Low Wu Yang Andre
Singapore
“Parliament is being asked to extinguish citizens' legal rights without being given the basic information to assess whether that is appropriate, who was affected, by how much and why restitution, that is, refunds to the affected individuals, especially those whose flats have been compulsorily acquired, was not considered.”
“But I think specifically for the media industry, Singapore's media industry is currently – I would not say it is a bastion of a free and open market. We are dominated by two major media companies that are within the Government's orbit.”
“Mr Speaker, a PMET who is pushed by a six-month countdown into a lower paid job that they did not want has experienced exactly the automation outcome that the Government's framework was supposed to prevent, with a small cushion attached for the fall. Raising the ceiling only widens the cohort, but it does not shorten the countdown.”
“Thank you, Speaker. My supplementary question to the Minister of State is, I accept that a primary driver of premium increases is rising healthcare costs. But there is also other levers, such as reducing administrative costs at insurers themselves.”
“That is the future that I fear this Bill is designed to foreclose. A future where Singapore has a genuinely independent press – publications that owe their survival to the readers, not to the goodwill of any government and that can ask hard questions of whoever holds power, including us.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I would like to share that the primary reason for me to ask this Parliamentary Question was driven by concerns I have over a specific vendor, which is Palantir Technologies, which, over the last five years or so, has become the preeminent supplier to governments around the globe of artificia…”
The complete record
Every one of 94 lines we hold for Low Wu Yang Andre, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My questions to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary are in three parts. The first is a bit of a repetition of what my colleague, Mr Fawzi previously asked; but I do not believe his clarifications have been adequately addressed. It is simply about the numbers. Are numbers going to be forthcoming? Are they available? I would really appreciate a straight answer. Second, on the nature of the fees collected, I think my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim has also alluded to this. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier that fees and charges should have been prescribed in legislation – "should have been" being operative term. Now the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is using a number of different terms: "duly", "appropriate", "not wrongly collected", "good faith". I think the simple question is: were the fees illegally collected? On a reading of the fact that this Bill is before us today, that we are regularising the position prospectively, it goes to follow logically that previously, it was not legal. So, perhaps, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could clarify. And finally, it is a very simple question: will there be refunds? If there are not going to be any refunds, why no refunds?”
“Parliament is being asked to extinguish citizens' legal rights without being given the basic information to assess whether that is appropriate, who was affected, by how much and why restitution, that is, refunds to the affected individuals, especially those whose flats have been compulsorily acquired, was not considered. That information has not been provided. The Government's own standard, set as recently as 2024, requires more than this.”
“] Mr Speaker, the Bill that we are debating today touches a very fundamental question of fairness. In simple terms, certain Government agencies have been collecting fees from members of the public without legal authorisation. The Government now seeks to amend the law to retrospectively legalise these charges and to permanently close the avenue for affected citizens to seek recourse through the Courts. What concerns me most is that among these unlawful charges are fees deducted by HDB when compulsorily acquiring flats. As my colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has pointed out, families facing compulsory acquisition of their homes are often already in very difficult circumstances. For these families, every cent that has been deducted is money that they can ill-afford to lose. The Workers' Party recognises that administrative errors made by Government agencies can be corrected, but the way to correct a mistake should not be to use legislative power to wipe the slate clean on past wrongdoings or worse, to strip ordinary citizens of their right to seek justice. The Government must be transparent and forthcoming. It must clearly state how many people have been affected by this error and the total sum involved. It should also explain why it is not considering refunding the fees that were wrongly collected. The Government owes the public a clear and honest account of what has happened rather than using legislation to quietly draw a line under the matter. (In English): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party's position is not that administrative lapses can never be retrospectively corrected. They can, and this House has approved such corrections before. The concern now is more specific.”
“For each of the four agencies in Part 4 – BCA, HDB, NParks and URA – Parliament has not been given the duration of the lapse, the total amounts collected, or deducted without authority, or any account of how many individuals were affected and to what extent. We are being asked to permanently bar legal proceedings without knowing the claims we are extinguishing. The HDB compulsory acquisition deductions are where this matters most. When HDB acquires a resident's flat, the resident is owed compensation as of right. If HDB was deducting its own administrative and legal costs from that compensation without statutory authority, then affected residents receive less than what the law entitled them to. Clause 18 prospectively authorises that deductions going forward. That is Parliament's prerogative. But Part 4 simultaneously declares that past deductions were always lawful and closes the door on any legal challenge. Those who had already commenced proceedings before 7 April retained their rights, but everyone else is permanently shut out from that date, an arbitrary line drawn at the moment of First Reading. I would add only this. If the deductions were trivial and affected very few people, the Government can say so. The information exists. If the answer is reassuring, disclosure costs nothing. Its absence is harder to explain. I will not dwell on this, but it warrants a brief observation. Four Statutory Boards under one Ministry have simultaneously been found to have operated outside of their statutory remit. The Bill regularises the legal position. It does not explain how this came about across all four agencies at once and it puts no mechanism in place to prevent a recurrence. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“That is one possible test for when retrospective legislation may be appropriate and a reasonable one and it is precisely a test that Parliament cannot apply today because the Government has not told us who was affected by these collections, by how much or for how long. We are being asked to bar citizens from bringing claims without knowing whether those claims have could have had merit. There is a second point that the Government needs to address. In the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2024, which addressed wrongly charged Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Government fees, the Government drew a principled line. The 18 fees were acknowledged as genuinely wrongly charged, collected against its own policy intent were refunded. Validation was reserved for a separate category. Fees the Government maintained were correctly charged in substance where the legal basis was uncertain due to inconsistent agency interpretation. Refund for what was wrong in substance validate for what was ambiguous in law. This House approved that approach and now consider where the agencies referred to in this Bill sit on that spectrum. They did not merely charge fees on uncertain legal ground, they collected fees and in HDB's case made deductions from acquisition compensation without proper statutory authority. By the Government's own logic in 2024, that is closer to the category that warrants restitution. Instead, Parliament is being asked to validate without refund and without any account of what was taken. Mr Speaker, I am not asserting that large numbers of people suffered serious harm. I do not know. Neither does this House because Government has not said.”
