Jessica Tan Soon Neo
Singapore
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I am also very happy to hear that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to review that. I agree with the writer that structurally, there are some challenges, and productivity is important.”
“And as global supply chains re-organise, how are we positioning Singapore as a trusted, stable hub so that businesses continue to choose Singapore, create good jobs and keep our economy strong?”
“Caregiving is not only a financial load. It is a time load and a well-being load. Employers have a role to play as well. Incentives for caregiving friendly workplace policies, such as caregiving leave, flexible hours and phased return-to-work schemes, would encourage more companies to adopt practices that keep caregivers employed and prod…”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. The reason I am asking this is because I have seen an increasing trend of appeals with regard to these kinds of issues, especially mould caused by continuous use of air-conditioning by neighbours.”
“Mr Speaker, I do have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. He says that the AV is not relevant for retirees. I would say it is relevant with regard to CareShield Life premium because the assumption is that people only retire at 67.”
“Yet, we must ensure that Singaporeans understand that CareShield Life does not stand alone. It is complemented by a suite of targeted schemes like MediSave Care, which allows monthly withdrawals for care expenses; the Home Caregiving Grant, which offsets informal caregiving costs; and the ElderFund, which provides discretionary support fo…”
The complete record
Every one of 823 lines we hold for Jessica Tan Soon Neo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 17.
“Section 69A, which gives the Minister authority to order structural separation, is a powerful remedy – and I am glad that the Senior Minister of State had also raised this point and said that it would be a power that would be used as last resort. But even if it is rarely used, the existence of this power may affect investment decisions if criteria are unclear. Clarity on the circumstances under which structural separation may be considered will give industry confidence that it will be used proportionately and predictably. Mr Speaker, this Bill strengthens competition in concrete ways. It protects consumers and supports SMEs and local creators. It reinforces a fair, open and diverse digital environment. At the same time, increased oversight always carries the risk of over correction if applied too broadly. This Bill itself does not restrict innovation. In fact, by preventing harmful consolidation and ensuring fair access to essential resources, it helps create an open and competitive environment that innovation depends on. But clear guidance from IMDA will be important to ensure that these expanded powers truly support innovation rather than inadvertently discouraging it. I support the Bill.”
“This means that smaller players cannot be denied access or priced out simply because a large competitor controls a key resource. When SMEs can access essential resources fairly, they are more willing to experiment, invest and innovate. This leads to more diverse content, more home-grown digital services and more opportunities for local talent. Mr Speaker, while the Bill is timely and necessary, there are areas that require further clarity. The Bill strengthens IMDA’s regulatory toolkit through section 61A on early intervention, broader definitions under section 2, mandatory approval for acquisitions at the 30% threshold in section 72A, and the new section 69A on structural separation. These powers are necessary to address modern forms of influence in a converged media digital environment. But at the same time, the breadth of these powers mean that clear guidance and transparent processes will be essential to avoid over-correction, ensure business certainty and to maintain a pro-innovation environment. So, while the expanded definitions in section 2 are important to capture modern forms of influence, their breadth does introduce risks. Companies and investors may become overly cautious about partnerships and innovative business models, for fear of inadvertently triggering regulatory scrutiny. Routine commercial arrangements may be perceived as falling within scope, increasing compliance costs and slowing investment decisions. Clear guidance on how these definitions will be applied in practice will help maintain a pro-innovative environment.”
“Clearer rules help ensure that competition remains healthy and that companies compete on quality and innovation, and not locking others out. The Bill ensures that no single player can accumulate influence in the ways that reduces competition or harm consumers, keeping the market open, diverse and competitive. This has real implications for everyday Singaporeans. More families now depend on digital services from news consumption to seniors staying connected, children learning online and households streaming entertainment. When one company becomes too dominant, consumers may face higher prices, fewer choices, weaker service quality and unfair practices like being locked into bundles or platforms. Section 72A ensures that large acquisitions cannot take place quietly or without scrutiny, it requires IMDA's approval once a party crosses the 30% ownership threshold, thus preventing companies from using control over key digital or media resources to limit choice or raise barriers for others. While this Bill does not set new standards for service quality or reliability, section 61A allows IMDA to intervene early if anti-competitive conduct threatens the continuity or reliable provision of media services. SMEs and local creators are vital to our media and digital ecosystem. They bring fresh ideas, local stories and innovative services but often face higher barriers when competing with large platforms. The new section 61A strengthens fair access to essential resources, such as content libraries, distribution platforms and advertising inventories. It empowers IMDA to issue directions to ensure non-discriminatory access and prevents any player from using control as an essential resource to block competitors.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill is fundamentally about updating our regulatory framework so that the oversight of the media sector is aligned with clearer, more established competitive safeguards that has guided the telecom sector for years. I support this Bill because it will help Singapore keep pace with how quickly the digital and media world is evolving. Today, the services we rely on – our mobile plans, streaming platforms, online news and even everyday communication apps – are deeply interconnected. This Bill modernises the media framework through several important updates: the new section 61A, which gives IMDA stronger and earlier intervention powers; expanded definitions in section 2 to capture modern, non-shareholding forms of influence; the new section 72A, which requires mandatory approval when an acquirer crosses the 30% ownership threshold; and the new section 69A, which empowers the Minister to order structural separation in serious cases of entrenched dominance. These changes recognise that influence in today’s media environment no longer comes only from equity stakes. It increasingly arises from data access, exclusive content arrangements, platform prioritisation and algorithmic control. The Bill ensures that IMDA has the tools to address these realities in a fair and future-ready way. A key thrust of this Bill is strengthening fair competition. The amendments in section 2 broadens the definitions of "arrangement", "control" and "essential resources" so IMDA can act when a company uses its position – formally or informally – to block others from entering the market. This matters, because in the digital world, dominance can form very quickly. A platform can become the default choice for millions almost overnight.”
“These outcomes will depend heavily on strong implementation, clear accountability for results and close partnership with employers, unions, industry associations and training providers. It is this ecosystem alignment – not structure alone – that will determine whether the agency can deliver on the full promise of the Bill and provide meaningful, timely support for both workers and employers as our economy continues to transform. A key point I pick up throughout the Minister's speech is that while the integration of SSG and WSG is important, it is the role it plays in building and strengthening the ecosystem that is critical. And Mr Speaker, I stress this point because I think it is a recognition that one agency cannot the panacea to solve all problems and the recognition that it takes all of us. I think the Minister touched on this about the need for a mindset and a cultural change and a partnership. I would like to say that I do agree with him, but it goes beyond integration. It will be really a whole shift in how all parties work together. Mr Speaker, this Bill gives us an important opportunity to strengthen the way we support our workers and employers through economic and technological change. If we get it right, we can build a more responsive, integrated and future ready ecosystem that helps workers navigate disruption with confidence and enables employers, especially our SMEs, to transform and grow. I support the Bill.”
