work with parents, youths, educators and community groups to reframe the way we approach our challenges. Our work will not be just about preventing bullying but making kindness our norm and finding meaning in caring for others. Our work will not be just about helping children pass our mother tongue subjects but reconnecting them with our cultures and strengthening their ability to communicate with the world. And our work will not be just about avoiding screen time but helping children, and parents, rediscover the life lessons from play and nature, and strengthening parent-child relationships.”
“It reminds us that we care about the future, our families and our nation's prospects. Our forefathers were once anxious too. They worried whether Singapore could survive, whether it could provide enough food and water for the next generation. Our parents' generation was also anxious. They worried about economic recession, their children's employment and future prospects. Today, our generation feels equally anxious. Although Singapore is already a safe and prosperous country, we still worry: are our children resilient? Have they learnt the right values? Can they grow up in this complex world? Anxiety is not a weakness, but a driving force. The key is not whether we have anxiety, but how we face it. We can let anxiety behave like Brownian motion – vibrating randomly and aimlessly; or we can transform it into a driving force for action, making us to be more resilient, creative and confident. Only in this way can we transform worry into strength, transform unease into hope and lay a more solid foundation for Singapore's tomorrow. (In English): I will now share my thoughts on my two portfolios: Education first, followed by Digital Development and Information. As a mother of two preschoolers, my days are filled with joy and worry. Each morning, Papa and I hold our little boys' hands, and we walk them into their schools. We kiss them goodbye and we watch them take their small steps into the world, a world that feels faster, harsher and more complex than the one I grew up in. And at night, after they are asleep, I often find myself asking, "Am I doing enough for them? Am I doing too much for them? Am I present enough as a working parent, and am I patient enough as an exhausted parent? Will they be kind? Will they be brave? Will they be bullied, or will they bully others?”
“This anxiety is real and it is not a weakness. It is a signal that they care deeply that they are searching for meaning and that they need assurance and safe spaces to turn their restlessness into purpose. Anxiety, then, is not the condition of one generation, but an inescapable part of being a human. The real question is not whether we feel it, but what we do with it. Now, a little something for the Science students. Brownian motion describes particles that move around randomly with no clear path; plenty of movement, but no direction. When my netball teammates and I were younger, when we had energy and stamina, we often ran around the court like headless chickens. Our coach, Prof Yap from the National University Hospital (NUH), who actually just returned from Egypt, she would say to us, “Brownian motion is useless. Every move, every dodge, every change of direction we make must be intentional.” If left unchecked, anxiety can be like Brownian motion – restless vibration, much movement but no progress. But conversely, anxiety, if transformed into action, can become energy for creativity and for growth. This, is the task before us as leaders. We must lead with quiet confidence, tap into the collective experience and wisdom of our people, be clear-eyed about the policies we want to change, the mindsets that we want to change and the causes to rally our people towards. This way, we can channel the anxieties of Singaporeans into purposeful action. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We Chinese have an idiom, "be prepared for danger in times of peace", which means that even in good times, we must think about future challenges. Anxiety is actually a reminder.”
“It describes how digital technologies – smartphones, social media, endless connectivity – are reshaping childhoods, with consequences for mental well-being. As someone entrusted with responsibilities for both education and digital development, I had no excuse not to read it. But is it only one generation that is anxious? Every generation of Singaporeans has been anxious, though in different ways and through different seasons. Our Pioneer Generation felt existential anxiety: would Singapore survive? Would there be enough food, water, security? The Merdeka Generation – my parents’ generation – carried another form of anxiety: how to build stable families, how to create industries from scratch. And they worried through recessions and restructuring: could they keep their jobs, would their children have better lives than them? And then there is my generation, parents of young children today. We face a new layer of anxiety. We live in one of the safest, most successful nations in the world and yet, we worry endlessly. Are our children resilient enough? Are they spending too much time online? Are they learning the right values? Can they thrive in a world that changes faster than the one we grew up in? Are we, as parents, too gentle? Are we too harsh? Are we parenting correctly? And what if we get it all wrong? Our young people, too, carry their own burdens of anxiety. Many of them tell us that they feel anxious all the time – about examinations, about social acceptance, about the future of jobs and about whether they measure up in a world of constant comparisons. The irony is that they live in a world and a time of endless opportunities and yet, they carry the weight of immense expectations, from society, from their families and often from themselves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Motion. I am grateful, but also a little anxious. Anxious – not in a way that paralyses, but in a way that reminds me of the gravity of this moment and the privilege that I have to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. So, I will try my best, in this speech, to turn my anxious energy into something useful – words that carry hope and assurance, and words that do not put you to sleep. The Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee asked me earlier this year if I read books. I said I do. I read Paw Patrol bedtime stories. And they said I should read more widely. So, I tried. I read parts of the book "A Different Kind of Power" by Jacinda Ardern, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand. She is known for her conviction about fairness, opportunity and empathy. She spoke openly about how her anxiety reminded her of the weight of leadership. She inspires me. She also said that she knew her maiden speech might one day "haunt" her, because words in politics and parliament linger; they are remembered, they are scrutinised and they are tested against our actions. Standing here today, I know, that what I say in the next 20 minutes – yes, do not worry, not more than that – will not simply vanish when I sit down. They will follow me. They will be replayed online. They will be mentioned in debates years from now. And they may come back to haunt me. Perhaps, that is not a bad thing. And perhaps, that is what gives weight to this moment – to know, that we are accountable not only for the commitments we make, but also for the spirit and the values in which we make them. I also read parts of the book, “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt.”