“Mr Speaker, my colleagues have addressed other provisions in this Bill, including estate upgrading programmes, wildlife and strata management changes and updates to HDB's cost recovery framework. I have nothing to add on those parts. My concern is Part 4, the retroactive validation of past fee collections. Parliament sometimes has to correct administrative mistakes when an agency has been collecting fees without proper legal basis and foundation, and that gap is discovered. This House may need to regularise that position. This is unremarkable in itself. What is not unremarkable is the full scope of what Parliament is being asked to do. We are not simply being asked to validate past collections, we are also being asked to simultaneously extinguish citizens' rights to challenge those collections in court – permanently – for anyone who had not commenced proceedings before 7 April 2026, the date of the First Reading of this Bill. This Is not mere legal housekeeping. It is a significant step and Parliament deserves the information to assess whether it is a justified one. We have not been given that information. In 2023, when this House debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill, a Bill to enable President Tharman to hold international appointments in his private capacity with its operative provisions backdated to the date of his inauguration, then Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated that "backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law". He went on to argue that backdating in that Bill was acceptable because no one was actually prejudiced.”
“But I think specifically for the media industry, Singapore's media industry is currently – I would not say it is a bastion of a free and open market. We are dominated by two major media companies that are within the Government's orbit. So, I would push back on that suggestion that within the media landscape, that investors have high confidence investing in Singapore companies.”
“And I appreciate that Senior Minister of State Tan has clarified that this needs to be read in the context of the full provision, so it is not meant to be a catch-all. I would just like to add that the drafting in the Bill is quite vague, because in para B(2), which immediately precedes the phrasing of "in the public interest", it ends with an "or". So, if you read that together in context, it does seem like 61A(1), para C is meant to be read independently. And if it is read independently, it can seem like a broad all-encompassing power to direct "in the public interest". So, I would appreciate if Senior Minister of State Tan can clarify that that is not the intent. I also had questions about transferee selection. I had asked specifically if the Government will commit to not directing independent media companies that have been subject to a separation order, to then have that business transferred to a Government-linked media company. And I also have a specific question on the newspaper permit, and similarly for the broadcasting permit. If you read section 69A (3)b(ii) of the Bill, it seems to imply that companies that have been subject to a separation order will be obligated to reapply for their newspaper licence or broadcasting licence as the case may be. I wonder why it does not just transfer, as a matter of course; and is this an opportunity for the Government to then subsequently deny the successor entity a newspaper or broadcasting licence? I think that covers the scope of my clarifications. I would just finally add that I still have some overarching concerns about the potential for this Bill to have a chilling effect. I think the Senior Minister of State Tan has mentioned that investor confidence in Singapore is broadly high, and I accept that point.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have several clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan. Sorry, I have not counted them, so I seek your forgiveness for that. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the correction. Firstly, I appreciate that there was only one law firm that submitted a response to the consultation. I believe I was mistaken. The other law firm had published an article on the website, but had not directly responded to the consultation. My first clarification is to my specific question on the scope of designation. I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State has responded in broad terms that the scope of the legislation is meant to cover large players, key players in the middle media landscape. And subsequently, he also confirmed that the intent is not to address the small players. We appreciate the definition of what the Ministry is considering a "small player" and where exactly where the threshold lies, because I think this speaks to our concerns about the chilling effect of the legislation. I also specifically had asked if this IMDA Bill, together with the Broadcasting Act that also is being amended, read together, does the scope of the regulated persons potentially include social media companies, foreign players, but that have a local presence? Also, I specifically asked if entities, like blogs, social media accounts, podcasts and so on, are covered or within the scope. And I asked this because now, you hear about podcasts being acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars. So, it is well within conception that podcasts might well fall under a type of company or entity that may need to be regulated under these provisions. I also had a specific concern about the "in the public interest" line, in section 61A, para 1C.”
“That is the future that I fear this Bill is designed to foreclose. A future where Singapore has a genuinely independent press – publications that owe their survival to the readers, not to the goodwill of any government and that can ask hard questions of whoever holds power, including us. So if this is not the Bill's intent, I urge the Government to clarify.”