“The Bill provides the foundation which empower the new agency to offer integrated manpower advisory, workforce upgrading support and enables coordination across job redesign, training and grant programmes. This creates the basis for a single, coherent touchpoint for employers. The Minister did share that there would alignment of skills development with labour market data and integrated workforce development and transformation. He also spoke about the importance of partnership. So, I would like seek clarification on how the agency will work with the various industry players, industry associations, unions and sector partners to ensure that the SMEs receive timely, practical and sector relevant support as they navigate the workforce transformation and adopt new practices on the ground. A challenge that employers frequently face is that training does not always match real operational needs. How will the agency ensure that employer feedback is systematically incorporated into training pathways and programme design? And will employers be engaged in curriculum design and workforce planning? Finally, before I conclude, I would like to ask Minister to share what measures will be in place to assess the effectiveness of the new integrated agency? Mr Speaker, the questions and clarifications I have raised – and there are many – reflect broader concerns about the potential gaps that remain, even with the consolidation of functions of SSG and WSG, and the clearer mandates set out in this Bill. Consolidation alone does not guarantee a seamless experience for workers or employers, nor does it automatically ensure that the new agency will be able to proactively address technological disruptions or uphold the quality and effectiveness of training and support across all formats.”
“Many have shared with me the anxieties and the challenges they face re-entering the workforce after their contracts end, or when their roles evolve or are phased out. Can the Minister clarify how the new agency will support younger workers whose employment are disrupted by restructuring or who struggle to secure stable roles after completing contract work? A lot has been said about AI and the Minister too shared on this. AI is reshaping job roles across every sector, and workers need timely, coordinated support to navigate these changes. Clause 5 of the Bill equips the new agency to identify emerging needs early and develop and accredit training and provide career guidance for workers whose roles are being transformed. Can I ask the Minister to also share what the agency can do to help workers understand how AI will affect their roles, access relevant training early and transition into new or redesigned jobs with confidence? Will the agency proactively monitor emerging AI trends and their impact on job roles and skills requirements? And how will the agency work with employers, unions, sector agencies and technology partners to identify early signals of job transformation, update the skills frameworks ahead of time and most importantly, ensure workers receive timely guidance and training before disruptions take hold? Let me now touch on employers. SMEs often tell us that they are overwhelmed by multiple schemes and processes and a single integrated agency will simplify this experience. A clear and streamlined interface for employers is essential if we want job redesign, training grants and manpower advisory to be easily accessible, especially for SMEs who often lack dedicated HR capacity.”
“Clause 5 gives the new agency clear statutory powers to support workers facing sectoral disruptions through career transitions, targeted training pathways and job-matching. Workers in certain sectors like aviation, retail, hospitality, logistics and administrative roles have faced rapid changes. The new agency can be proactive rather than reactive to better anticipate sectoral shifts as well as work with employers and design training aligned with real hiring needs, for sectors undergoing sectoral transformation. Can the Minister share how the new agency will use the coordination powers outlined in the Bill to intervene early in disrupted sectors to support workers before displacement occurs? Let me now touch about flexibility of training. Many workers, especially caregivers, need modular, flexible or part time options. How will the agency ensure that flexible training formats and blended learning pathways are expanded to support workers with irregular schedules and those with caregiving responsibilities? How will the new agency ensure that these flexible options meet industry-recognised outcomes, deliver clear learning outcomes and remain aligned with employer and sector needs? This is important because it ensures that workers who need flexibility are not disadvantaged, and that the skills they acquire remain credible and valued in the labour market. Let me now touch on supporting younger workers. I have previously shared feedback from our young residents which indicate an increasing trend of younger workers entering the workforce through contract roles, or have employment disrupted due to business restructuring or transformation.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. For many of my residents – mid-career PMETs navigating transitions, older workers trying to stay relevant, caregivers balancing work and family, younger workers facing contract roles and SMEs struggling with manpower constraints – this Bill can have real, practical implications. It reshapes how Singapore supports workers and employers at a time when economic change is accelerating amidst disruptions driven by AI and technical advancements as well as geopolitical uncertainties. Merging two agencies is a major organisational change. What are the key milestones and expected timelines for full integration so that workers, employers and training providers know what to anticipate? Can the Minister share what safeguards will be in place to ensure that individuals currently in training and active job search continue training and receive uninterrupted career guidance and job matching support during this transition? Will service levels be set and monitored during this period to ensure that workers and employers are not adversely impacted? Let me talk about supporting workers. Residents often share the challenges they face navigating multiple touchpoints for training, job matching and career guidance. This Bill strengthens career guidance, training and job matching by giving the new agency explicit statutory functions from providing career advisory services, to developing and accrediting training, to delivering employment facilitation – enabling a fully integrated end-to-end support system for every individual. With integration, I am glad to hear the Minister assuring that the agency will strengthen personalised career coaching for mid-career and older workers as they face the steepest barriers.”
“I thank the Minister for the reassurance and for his reply. I would like to follow up on the long-term implications, particularly around how we are measuring the effects of overqualification on career and wage trajectories. I hear the Minister that we do not collect this data today, so I would like to ask how that goes. And I also like to build on the point about future workforce readiness, especially in terms of how we track skills utilisation and progression over time. So, if I could ask the Minister, what indicators do the Ministry use to determine if overqualification is becoming persistent rather than transitional and what thresholds would trigger further intervention? My second supplementary question is, does the Minister assess whether over qualification today may reduce readiness from emerging roles tomorrow and how is this risk being mitigated? Because overqualifications can depress wage trajectories, weaken skills utilisation and reduce long-term workforce competitiveness. So, if the Minister can share how the Ministry tracks long-term wage career progression outcomes for workers, especially for younger graduates who remain overqualified for extended periods, and how these insights are being used to strengthen job redesign and skills-based progression efforts across sectors.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with regard to the mid-career renewal and the various programmes that he has talked about. Would MOM consider expanding a Company Training Committee-style support, specifically for mid-career PMEs, who face possible disruptions and to enable employers also to redesign the roles and redeploy staff more proactively, because the Company Training Committee support could act like a enterprise-wide thing to allow for the health diagnostics, career health diagnostics, then the co-funding of the renewal and then the multi-stage career planning. So, I would like to ask if that would be possible? The other is in terms of planning ahead and integrating a multi-stage career, would MOM explore sector-specific adaptations of the multi-stage career pathways particularly for sectors that are facing disruptions, for example, structural shifts, manufacturing, professional services and ICT? And finally, on caregivers, there has been a lot of discussion about giving caregiver support for employment. But for those who have already been disrupted and are trying to enter the workforce, what additional support could be given to them, to help them re-enter the workforce?”