“That is precisely what made their publications independently powerful. They could ask hard questions without needing permission from whoever held office. The designation power in section 59(1) is the instrument for pre-empting that possibility here. The Minister can designate any newspaper publisher or broadcaster as a "regulated person" on no published criteria and bring the full weight of this regime to bear. Singapore does have independent media that falls outside the state's orbit. Among them is Jom, founded in 2022. It publishes long-form journalism on Singapore's society, politics and policy. As of October last year, it had around 8,000 paying subscribers. I am one of them. It is not funded by advertising or any Government-linked body. It scrapes by because readers choose to pay for serious journalism. It has yet to flourish. It remains small. Jom is an online publication. On a wide reading, it may well fall within the scope of this Bill. If Jom were ever designated under section 59, all three new powers would apply. Any investor acquiring 30% or more of Jom would need IMDA's prior approval. IMDA could issue proactive directions to Jom on "public interest" grounds left undefined in the statute, with no proportionality test and consultation waivable at IMDA's discretion. And the Minister could order its business transferred to another entity – with compensation the Minister determines, subject to no independent review on the merits. This Bill is not written for Jom as it stands today. It is written for what Jom, or another publication like it, might become in 10 years. A publication with the reach to shape conversations, to hold power to account, and to be read by Singaporeans because it has earned their trust.”
“A press regulation regime needs press safeguards, editorial independence on the face of the statute, so that the regime cannot reach what a publication chooses to investigate or publish. Plurality conditions on ownership approvals designed to protect diversity of voice. Higher proportionality when restricting a press entity than a telecommunications operator. Independent review on the merits when a media entity is singled out by the executive. Transparency around designations. This Bill contains little of these. It takes the structural toolkit or design for network operators – ownership approvals, proactive directions, separation orders – and applies it to entities that produce speech. Mr Speaker, the Government is likely to say that this Bill is about promoting competition. In fact, they have. Let me examine that framing. Our two major media companies today, SPH Media Trust and Mediacorp, are both Government-linked. Both already within the Government's orbit, whether it is formally or informally. Extending regulatory powers over entities already in that orbit makes little sense and does not meaningfully change the competitive dynamics. The more significant read of this Bill, and my read, is that this is a pre-emptive measure, not about managing existing players, it is about ensuring that no new actor, perhaps a well-capitalised private investor or a media group with genuine editorial independence, can build a meaningful presence outside the Government's reach. Think of Apple Daily in Hong Kong, or the Washington Post, both funded by individuals with deep pockets of their own and strong political convictions. Jimmy Lai and Jeff Bezos are not politically neutral figures, but their convictions were their own, not the Government's.”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party does not dispute the administrative case for this Bill. The IMDA already regulates both the media and telecommunications sectors. Drawing on a common framework across both is defensible on efficiency grounds and harmonisation grounds. We accept that. But the argument goes further than that, because digital delivery has converged, because newspapers and broadcasters now reach audiences over the same networks as telephone companies, the Government says that they should be subject to the same regulatory powers. I find this difficult to accept this prima facie without deeper scrutiny. The delivery mechanism may be shared, but the nature of what is being regulated is not. The Bill introduces three significant new powers: a proactive directions regime under the new section 61A, an ownership approval regime under the new section 65 and the Ministerial separation order under new section 69A. My concern is this: this Bill may not be about the media landscape as it exists today. It is about the one that has not yet arrived – a future where genuinely independent media may grow in reach and maturity. And my fear is that this Bill is written to foreclose that future before it has the chance to arrive. Mr Speaker, the case for regulating telecommunications carrier ownership rests on a concrete fear. The infrastructure – cables, spectrum, exchange points – this is neutral. If a single actor controls it, others are locked out. Regulating ownership is proportionate to that. Press regulation is different. Newspapers and broadcasters make editorial choices: what to investigate, what to publish, whose voice to amplify. The power to shape public discourse is categorically different from the power to route a data packet.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have clarifications for the Minister of State Lau and Minister Tan. My clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau is, I am glad to hear that she has put to me that automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. She went on to define that as being intentional about automating repetitive and physical tasks and upgrading the skills of that same worker. So, I am glad to hear that because that is exactly how I have defined augmentation in my speech. And she also noted that I use the term automation in my speech as a shorthand for scenarios where a job is entirely fully automated away at the expense of the worker. And this is abundantly clear. To Minister Tan, he suggested that proposals by my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam and myself, are anchored on the premise that Singaporeans are hapless passengers along for the ride on this AI journey. I would urge the Minister to clarify how he has managed to read that basis into our speeches. And secondly, I would simply use the language of Minister of State Lau as well, that we do not believe that strong social safety nets, and upskilling Singaporeans and urging them to embrace AI are mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a binary equation. In fact, we believe that strong social safety nets are precisely what will enable Singaporeans to take a risk-taking approach and embrace the opportunities that AI will deliver.”
“Mr Speaker, a PMET who is pushed by a six-month countdown into a lower paid job that they did not want has experienced exactly the automation outcome that the Government's framework was supposed to prevent, with a small cushion attached for the fall. Raising the ceiling only widens the cohort, but it does not shorten the countdown. Mr Speaker, the WP's proposal for redundancy insurance scheme is built in the actual Singapore tradition. We pay out 40% of last drawn salary with no income ceiling and no tapering mechanism. It is funded by employer-employee contributions in the same model as the CPF and it covers every worker who pays in, including the professionals the Labour Chief has identified as the most exposed because the contingency it insures against does not stop at $5,000, $7,600 or any other ceiling Parliament may set. The Prime Minister said we must protect every worker. The instrument the Government has selected does not. The WP's does.”
“It is a tax-funded grant gated on pre-redundancy income, closer in design to a means-tested assistance than to insurance against contingency. As currently configured, it pays up to $6,000 over six months in tapering monthly instalments, starting at $1,500 and ending at $750 over the last three months and it is only available to workers who earn $5,000 a month or less before they were made redundant. The Labour Chief acknowledged in this Chamber yesterday that the ceiling excludes PMEs who face the same displacement risk in the AI era and has proposed raising the qualifying ceiling to closer to the PME median gross income level. If this proposal is adopted, it is movement in the direction that the WP has long argued for. But Mr Ng's proposal moves the line, ours would remove it. Raising the ceiling lets more workers into the scheme but it does not change what the scheme does for them. For those who do qualify under the ceiling, the taper carries its own message: a payment that starts high and slowly reduces is not a flaw. It is a countdown. And a countdown pushes a worker to take the first offer, not the right one. MOM's own data tells us why this matters. Of retrenched residents in the final quarter of last year, 43.6% of PMETs had not found new employment within six months. That is the cohort that the Jobseeker Support scheme runs out on. And of those who do find work within six months, roughly four in 10 return at lower wages than before. So, they took what was available and not what their experience was worth. Most of us have experienced how the higher up the career ladder you climb, the longer it takes for you to find your next role.”
“The substantive question is whether our policy architecture matches it. There are three places where architecture is currently miscalibrated. Three places where, today, the system is permitting automation despite promises to the contrary. The Labour Chief yesterday said that AI is also reshaping professional, manager and executive (PME) jobs in higher-end professions, like doctors, lawyers and accountants. The Prime Minister has said much the same – AI will affect Singapore's professionals, managers and technicians (PMETs) who have spent years building specialist careers and who are now being told that the ground below them is moving. At his May Day rally last week, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, "We may not be able to protect every job, but we will protect every worker." The question is whether the instrument the Government has chosen, the SkillsFuture Job Seeker Support scheme, delivers on that promise. The Prime Minister has termed the Job Seeker Support scheme the "Singapore way", a more pragmatic, more Singaporean alternative to the redundancy insurance that is the Workers' Party's (WP's) preferred solution. That reads the Singapore tradition backwards. Mr Speaker, the Labour Chief said in the Chamber yesterday that financial support during the transition is not welfare, it is an investment in worker outcomes. By that test, the tradition has long been built on investments of exactly that kind. The Central Provident Fund (CPF), MediShield Life, MediSave, these are all universal contributary schemes paid out when life's major contingencies hit. Each catches every worker because the contingency it insures against can hit every worker. That is the Singapore way. The Jobseeker Support scheme is not built in that tradition.”
“Mr Speaker, the Motion before this House calls for an AI transition that does not leave Singapore's workers behind. The Prime Minister, the Labour Chief, the Government as a whole, have all said the same in the past months; that this is what they intend. What I want to examine this afternoon is whether the policy architecture we have is equal to the commitment we are being asked to affirm. Mr Speaker, every AI deployment a firm makes is at its heart a choice. The firm can use AI to make its existing workers more capable, more productive, more valuable than they were before or it can use AI to do without those workers entirely. The economist's shorthand for this is augmentation as opposed to automation: augmentation where AI works alongside the worker, and automation where AI replaces them. Stanford economist, Eric Brynjolfsson, one of the leading academic voices on AI and labour markets, has made a convincing case that in an unaided market without deliberate policies steering in the other direction, incentives systematically favour automation. Firms find it easier and cheaper to deploy AI to replace workers than to retrain them. The tax code, the labour market institutions, the cost structures of capital all tilt the playing field. Even though augmentation creates more total value over time, more good jobs, broader prosperity and a fairer distribution of the gains, the default trajectory of an unguided system is automation. The Government's chosen and declared direction is augmentation. The Motion before us today assumes augmentation. The Labour Chief in this Chamber yesterday put the same commitment in his own words – not AI instead of workers but AI working for workers. The philosophical direction is settled across the aisle.”
“Thank you, Speaker. My supplementary question to the Minister of State is, I accept that a primary driver of premium increases is rising healthcare costs. But there is also other levers, such as reducing administrative costs at insurers themselves. So, the insurance industry as a whole has a big effort towards driving down administrative costs, third-party processor costs, claims processing costs, things like that. Has the Ministry considered policy levers to incentivise insurers to have these cost savings pass on to consumers in the form of moderating premium increases, or even reducing premiums, as opposed to these cost savings directly going to insurers' profit margins?”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. I would like to share that the primary reason for me to ask this Parliamentary Question was driven by concerns I have over a specific vendor, which is Palantir Technologies, which, over the last five years or so, has become the preeminent supplier to governments around the globe of artificial intelligence, data and security solutions. I am not sure if the Minister of State is at the liberty to disclose if we do have any ongoing contracts with Palantir, but I think even if the answer is no, the broader concern remains that overseas legislation like the United States' Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act compels these US-based companies to disclose data in their legal system from foreign countries. Even with data residency in mind, the Act still compels them to disclose this data. What assurances can the Minister of State give that we will not be subject to such compulsions?”
“We want future Singaporeans to look back at this moment and see a generation that designed with the water, shared what it learnt and left a coastline more alive than the one it inherited. This is a compact worth making. We are not the owners of this coastline, we are its stewards, and future generations will judge whether we kept it well.”