“This is not incremental tweaking of jobs given automation. We must use design thinking to integrate AI with human judgement, empathy and creativity. The Ministry can fund playbooks and pilots to test new role models and measure outcomes. Fourth, scale people analytics and predictive decision support. HR needs data literacy, analytics tools and predictive models for turnaround and internal mobility. Subsidies for analytic tools and targeted training will help HR teams make evidence-based redeployment and retention decisions. Fifth, make HR a key steward of AI ethics, transparency and trust. Employers should disclose where AI is used in high impact decisions, consult workers before scaling automation and implement human review gates and fairness audits. HR can take the lead in ensuring these safeguards. 3.45 pm Chairman, with rapid change and in a talent-scare economy, companies struggle to attract, develop and retain talent. Workers cannot face these changes alone. Strengthening HR capabilities is essential to help companies thrive and support Singaporeans through their multi-stage careers. Lower-wage Workers and Inclusive Workplace”
“Mr Chairman, as our economy shifts and AI reshapes how work is done, companies and workers are feeling the pressure. Younger workers want to know how to grow in an AI-enabled world and mature workers want assurance that they would not be left behind. HR professionals sit in the centre of helping both groups navigate this transition. Singapore has made meaningful progress through efforts, such as the Industry Transformation plan, the Skills Framework for HR and the IHRP certification pathway. These initiatives have raised standards and enabled workforce planning, job redesign and data-driven HR. These are real steps forward, but capabilities remain uneven, especially among SMEs with lean HR teams. The HR sector needs practical and scalable support. HR must shift from transactional delivery to strategic stewardship of human-AI work. I propose five priorities to further strengthen HR capabilities. First, move from a static role descriptions and skills to a dynamic skills taxonomy. The Skills Framework for 38 sectors is useful, but static. We should pilot AI-driven taxonomies that continuously map and update skills in real-time, giving SMEs a forward-looking baseline, rather than hire reactively based on a static list of skills. In fact, there are global companies that are developing such AI-solutions. The Government could fund the development of dynamic skills taxonomies for prioritised sectors, starting with our HR sector. Second, adopt skills-based workforce planning and scenario modelling. Instead of focusing on headcount and budgets, we should support tools and advisory services that enable HR to model multiple future scenarios, anticipate role changes and plan redeployment and reskilling proactively. Third, reframe "job redesign" as job redesign for human with AI.”
“A co-funded renewal scheme could support job redesign, redeployment into growth areas and role specific, employer validated training. This is essential, as retirement and re-employment ages will rise to 64 and 69 this year. Mid-career renewal will affect nearly every PME's working life. I will expand on strengthening human resources (HR) capabilities in my other COS cut later. Three, embed multi-stage careers in workplaces. Careers today are not linear. With an ageing population and longer lifespans, drawing on evidence-based frameworks, including the Stanford longevity model, we can mainstream a national career taxonomy across the build, consolidate, retrain and transition stages. This provides a shared language for both workers and employers, enabling better planning, clearer expectations and more proactive career decisions at each career's life stage. Mr Chairman, supporting the career health and employability of our mature PMEs require a new national compact built on shared responsibility. The Government must provide early signal tools, accessible support and clear pathways. Employers must redesign work and invest in mid-career renewal. Workers must take ownership of their lifelong career health. If we get this right, PMEs will have the clarity, confidence and capabilities to stay employable and contribute meaningfully across longer, more fulfilling careers, ensuring Singapore's workforce stays resilient as we age. Skilled Trades Deserve Respect and Support”
“Mr Chairman, with PMEs forming 64.2% of our resident workforce and Singapore becoming a super-aged society, strengthening the career health of PMEs in their 40s, 50s and early 60s is increasingly urgent. Our workforce is ageing quickly. The median age of workers is now 45, and as industries transform, many mid-career PMEs face heightened risks. We already have strong foundations. SkillsFuture participation reached more than 600,000 in 2025, job redesign and upskilling efforts continue through the Company Training Committees (CTCs) and the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Multi-stage Careers adds further scaffolding. But to sustain employability, we must now make career health mainstream, preventive and easy to act on. I have three recommendations. One, introduce a national career health screening. I propose augmenting MyCareersFuture and the NTUC AI career coach with a nationally standardised, subsidised career health screening for PMEs aged 35 to 65. Like preventive health checks, this diagnostic would assess skills readiness and digital gaps, role fit and mobility options; and transition risks, especially in sectors seeing softening demand, such as professional services, manufacturing and information and communications technology. Higher risk cases will receive a short human coaching review directly linked to MyCareersFuture for follow-through. A standardised screening, paired with human support, helps PMEs take early action and helps employers anticipate redeployment and workforce transformation needs. Two, make mid-career renewal a shared responsibility. Workers are upskilling, more than 458,000 Singaporeans used their SkillsFuture credits last year. But employers, especially SMEs, need stronger support to redesign roles, retrain staff and hire mid-career candidates.”
“Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Minister for talking about the AI Impact programme and democratising AI. I think it is very important, so I do want to ask a little bit of clarification around that, more from an individual and citizen standpoint. How does this pan out and how can the ordinary citizen look forward to in terms of, what do they do with regards to the National AI Impact Programme and how do they access that? The other question I had was, related to this as well, in terms of digital literacy specific to AI. I did touch upon the point about life stages and whether in terms of the digital literacy, as we are looking at it for citizens, even for workers, how do we ensure that this is looked at from a life stage standpoint, rather than from an age or just a profile standpoint? And another question around responsible AI was that, given that it is widely used now and, in a lot of cases, for some very critical areas in terms of decision making, how do we ensure and how will the Government look at ensuring that biases are not kind of perpetuated? And the last point on inclusivity, given that AI is going to be very much part of our lives and it is not something we can ignore, how are we going to look at the multiple languages and supporting those in terms of people who are not so proficient in English?”
“Mr Chairman, when we combine practical support, clear AI trust guidance, empowered workers, strong cybersecurity and a vibrant local ecosystem, AI becomes a real productivity tool and boost for our enterprises – and a real competitive advantage for Singapore.”