“The question is whether Singapore captures that value or whether we simply execute the work and let others package and export it. So, I would ask the Minister if there is a deliberate strategy to position Singapore as the global centre of excellence for tropical coastal resilience to ensure that the expertise developed through this $100 billion programme generates not just a protected coastline for Singapore but a new export industry, one that creates high-value jobs for Singaporeans and allows us to serve Jakarta, Manila, Dhaka and the small island states of the Pacific with solutions designed for their conditions. And there is an additional dimension beyond commerce. Singapore does not exist in isolation. The SIJORI Growth Triangle – Singapore, Johor, Riau – is deeply integrated with our economy and our workforce and our daily life. Flood risk in these communities is not an abstract concern for us. Helping our immediate neighbours build resilience is straightforward in Singapore's interest. A Singapore that exports coastal resilient expertise is not being just generous; it is being strategic. Mr Speaker, let me close where I began, with the water. Every generation of Singaporeans has wagered on this island's future. The founding generation wagered that city with no hinterland could become a nation. The generation that built our water infrastructure wagered that necessity could become self-sufficiency. Both were right. The generation now in Parliament is being asked to protect this island and the relationship with the water that made us for the generations that follow. I believe we can do more than just protect what we have.”
“These nations need solutions, and the dominant global expertise in coastal protection, the Dutch model, built over centuries, was designed for temperate conditions, for clay soils and North Sea storm surges. Not for tropical peat that subsides at five centimetres per year, not for monsoon hydrology and compound flooding and not for the mangroves and coral reefs that must be both engineered and ecologically sustained. Researchers have documented what they call the impasse in transferring Dutch delta plans to Jakarta. The soils, the institutions and the ecological conditions are simply too different. The Dutch water export sector generates nearly €10 billion annually. The Bangladesh Delta Plan, the Mekong Delta Plan and the rebuilding of the City of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Dutch expertise sits at the centre of all of them. They turn centuries of national need into a global industry, and that is a model worth studying and emulating. Singapore is positioned to do for the tropics what the Dutch did for the temperate world. We have the research infrastructure – the Earth Observatory of Singapore, the Tropical Marine Science Institute, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore – and we have the training networks. The Singapore Cooperation Programme has trained close to 150,000 officials from over 180 countries. We host the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre and we lead on green finance through the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy and we now have, through this Bill, a legal and regulatory framework for tropical coastal protection being built from first principles. The intellectual property being developed through this programme, the engineering standards, the legal frameworks and the climate models represent enormous potential value.”
“So, I would ask the Minister to let the Code of Practice embed an active design philosophy, one that goes beyond technical standards to incentivise integrated water-positive solutions, especially nature-based ones. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me turn to what I think is the most forward-looking dimension of this moment. Singapore is committing $100 billion over 100 years to coastal protection. We are building legal frameworks, engineering standards, a digital Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan and a technical Code of Practice. We are adapting polar technology for tropical conditions at Pulau Tekong. We are generating what the Centre for Climate Research Singapore describes as the world's highest resolution climate projections for Southeast Asia. We are doing all of this on a tropical island in an equatorial climate surrounded by the ecosystems – mangroves, coral reefs, tropical peat coastlines – that define coastal defence in this part of the world. No one else is doing this at this scale in this geography. That matters because the countries that need coastal resilience expertise most urgently are not the Dutch. They are our neighbours. A landmark 2019 study in Nature Communications found that by 2050, land currently home to 300 million people will experience annual coastal flooding and five of the six most exposed nations are in Asia. Jakarta alone has 40% of its land below sea level, with some districts sinking at 180 millimetres a year. Ho Chi Minh City already loses $1.3 billion annually to coastal flooding and the Maldives faces projected damages of up to 12.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100.”
“Copenhagen has redesigned entire boulevards to channel floodwater while remaining fully functional streets. These are not compromises. They are celebrated urban transformations; places people actively want to be that also happen to function as flood management systems. Singapore also already knows how to do this. Marina Bay is simultaneously a reservoir, a tidal barrier and one of the most iconic public spaces in Asia. We did not choose between flood defence and urban liveability. We achieved both. The "Long Island" project off the East Coast, with 20 kilometres of new waterfront, is an opportunity on the same scale. The engineering case is being made. What I would ask is that the design case be made with equal ambition. Not just how do we protect this land from the sea, but what kind of coastline do we want future Singaporeans to inherit. Designing with water does not prescribe a single solution. It is a broad philosophy that can encompass built solutions, hybrid structures or nature-based solutions. But the last category, nature-based solutions, deserve special mention because of the scientific case for it being so strong. A 2025 study in Nature's Communication, Earth and Environment found that mangrove forests wider than 500 metres dissipate at least 75% of incoming wave energy. Coral reef restoration costs roughly one-fifteenth the per metre cost of artificial breakwaters. Singapore's own 100k Corals Initiative, launched in December of 2024, is already integrating living reefs into our coastal protection strategy. The science is clear. Nature-based solutions are, in many cases, superior to hard engineering – on cost, on performance and on liveability.”
“I want to make two arguments: one, that how we design our coastal defences matters as much as whether we build them; and two, that what Singapore builds here has the potential to serve not just our own shores but the shores of nations across our region and in doing so, build a new pillar of Singapore's economy. Mr Speaker, I want to begin with a question of philosophy – the design philosophy that will be embedded in the Code of Practice flowing from this Bill. The conventional framing of coastal defence is adversarial – water is the threat, infrastructure is the shield, we build the wall, we hold the line and we keep the sea at bay. But this Bill already contains the seed of a different philosophy. It introduces concept of the transiently floodable area, a coastal zone designed to accept water periodically, rather than resist it permanently, it opens the door to designing with water rather than purely against it. So, my question to the Minister is about execution. Will the Code of Practice merely dictate technical details, like the height of sea walls and the specifications of pumps, or will it actively incentivise developers and landowners to think about what these spaces could be for the 99% of the time that they are dry? A transiently floodable area that is well designed becomes a park, a waterfront promenade, a community space. One that is not well designed becomes a fenced-off eyesore. And which Singapore do we want to build? This is not a novel ambition. Some of the world's most admired cities already have shown what designing with water looks like in practice. Rotterdam has water squares, which are sunken public plazas that fill during heavy rain and function as parks and markets the rest of the time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Our identity as a nation is inseparable from identity as an island. We were a small coastal settlement before we were a colony and a natural harbour before we were a nation. The Singapore River was what made us prosperous and the Straits of Malacca made us globally relevant. This is not incidental to our story. It is the whole story, and it is not unique to us either. Wherever human beings have built something lasting, they have built it near water. And today, 40% of the world's population stays within 100 kilometres of a coast. The world's most beloved cities – Shanghai, New York, Barcelona, our own Marina Bay – they sit at the meeting point of land and water. This Bill is protecting the relationship between us, our island and the sea that made it. Mr Speaker, the decisions we make as we implement this Bill will not be felt by us, but by Singaporeans who are, today, in primary school, in their parents' arms or not yet born. Singapore's own climate scientists project sea levels around our island could rise by up to 1.15 metres by 2100, and up to two metres by the middle of the next century. To put that in perspective, a two-metre rise would submerge most of Kallang and Marine Parade, and parts of the Central Business District as well. So, we are legislating right now for the people who will live in that world. And that is the reason I want to speak today, about what we are defending for and what we can become in the act of defending it.”
“Thank you, Chairman. My clarification is to the Acting Minister. I thank him for his comprehensive overview of the measures we are taking to help our elderly Singaporeans combat ageing-related frailty. There was also another thrust to my cut, which is about making strength training more accessible to Singaporeans at large, and I wonder if the Minister has a response to my suggestion to leverage our existing fitness corners as a means of providing easy access to strength training for the rest of Singaporeans.”
“There are over 3,400 of them – free and accessible across our estates and parks. Many already include strength oriented equipment, but effective strength training requires progressive overload, the ability to increase resistance as you get stronger. The beginner starts at five kilogrammes and then moves up to 20, 30, 40 over time. Variable resistance machines make that possible, but our fitness corners today largely do not possess them. Instead, they largely feature equipment that focuses on encouraging mobility and fixed resistance machines. In their current guide, they serve a limited demographic. We should increase their utility and therefore, I have three suggestions for the Ministry. Firstly, lead by example, Sports SG already directly manages 10 sport in precinct facilities with more to come. You can upgrade these first, and for upcoming plan builds, incorporate variable resistance equipment from day one. Two, we should work with NParks to incorporate variable resistance equipment into park fitness corners as they come up for renewal or upgrading. And lastly, for HDB fitness corners under town council management, we should develop a national framework with pre-qualified standards, recommended suppliers and co-funding pathways through Sports SG, so Town Councils can upgrade without running full procurement exercises. Chairman, aerobic fitness is inherently accessible. Let us make strength training so too. Consolidation of NYSI, SSI and SSP”
“Chairman, to go for a run, all you need is a pair of shoes. You step outside and go. There is no membership, no queue, no need to travel to a gym. Strength training has no equivalent and I want to make the case today that it should. The science is clear. Strength training is not just for the muscle bound body builder, it is for everyone. Bone density peaks around age 30 and decline steadily thereafter. Aerobic exercise slows the decline, but strength training has the potential to reverse it. Building bone, building muscle and reducing the risk of falls and fractures in ways that cardio alone cannot. The World Health Organization recommends two full body strength sessions per week for all adults. I think most Singaporeans are not meeting that target. I will speak personally. Before my daughter was born six months ago, I went to the gym two or three times a week. Since she arrived, I have gone fewer than 10 times in total, not because I do not want to go, but because 15 minutes travelling there and then 15 minutes back, is 30 minutes that a young father cannot find. If there were a resistance station at my void deck, I would use it every other day, I am sure of this. I am not alone. The elderly resident maintaining muscle and bone density, the beginner who would not know where to start in a commercial gym, the time press parent. The barrier looks different for each, but it is the same barrier. Active SG Gyms deserve credit. They are affordable, well distributed, well equipped, but they require a trip. You need to check if the capacity is full and often, at peak hours, you need to queue for equipment. And for many who have never set foot in a gym, the sign-up and the unfamiliar environment are barriers they never overcome. Our fitness corners could bridge that gap.”