“The refreshed National AI Strategy sets the direction on trusted AI, but SMEs need practical tools that they can use tomorrow – sector‑specific AI trust roadmaps that spell out common risks and good practices, pre-approved governance templates for data handling, model testing and human-in-the-loop check, simple "green‑lane" guidance so low‑risk use cases can move quickly while higher‑risk ones get the safeguards they need. This is how trusted AI becomes a catalyst, not a compliance burden. The Champions of AI programme is promising, but AI adoption is about more than tools. It is about preparing data, redesigning workflows and helping workers feel confident. Many SMEs lack this expertise. Can MDDI share how SMEs can tap these champions for governance support, workflow redesign and to fully leverage national compute and enterprise schemes? Our workers are central. The workforce transformation roadmaps must go beyond broad skills. Workers need role‑specific skill maps to show how tasks will change with AI, clear pathways to move from today's roles to tomorrow's AI‑enabled, and hands‑on training tied to tools that SMEs are actually adopting. When workers see how AI makes work easier and raises productivity, adoption becomes natural. I welcome the Budget's investment in local AI developers and testbeds and the role of Government procurement in helping them scale. And as AI becomes more embedded in operations, the new Cyber Resilience Centre and enhanced SME support will give businesses the confidence to adopt AI safely.”
“That is why I believe Singapore should move toward targeted requirements for high‑risk or high‑impact AI systems rather than broad, one‑size‑fits‑all. And transparency does not mean revealing source code. It simply means explaining what the system does, what risks it carries and what safeguards are in place. Independent audits should only be required where the potential harm is significant. These are not radical ideas. They are becoming global norms. The European Union already mandates audits for high‑risk systems. Canada is moving in the same direction. US regulators require audits in finance and healthcare. The United Kingdom (UK) is strengthening evaluation requirements for frontier models. Singapore should stay ahead, but in a way that fits our context and supports innovation. A risk‑based approach allows us to protect Singaporeans while keeping compliance practical. This ensures we do not overburden SMEs or slow innovation while still giving Singaporeans confidence that AI is being used responsibly. My recommendation is for the Government to co-develop practical guidance, sandboxes and sector‑specific standards with industry, building on strong foundations we already have. This turns responsible AI into a shared national capability and not just a regulatory obligation. Enterprise Readiness for AI Adoption Mr Chairman, Budget 2026 gives Singapore's AI push real momentum. But for many SMEs, key questions remain. Will AI make daily work easier, more productive and more meaningful for our people? SMEs still face real hurdles. Compute is costly, data is fragmented, governance feels complex and workers worry about job impact. If we do not address these realities, AI will benefit only a few.”
“Mr Chairman, digital safety tools are about protecting trust, protecting families and ensuring every Singaporean, regardless of age or background, feels confident and safe in an AI-driven world. Responsible AI Mr Chairman, this year's Budget rightly emphasises the importance of responsible AI. Singapore has already built strong foundations – from the Model AI Governance Framework to AI Verify – and sector‑specific guidelines in finance and healthcare. These are real strengths, and they show our commitment to safe and trustworthy innovation. But as AI becomes part of everyday decisions that affect people's lives, Singaporeans now need more clarity, more consistency and more accountability. Today, AI is already used in hiring, credit assessment, insurance underwriting and even public sector processes. But the level of transparency varies widely. Many Singaporeans may not even know when AI is involved. Without regular checks, these systems can unintentionally reinforce or amplify bias. Trust does not happen automatically. We must build it deliberately. At the same time, we know that modern AI, especially frontier models, is complex and often proprietary. While transparency and independent evaluation sound simple, the reality is more challenging. Singapore's existing frameworks recognise this, but the pace of deployment means we need to strengthen our approach in a practical and proportionate way. Not all AI systems can carry the same level of risk. A chatbot answering Frequently Asked Questions is not the same as an algorithm screening job applicants, assessing creditworthiness or supporting medical decisions. And frontier AI models, the most powerful and unpredictable, pose a different category of risk altogether.”
“Mr Chairman, Budget 2026 underscores an important priority, keeping Singaporeans safe from scams and online harms. Digital safety today is no longer just about avoiding suspicious links. AI has changed the way scams and online threats work. The tools used to deceive people are more sophisticated, more personal and harder to detect, even for those who are usually confident online. We now see AI‑generated deepfakes that could sound exactly like a family member or friend with uncanny accuracy. Hyper‑personalised scams tailor messages to a person's habits, vulnerabilities and online behaviour. Misinformation spread faster at a scale that outpace fact‑checking. And these risks fall disproportionately on seniors, youth, lower‑income families, and those who may not have the digital confidence to tell what is real and what is AI-generated. To keep Singaporeans safe, we now must move from "digital safety" to AI risk resilience, equipping people with practical skills, trusted tools and strong community support. We can strengthen this in four ways. I would just like to suggest these. One, introduce a national AI safety curriculum across digital literacy programmes for different age groups and life stages. Two, the Online Safety Commission (OSC) can incorporate AI-specific risks into its categories of online harms by recognising AI-generated impersonations such as deepfakes and mass production of inauthentic materials to enable victims to seek timely remedies. 4.15 pm Three, establish a public-private AI anti-scam taskforce to stay ahead of evolving threats and coordinate responses. Four, leveraging the base of Digital Ambassadors, develop a network of community-based digital safety ambassadors focused on AI risks in senior activity centres, schools and social service settings.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I am also very happy to hear that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will continue to review that. I agree with the writer that structurally, there are some challenges, and productivity is important. But here, we are looking at the hawkers and the single F&B operators. They do not have that advantage of scale to be able to take advantage of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) tier. Therefore, even if they hired just one additional worker, it brings them up to the higher DRC level, if they are even eligible to hire that. From the way hawkers and these small, single F&Bs operate, honestly, they are working 12 to 14 hours, and many of the owner operators are working those hours. My residents are some of them – that is the reason why I am asking this question. I do hope the Ministry will look at the data of companies, the single operators and hawkers, that are pushed into this higher tier or end up not even deciding to carry on with their business because it is just getting too hard.”