“Therefore, I urge the Government to incorporate provisions for express rail services on the Seletar Line from the outset, specifically, bypass tracks at non-interchange suburban stations. Bypass tracks would allow us to serve every major underserved catchment along the line's alignment – Simpang and Yishun East, Seletar and Jalan Kayu, Whampoa and the greater Southern Waterfront – with local trains while express services overtake local services at these stations to reach downtown core at speed. The time to make this decision is during current feasibility studies and not after ground-breaking, and certainly not after the line is in operation. Sir, we ask young families to move further out in pursuit of affordable homes. The least we can do is to bring them back to the city at speed. I urge the Ministry to plan the Seletar Line with the foresight that the NEL lacked and the ambition that the next generation of Singapore deserves. Rapid Transit System”
“Chairman, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 sets an ambitious target of nine in 10 peak public transport journeys completed within 45 minutes. As a Punggol resident, I speak from experience. A 45-minute door-to-door journey to the city is for myself and most of my neighbours a pipe dream. In a city where housing comes at a premium, the families who live in Punggol, Sengkang, Woodlands and other far-flung towns have made pragmatic choices about where to put down roots. Every morning, they pay for that choice in time. We should not have a two-speed Singapore where time is a privilege of the few. Ambitious targets require ambitious infrastructure. To understand what happens when ambition falls short, we need to look no further than the North East Line (NEL). My fellow Members and I have filed multiple Parliamentary Questions on the NEL's capacity crisis over the months. Solutions to the crisis are in short supply. Longer trains would require excavation works that would disrupt the line for over a year. Selective door operation has been studied and rejected. Even at maximum peak frequency, commuters at Hougang and Kovan watch full trains pass them by. Residents in the North-East have become resigned to long crowded commutes. We built a NEL without the headroom to grow it. That decision is now permanent. The Seletar Line gives us a chance to do better. In 2018, express services were studied for the Cross Island Line and rejected on cost-benefit grounds. But a point-in-time cost-benefit calculation is the wrong basis for infrastructure that has to serve multiple generations. In Seoul, their Metro Line 9 faced identical scepticism of their express service. Demand caught up, and then some. Infrastructure of this scale does not just serve demand, it will generate it.”
“It may therefore be useful for an academic transcript to reflect multiple components, knowledge and technical skills, evaluative and applied capabilities and interpersonal competencies. While the first component may be more objective, the latter two are arguably more important. Internationally, examples are emerging. The University of Michigan has piloted skills transcripts for engineering students to highlight teamwork, problem-solving and technical proficiencies. The Stanford University Integrative Learning Portfolio Lab helps students create digital portfolios that capture academic, co-curricular and personal experiences beyond traditional grades. In Singapore, Temasek Polytechnic is pioneering a skills transcript for students graduating this year. Could the Ministry elaborate on what is doing to encourage or support innovation in learning assessment, whether there is ongoing research in this area and what can be done facilitate systematic sharing of good practices and learning points across institutions? New Agency for Lifelong Learning”
“I would like to know what plans the Ministry has to support IHLs in doing so and, in particular, what can be done to facilitate the evaluation of outcomes and to promote sharing of learning points and propagation of good practices more systematically across IHLs. It is also clear that AI will significantly influence how student learning is assessed. If instructors assign take-home essays, I think it would be unrealistic to ask or expect students not to use AI tools. Trying to police unauthorised AI use could lead to contentious disputes between faculty and students in all but the most clear-cut cases. Fortunately, there are alternatives. Where the objective is to assess independent thinking without AI assistance, instructors may use supervised assessments with restricted Internet access. For take-home assignments, a larger proportion of marks come from vivas or oral examinations to evaluate the student's thinking process, even when AI tools are used. With different forms of assessment, there is also a need to better reflect the range of knowledge and skills that students acquire. A single course grade may not fully capture a student's competencies and skills particularly when there are both technical concepts and skills to master, as well as an evaluative or problem-solving dimension. Take a business course for example. Students are expected to master economics, accountancy and business concepts, apply these to business decisions through case discussions and collaborate effectively in teams. A single course grade or Grade Point Average offers limited insight into these distinct dimensions.”
“Students will need to know how to use AI tools and interpret AI output with discernment, as many Members have raised, while new technologies can enable more personalised learning experiences. On the other hand, there is genuine concern about cognitive offloading if students rely excessively on AI. For instance, an MIT study published last year found that heavy reliance on AI tools for essay writing may lead to long-term cognitive harm as measured through brain scans. Students who repeatedly relied on AI had weakened neural connectivity, poorer memory recall and had a reduced sense of ownership over their own writing. This underscores that there is no substitute for building foundational skills in thinking and writing. So, there is a need for clarity on what should change and what should be retained in regard to education in the AI age. What is becoming clear is that tertiary education, in particular, needs to be revamped more quickly. When students can acquire knowledge for themselves with the help of AI tutors that are available around the clock, IHLs need to consider what value they can bring to their students and hence, how to make the best use of curriculum time. It should no longer be about lecturers downloading information to students. Time spent in classes would be more productively used for case discussions, problem-solving and Socratic dialogue with facilitators and peers, to maximise opportunities for mutual learning, evaluation and reflection. IHLs are also uniquely positioned to help students develop interpersonal skills, make friends and build networks. To their credit, our IHLs are already alert to the needs in this changed environment and are feeling their way forward. Various pilots are being done to revamp curriculum and update instructional methods.”