“And as global supply chains re-organise, how are we positioning Singapore as a trusted, stable hub so that businesses continue to choose Singapore, create good jobs and keep our economy strong? Finally, on resilience and public trust, how is MFA working across Government to protect Singaporeans from foreign interference, whether it comes through politics, digital platforms, or even economic pressure? And just as importantly, how is MFA helping Singaporeans understand these risks in a clear, calm way, so people feel informed and prepared rather than anxious? In a world where misinformation spreads quickly and external actors may try to influence our views or decisions, Singaporeans need to know what to look out for and trust that Government is safeguarding our interests. Mr Chairman, these questions reflect our shared responsibility to safeguard Singapore’s sovereignty and secure the future of our people in a more contested world. The Mighty Red Dot”
“Mr Chairman, US-China strategic competition is deepening and global supply chains are being reshaped by security concerns, export controls and geopolitical alignment. A small, open economy, these shifts are not distant events for Singapore They have direct implications for our sovereignty, our economic resilience and the livelihood of our people. To protect Singapore’s independence as well as for Singapore to remain a trusted global hub for trade, we must understand the risks and respond decisively. I would like to seek clarity from MFA on several fronts. On our strategic posture, how does MFA see the US-China relationship evolving, and what does it mean for Singapore’s ability to make our own choices? Where are the pressure points where their rivalry could squeeze our room to manoeuvre, and how are we protecting that precious independence of action that underpins our sovereignty? And importantly, how are we making sure Singapore is never pushed into taking sides – whether in technology standards, security cooperation, or trade – so that we can continue to act in the best interests of our people. Second, on economic security. Given that the world is shifting from efficiency to resilience, how is MFA working with the Ministry of Trade and Industry to make sure Singapore is not overly exposed to any single geopolitical chokepoint? Because when supply chains are disrupted, it ultimately affects our jobs, cost of living, and the confidence businesses have to invest in Singapore. How vulnerable are we to the US-China technology split, especially in semiconductors, AI and digital infrastructure that our companies rely on to stay competitive and families depend on for daily life?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. First of all, how does the Building and Construction Authority monitor that the tenancy of private residence aligns with the building occupancy load requirements to ensure safety and accessibility? Fire safety and building code risks are hard to detect in terms of safety risk breaches. Because the overload of electrical points and all that are within the households, so, it is very difficult, even for the Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) let alone the authorities to monitor and check. That can cause a big fire risk. The other supplementary question that I have is, what measures are in place to maintain residents' liveability? Beyond safety, higher density also affects day-to-day liveability, because if there are multiple units within a block that have these eight occupants, common corridors, lifts and all the other facilities will be overloaded. Even access, in terms of evacuation, within a block could be strained because a building load is of a certain capacity. But if there are multiple units, then we will have a problem and that is also difficult to monitor.”
“Caregiving is not only a financial load. It is a time load and a well-being load. Employers have a role to play as well. Incentives for caregiving friendly workplace policies, such as caregiving leave, flexible hours and phased return-to-work schemes, would encourage more companies to adopt practices that keep caregivers employed and productive. Expanding daycare and short notice respite capacity will give caregivers the breathing space they need to work, train, rest or respond to emergencies. Mr Speaker, a common thread runs through my speech – strategy only matters when implementation delivers impact. Budget 2026 charts the right course with focused investments, responsible AI adoption, a responsive skills system and deeper support for families. Our next task is to make these measures simple to access, aligned with employer needs and meaningful for Singaporeans on the ground. I support Budget 2026 for the clarity of the strategies to take Singapore forward. I call for continued focus on simplifying access, strengthening partnerships and building community level support ecosystems.”
“I will dive deeper into the topic of career health and employability of matured PMEs in the MOM Committee of Supply debate. We must ensure that our refreshed economic strategy is matched by a workforce that is resilient, ready and able to seize the opportunities ahead, and this matters whether they are just starting out or making a mid-career transition. Let me talk about families. Growth alone is not enough. For the sandwiched class, the question is: can my family cope? Will my children and parents be cared for? Budget 2026 takes meaningful steps in providing for higher preschool subsidies, expanded student care support and enhanced long-term care subsidies. These will definitely ease cost pressures temporarily, but gaps remain for families who are asset rich but cash poor, especially with the rising caregiving costs. A more nuanced means testing approach for eldercare, one that recognises liquidity constraints, will prevent families from being priced out of essential care. Why is this important? Because by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 or above. Care needs are rising and so is the emotional and financial load on mid career caregivers who must work, upskill and care for both young and the elderly in their families. While real progress has been made in building up our care ecosystem – and I must stress this, there has been a lot of progress in our care ecosystem – but families still experience the system as fragmented. Information sits across multiple portals and agencies. And we should consider piloting integrated family support hubs that coordinate childcare, eldercare, respite services and employment assistance, providing a one stop touchpoint for families for case management, streamlining subsidy applications and help in navigating complex systems.”
“On AI, acceleration must go hand in hand with clear governance, integration support, change management help and strong cybersecurity. I will speak more on enterprise AI readiness during the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) Committee of Supply debate. On workforce Readiness. Economic ambition only matters when it translates into better jobs and livelihood for Singaporeans. The Budget’s National AI Missions, the National AI Council and the Champions of AI programme signal Singapore’s commitment to being a trusted global hub for AI. But to ensure workers benefit from this transformation, we must align AI missions with workforce pathways, scale employer led training and apprenticeships, expand modular, employer recognised micro credentials that enable quicker redeployment, and strengthen HR capabilities so enterprises can manage workforce transformation. I will speak more about the critical role of HR in accelerating enterprise transformation during the MOM Committee of Supply debate. For our mid‑career and senior workers, the measures in the Budget will help workers through the disruption and changes. With rapid shifts in the job market, many of my residents have expressed anxiety about finding new employment after their short-term employment contracts end or following retrenchment. Matured PMEs worry about staying employable. Tripartite partners and Enterprise Singapore have stressed the importance of faster, dignified support when workers are displaced. But we can still do more to shorten unemployment transitions further by providing earlier notifications to placement hubs; sector specific placement packs with skills mapping, bridging courses and job fairs; as well as streamlined access to training and employment support.”
“Mr Speaker, Budget 2026 comes at a time when Singaporeans are navigating a world that is more competitive, more digital and more uncertain. In moments like this, what matters most is whether our people feel they can keep moving forward to find good jobs, support their families and plan confidently for the future. Budget 2026 refreshes our economic strategy with ambition and discipline. We cannot compete on size, but we can lead in trust, excellence and speed. The Budget rightly zeroes in on our global growth clusters where Singapore can lead in semiconductors and advanced manufacturing; biomedical sciences; green energy and the hydrogen economy; digital trust, cybersecurity and AI; and future finance and logistics. These are not new bets. They build on years of capability development. Singapore today produces 10% of chips globally and 20% of semiconductor equipment. We are a regional leader in enabling green transition, with Southeast Asia’s first carbon tax and a national hydrogen strategy. In AI governance and digital trust, frameworks, like the AI Verify and our Digital Economy Agreements, place us as a global reference point. The Budget strengthens this foundation by encouraging high value segments of global value chains, sustaining long term R&D through RIE2030 and supporting growth capital. These moves ensure that Singapore remains relevant in a volatile world. But strategies must translate into outcomes, especially for SMEs. Many may still struggle to navigate schemes or put together a growth plan. A “human in the loop” advisory model for SMEs scaling overseas or entering deep tech could complement GoBusiness, helping firms access support quickly and confidently.”
“Will the Ministry also review the licensing conditioning for pet grooming businesses to incorporate minimum supervision requirements and emergency preparedness protocols?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply and for the reassurances. I do have a few supplementary questions for both my Parliamentary Questions (PQs). For my first PQ, I would like to ask, are the current standards for supervision of pets during grooming sessions, particularly when they are secured in holding areas or cages, whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) would review the protocols for this to prevent prolonged unsupervised confinement that may result in distress or worse, injury or fatality? And the other supplementary questions for this PQ are: what are the current processes and response time for handling complaints of suspected negligence in pet businesses? And how can AVS improve public reporting channels and investigation process to ensure timely follow-up? The whole point is really, how to, first of all, report and also, how can pet owners be more aware of businesses that have had complaints and may not have followed protocols. But more importantly, are there going to be tighter protocols, for when they are in confined areas or unsupervised? For my second PQ, I would also like to ask, apart from penalties – because that is after the fact and when once pet is injured, or I think the distress I have had for my residents and many pet owners who have shared that it can be extremely distressing and so, rather than penalties, which are good deterrents, but really prevention – so, will AVS consider introducing mandatory certification or competency requirements for pet groomers? And more importantly, skills training to ensure proper animal handling, not so much the grooming, but the animal handling and safety protocols, and more importantly emergency response when the pets are injured.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. The reason I am asking this is because I have seen an increasing trend of appeals with regard to these kinds of issues, especially mould caused by continuous use of air-conditioning by neighbours. The challenge for residents is that they cannot do anything because it is coming from the neighbour's unit. I would like to ask if HDB will consider mandating wall or ceiling enhancements for people, if they are going to be continuously using the air-conditioning. If not, then what measures could be taken to ensure accountability or cost-sharing or timely resolution of condensation disputes between neighbours? My second question would be whether guidelines would be introduced to clarify responsibilities of affected flat owners? Because the damages are quite serious – entire walls or ceilings. The mould has also led to some health issues for many of my residents.”
“But we have to find that balance of how to ensure that this is done securely. At the end of the day, the intent of the PSGA is not to prevent the use of data but how to use it securely. With all these measures, I think we can also recognise that it is not going to take risk away completely. What it is, is to look at how we can minimise or prevent data breaches. Because once a data breach happens, the damage is already done. We must remember that at the heart of the Bill is a simple promise – that when Singaporeans share their information, that their trust will be honoured. To make this real, public agencies and partners must treat data as a shared, ongoing responsibility. This means building a culture where leaders set clear expectations, staff are trained and supported, and systems are regularly tested and improved. It means learning from incidents, not hiding them. It means working closely with partners to close gaps early rather than waiting for problems to surface. When agencies and external organisations take that proactive approach and put the safeguards in place, the safeguards in the PSGA then become safeguards in practice rather than just on paper, serving Singaporeans effectively and giving Singaporeans confidence that their information is protected every day. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“I am glad to hear the Minister of State say in her speech that before sharing data, agencies are responsible for assessing whether each partner has the systems, processes and competencies to handle Government data securely. I would suggest and would like to ask if the agencies are also required to conduct regular audits to confirm that the obligations in the Ministerial directions are being met in practice throughout the partnership. It means understanding their partners' technical safeguards, their governance structure, their staff training, their incident response processes and their ability to meet the conditions set out in the Ministerial direction. It means ensuring that they can protect data not just in theory, but in practice, day to day, across their systems and across their teams. Ultimately, this is about protecting the trust that Singaporeans place in our public institutions. This is not about duplicating the PDPA, which already governs private sector data practice. What I am suggesting is not imposing additional burdens. But I suggest that perhaps we consider not imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all data security burden – I believe the Minister of State did touch on this point – but perhaps that agencies could adopt a risk‑based approach that looks at higher‑risk data flows, undergoing deeper technical assessments, and at lower‑risk or time‑limited projects with a lighter touch. What matters is that every partner can show that their system works in practice, not just on paper. Where appropriate, agencies can also recognise independent certifications or existing audits rather than duplicating effort. I want to stress again that the intent is not to add burden to our partners because we want their services to be delivered.”
“Finally, we must ask a simple but important question – how do we know that an external partner can be trusted to handle public sector data with the same care and responsibility that Singaporeans expect from Government agencies? The public sector operates under stricter rules for managing government data while external partners are governed by the PDPA. The amendment Bill addresses the gap without adding unnecessary compliance burdens for partners, requiring external partners who receive public sector data to be held to the same criminal penalties as public officers if they misuse it, whether through unauthorised disclosure, improper use or re-identifying anonymised information without approval. These offences carry the same penalties already set out in the PSGA, which are fines of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both. This ensures that anyone who is entrusted with public data is held to the same legal standard of responsibility and protection. But I must stress that penalties alone do not remove risks. We need assurance that partners have the right systems, training and safeguards in place before any data is shared. As more public services are delivered through digital platforms, vendor systems and community partners, one thing has become very clear – data protection cannot rely on the good intentions of individuals alone. Most incidents do not just happen because someone acted maliciously. They can happen because a system was not designed well, a process was unclear or an organisation did not invest in the right safeguards. In other words, the risks today are increasingly systemic, not just personal. So, the question for every agency that intends to share data is – how is an external partner assessed beyond just checking for compliance on paper?”
“So, how will the Government agency decide when data can be shared with external partners? Under the amendment Bill, any sharing of data with external partners must still be tied to the same seven public interest purposes set out in PSGA. What this means is that data cannot be shared just because it is convenient or efficient for agencies. It must clearly support a real public need – whether that is helping residents receive services more smoothly, ensuring essential functions continue during disruptions or strengthening the stewardship of public funds, or enabling agencies to work together to solve complex problems. At its heart, the principle is simple: data should only be shared when it genuinely benefits people, is appropriate for the situation and is backed by a strong public interest reason. But purpose alone is not enough. We also need strong documentation because every decision to share data ultimately affects real people. Under the amendment Bill, any sharing with external partners must be backed by a Ministerial direction. If the partner is outside the public sector, an additional layer of authorisation is required. This two-tier structure ensures that agencies spell out clearly why the data is needed, what exactly will be shared, what safeguards must be in place and who is accountable. This is important and I am glad that the Bill specifies this because it creates a transparent audit trail that shows not just what is to be shared but why, with whom and under what conditions? Most importantly, it ensures that these decisions are not made quietly or casually at an operational level. They are reviewed and approved at the right level of leadership, with clear responsibility for protecting the trust Singaporeans have placed with the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill. Since its introduction in 2018, the PSGA has strengthened the way Government agencies work together, especially in how they share and use data. This makes a real and meaningful difference to Singaporeans. When agencies can exchange information safely and responsibly, families in need can receive help more quickly, agencies can plan interventions and reduce duplications, eligibility checks for support schemes do not require applications, for example, the GSTV, healthcare subsidies and the Silver Support Scheme, and businesses experience smoother, more coordinated support. The Act also makes clear that data is shared only for genuine public interest purposes and always with strong safeguards. The Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill we are debating today seeks to update PSGA so that the Government agencies can share data with trusted external partners, with the right safeguards in place. This will help deliver services to the public more effectively and seamlessly. But as we discuss the Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill, I want to focus on a set of practical questions that matter to Singaporeans: how will the Government agency decide when data can be shared with external partners? What documentation is required? How will approvals be managed? And how do we ensure that every external partner entrusted with public sector data is truly capable of protecting it? These questions are at the core of public trust. Singaporeans expect that when their information is shared across agencies or with external partners who help deliver public services, that it is done with care, transparently and only when it genuinely serves the public interest.”
“Thank you Mr Speaker for your indulgence. The Senior Minister of State, I hear him and I agree with him and I have his assurance on CareShield Life premium. I just hope that we look at it in a more holistic landscape. As the Senior Minister of State have said, long-term care is a larger framework and because the current support framework is based on that same criteria and therefore that is why I am harping on this point because it is a larger impact and I do see families, they are seniors themselves and they care for other seniors or families with disability and that little bit more support will make a big difference.”
“Mr Speaker, I do have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. He says that the AV is not relevant for retirees. I would say it is relevant with regard to CareShield Life premium because the assumption is that people only retire at 67. But that is the reemployment age and many of my residents had to have to retire before that and they are in their early 60s; because either of poor health, sometimes because of caregiving needs because some of their family members require it so they do have to retire slightly earlier. And some, their jobs are disrupted and for someone older, especially a matured professional, it is usually harder to get a job at that age. And so, therefore, it is relevant, and they have no income and if they happen to live in a property that is just slightly above the threshold, they do not qualify. And it is not just for CareShield Life premium, but like I said, it is the same means-testing for across all the other long-term candidates so it sort of exacerbates the point. So, I hope the Senior Minister of State understand that it is still relevant.”
“Yet, we must ensure that Singaporeans understand that CareShield Life does not stand alone. It is complemented by a suite of targeted schemes like MediSave Care, which allows monthly withdrawals for care expenses; the Home Caregiving Grant, which offsets informal caregiving costs; and the ElderFund, which provides discretionary support for those with limited income and family help. Together, these schemes form a layered safety net that ensures affordability, dignity and inclusion across diverse care settings and life stages. I support the amendment as it ensures affordability and sustainability of CareShield Life while balancing inclusivity of the scheme.”
“The principles of supporting our caregivers and their families goes beyond just the CareShield Life premium. So, I do encourage that we continue to review and refine the criterion as we go. We encourage families to be the main caregivers for their family members. In my engagement with our residents, it is heartening to see many families care of their elderly parents, siblings or relatives with disabilities and they live together. If they are living in a private property, AV is used for means testing and they are not eligible for the subsidy support for long-term care if they live in a private property, which generally, in my ward, falls beyond the current threshold. Can MOH consider refinement with the use of AV? Would MOH consider, for example, tiering the AV threshold by age, adjusting the AV cut-off for older cohorts who own only one property? In using AV as a criterion, can the number of those requiring caregiving and living in the household be a factor for assessment? This will support the sandwiched generation. Refining AV as a criterion for means testing for long-term care support is vital for our policies to keep pace with the evolving demographics and caregiving realities as Singapore's population ages. This will still preserve our ethos of shared responsibility, where individuals, families and the Government co-contribute to care financing. Mr Deputy Speaker, CareShield Life is an important component of Singapore's long-term care system, offering lifelong monthly payouts to support individuals who become severely disabled. It provides financial assurance at a time when care needs are high and income may be low, helping families manage the costs of home care, nursing services or caregiver support.”
“They fall just outside the means-tested thresholds, are caregivers for spouses or ageing parents while managing their own health. Several of my residents in Changi Simei do fall under this category. And the temporary transitional support for CareShield Life which is not means-tested is definitely welcome as it applies to all policy holders and it will moderate the premium increase to $38 per year on average and capped at $75 per year on average and can be fully paid by MediSave. The amount of increase may be small, but the retirees who are cash stretched that are not eligible for subsidy support for premiums, the increases may risk them opting out of the scheme even though they may be eligible and are vulnerable. I have called for long-term care policies and support to remain inclusive and responsive to our rapidly ageing population as long-term care is not a one-off but it is an ongoing expense, including premiums. So, based on the current means-testing criteria, if a household has no household income, the annual value (AV) of the home is used as the criterion. Given the higher property valuation in recent years, this impacts those living in modest private property with no income and who wish to age in place. The means testing criterion of AV of property applies not just to CareShield Life but to other long-term care schemes. Hence, those who fall in this category are not just impacted by higher premium for CareShield Life but eligibility for support of other long-term care schemes including MediSave Care, Home Caregiving Grant and the Elder Fund. I know that the Senior Minister of State did give multiple reassurances that no one will be denied of CareShield Life coverage if they cannot afford the scheme, but this goes beyond just CareShield Life.”
“I know that there has already been time given, but I do suggest and I do think that we must do more to help them navigate the full sweep and to understand the caregiving support. I am not suggesting that we force this group to sign up, but what I think we have to do is ensure that people understand the full sweep of the Government schemes available so that they can make more informed decisions and more confident decisions for their long-term care financing. I know that the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) today, as well as the Silver Generation Office play a central role in providing resources and helpline to reach out and help families understand care options, eligibility and application processes. I think more of us in the community need to understand these care options better and to help seniors with low digital literacy and also their caregivers understand the suite of long-term care financing support schemes available. Why does this matter? It matters because it helps bridge the last mile of families who lack coverage and who may not proactively seek help as they may be unaware or just too overwhelmed with their caregiving needs. I would like to speak about affordability of premiums. The affordability of CareShield Life premiums is tightly coupled with the Bill which lays the ground work for the enhancements proposed by the CareShield Life Council, which the Government has accepted fully. And this includes the recommendation for higher payouts and correspondingly higher premiums to keep the scheme sustainable. There is concern about affordability of long-term care for those who do not qualify for subsidy support, particularly retirees. These are often individuals who own modest assets but have limited cash flow.”
“And as the Senior Minister of State has shared, this was a very deliberate decision to allow for some limited time for people to sign up. The Bill proposes the reinstatement of the underwriting criterion for the Optional Group to moderate premium for older policy holders. With the proposed amendment, eligibility now is tied to their disability status. This means that they can only enrol in CareShield Life if they do not have any pre-existing disability as defined in clause 8 of the Bill and the new Fourth Schedule. The definition states that a person is “not disabled” if he or she is able to do all of the ADLs. This intent is to prevent adverse selection risk, where those who are more likely to claim, opt in for CareShield Life. I do agree with the rationale for this stricter definition as it provides clarity of eligibility as it also prevents adverse selection risk. This will keep the scheme fair and more importantly, more sustainable. It does however mean that those in the Optional Cohort with mild disability, who would have qualified under the current time-limited requirements of mild disabilities will now not be able to be covered. And as the Senior Minister of State has shared, this is concerning because one in two individuals in their lifetime will encounter severe disability. These individuals may need the coverage as they age. Since the launch of CareShield Life, as the Senior Minister of State has shared, 1.9 million Singapore Residents have joined the scheme with 900,000 of them, or half of that population of the Optional Cohort opting in. That being the case, we still have 900,000 not covered, and some of them may not have opted in due to perhaps not fully understanding the scheme and therefore not having the coverage.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the CareShield Life and Long-Term Care (Amendment) Bill. The proposed enhancements reinforce Singapore’s commitment to inclusive and future-ready care. It clarifies who qualifies for coverage and strengthens how the scheme is administered and communicated. These refinements lay the groundwork for enhanced benefits for CareShield Life from 2026, including higher monthly payouts and moderated premium increases, ensuring that long-term care for severe disabilities remains accessible and fair. CareShield Life offers lifetime monthly payouts for those who are severely disabled. This goes some ways to help families manage the emotional and financial weight of caregiving. The Scheme is based on our ethos of shared responsibility – where individuals, families and the Government co-contribute to care financing. The proposed amendments clarify the eligibility criteria of CareShield Life for the Optional Group – those born in 1979 or before, or aged 46 and above in 2025. The intent is to ensure fair and consistent eligibility and claims for the cohort while balancing inclusivity with scheme sustainability. These proposed enhancements are welcomed moves. But as we refine CareShield Life, we must also examine the lived realities of those navigating it. So, while I support the proposed amendments, there are a few points I would like to speak on: one, the underwriting criterion for the Optional Group and the implications for them; two, the affordability of premiums for retirees without subsidy support Given the importance of coverage for severe disability and to encourage more in the Optional Group to sign-up for CareShield Life, currently those with milder forms of disability can sign up for CareShield Life.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I just wanted to give some context in terms of my supplementary question. The reason why I asked this is I have seen several appeals with regard to the launch of the Simei Symphony that is part of that launch. Many families were coming to appeal because they do want to stay with their families. I noted Minister's point about the numbers in terms of those who had a queue number because I had several residents who came to see me who had many more attempts, some with three or four attempts at BTO applications, and were not successful. To give the context, for inter-generational caregiving needs, many do want to stay within the area, not just in Simei, for my residents of course, but even in the East they have been applying. Given that these proximity schemes or other priority schemes are giving residents more ballot opportunities, would the Ministry of National Development consider refinement to the balloting process that would allow the Proximity Scheme to give real priority for those who have attempted several times within an area that is close to their family, or may be, perhaps, even in extending the proximity area, may be beyond the four kilometre?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do know that U-Save and GST vouchers are for those middle-income and those in public housing. My question was really for more the retirees who live in private properties, who do not have access or eligibility to these U-Save vouchers. While the increase is small in the light of high cost of living, it does impact our retirees. So, I would ask if there would be consideration of support schemes that could help our retirees who live in modest private property.”
“By embedding structured, hands-on learning within real-world settings, apprenticeships also offer a scalable pathway for mid-career transitions, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and inclusive talent development. Strategically, apprenticeships embed adaptability, deepen knowledge transfer, and foster lifelong learning. They do not just fill jobs. They have the potential to renew industries, empower individuals, and help Singapore stay agile in a fast-changing world. Mr Speaker, unity and opportunity are two sides of the coin. When we build stronger bonds and access to opportunities, we deepen the sense that this country is worth investing in – not only for ourselves, but for one another; a Singapore that we are proud to call home. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“I have spoken many times in this House that Singapore must grow and have opportunities to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs and I believe having meaningful work gives Singaporeans confidence not just to make a living which is very important but also to feel included and to have a sense of purpose, belonging and commitment to the community and to the nation. We must ensure that every Singaporean, regardless of age or background, or where we start, can aspire to seize these opportunities. That means investing in skills, supporting career transitions, designing workplaces that are inclusive and progressive. It means refreshing our economic blueprint to stay nimble in a complex world – so that growth uplifts and not divides. So, how can we wholistically rethink our learning systems in an age of rapid change, and disruptions? Our learning system today is front-loaded and segmented. Internships help to mitigate with opportunities for industry exposure. But how can we build an ecosystem that supports and empowers our workforce to be work ready? I think apprenticeship can prepare our young for work and cultivate lifelong learning. By combining work exposure and integrating it with the learning in schools, it may serve as a means to develop a workforce that is adaptable and inclusive. It offers not just skills, but purpose – through real-world experience, mentorship and meaningful contribution. To unlock its full potential, employers must step up earlier, much earlier in designing pathways with schools, offering industry exposure before graduation and guiding young talent from the start. This early engagement strengthens the bridge between learning and work, aspiration and opportunity.”
“It is about giving every Singaporean that chance to thrive, to contribute and to shape the future we share. Technological disruption is accelerating workforce transitions, creating both opportunities and anxieties, affecting opportunities for our young and matured workers. This brings me to the point on what do we do to ensure that businesses contribute to developing an empowered workforce that is ready to seize the opportunities and create jobs. The Ministry of Manpower's strategic plan to build a future-ready workforce by encouraging a skills-first approach to hiring will help unlock new talent pools, giving individuals a fair shot based on their skills. Supporting companies to create rich career pathways within their organisations, and I repeat this, within the organisation. As they transform, it is important to help retain and stretch our talent, to help them grow and allow them to thrive with these changes. To drive the transformation of the workforce from within the organisation, I am glad that the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development will support the uplifting of human resources professions and the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package will seek to ensure that the technology becomes a tool for inclusion and not displacement. But as we look ahead, we need to take one step back and ask ourselves if we can take a larger view of the whole system and not just specific segments, such as our young graduates, mid-career or matured workers. Is there a better way to achieve our desire of an empowered and future-ready workforce? How can we bring our learning systems to support our people to be work ready?”