“Thirdly, we must look beyond our shores. Singapore prides itself on being open to the world and our upskilling framework should be no different. There is a vast ecosystem online of world-class universities offering Masters level micro-credentials through various platforms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) MicroMasters Programme on edX and Georgia Tech's Michael Masters in Analytics, which stacked directly towards their fully accredited and well-regarded online Master of Science and Analytics, are exactly the kind of high signals stackable credentials that carry global employer recognition. I ask the Minister to extend SkillsFuture Credit eligibility and Career in Skills Passport Recognition to such credentials from reputable overseas universities, not to replace our IHLs but to fill gaps while our local capacity develops. The Prime Minister has made AI a centrepiece of this year's Budget. The world not waiting, our workers are not waiting. Our continuous education, ecosystem must keep pace. AI Impact on IHL Teaching and Assessment Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a university educator and administrator. As I follow the recent discourse on AI and education both in Singapore and globally, I observe two seemingly polarised views on the impact of AI on education, particularly higher education and CET. One is that little will change and the other is that everything must change in the age of AI. I see elements of truth in both views. On the one hand, AI will affect both content – what is taught – and instructional methods – how knowledge is shared and learnt.”
“Chairman, in my maiden speech at the debate on the President's Address, I said that SkillsFuture risks is becoming a supermarket of choices, plenty of choice but no clear ladder to climb towards better career outcomes. Today, I want to return to that concern and ask the Ministry to take three concrete steps. The urgency is real. According to Randstad Workmonitor 2026 Report, global job postings requiring AI agent skills surged by over 1500% in 2025 alone. A three or four-year bachelor's degree cannot keep pace with that kind of velocity, and neither can our current continuous education ecosystem that is still struggling to get employers to recognise lifelong learning credentials at all. Firstly, as I suggested in my maiden speech, the Careers and Skills Passport should evolve into a dynamic living credential. Right now, it functions largely as a digital filing cabinet. Former Education Minister Chan articulated a vision in July 2024 of a living ecosystem, where micro-credentials from across our IHLs stacked into formal qualifications. That vision remains aspirational. I ask the Ministry to set a concrete timeline for full-cross IHL recognition across universities, polytechnics and our ITEs so that adult learners can build towards a credible recognised qualification piece by piece with each step appropriately documented in the Careers and Skills Passport. Secondly, cross recognition only works if there is enough worth recognising. I welcome the new AI programmes our IHLs have been launching. But the pace of market demand is out running the pace of supply. I ask the Ministry to set explicit targets for IHL micro-credential offerings in fast-moving sectors and to report progress against those targets annually so that we can hold ourselves accountable.”
“This is directed to Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. So, my question is, does the Government have any perspective on my suggestion to criminalise high-pressure sales tactics that prey on our vulnerable populations, especially given our tough line on scams and scam syndicates? The way I see this is, essentially, in-person scams is the same playbook – they leverage on fear and anxiety, and they prey on the vulnerable, and the sums involved of hundreds and thousands of dollars can really be quite eye-watering.”
“The "abus de faiblesse", abuse of weakness crime, carries up to three years imprisonment for exploiting a consumer's age, illness or psychological vulnerability. The UK's consumer protection legislation similarly expressly prohibits aggressive commercial practices, with penalties extending up to two years imprisonment. Chairman, when a business confines a vulnerable senior in a room, manufactures a medical scare and then extracts their life savings through coercion or psychological tactics, the law must have a name for that and consequences to match. Through-train Initial Public Offering for Technology Venture”
“Voluntary compliance agreements after the fact are not deterrence. Predatory Sales Targeting the Vulnerable Deceptive commercial practices drain wallets, but what I turn to now is worse – physical, face-to-face predatory behaviour that has cost some Singaporeans their retirement savings entirely. CASE's February 2026 report recorded a 76% surge in beauty industry complaints last year, with consumers losing over $2.1 million. Consider what happened at a hair salon chain, where an elderly man came in for an $8 haircut. Midway through it, a staff member showed him images on a monitor and told him his scalp was haemorrhaging although no scanning device was ever used. His personal identification number (PIN) was entered into the payment machine while his payment total was covered. He left having paid nearly $1,000 for treatments he never consented to. Another chain of beauty salons – 53 complaints, exceeding $980,000 in total. In one case, a single consumer was charged at least $370,000. More than 40% of complainants were aged 60 and above. Finally, Nail Palace. Its managing director was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in September 2024 – but note this – for contempt of Court, for failing to notify customers of injunctions against the chain, but not for the original predatory behaviour. That was handled as a civil matter throughout. The gap in the law is precisely what must be closed. So, this is my final ask: I invite MTI to consider working with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Chambers to examine criminalising severe predatory sales tactics that are directed at vulnerable people. France's consumer code already does this.”
“These are just the headline cases, but beyond them, quieter practices extract money daily from consumers: fixed-term contracts advertised at introductory rates that apply only to the first few months, deliberately creating the impression that the full contract is cheaper than it really is; trials that convert silently to fully paid subscriptions with no active consent; and third-party services bundled into telco packages, like Netflix subscriptions, free for three months and then cancellable only by navigating a maze designed specifically to outlast the consumer's patience. Each year, CASE and the CCS, between them, receive 40 to 50 complaints about such cases. This is just the tip of the iceberg and many similar tactics abound. The Government has convened a Consumer Protection Review Panel last March. I welcome this and I look forward to its findings. But I also want to add my perspective about what I see as most urgent. One, any advertised price for fixed-term subscription must reflect the average cost across the full contract term. A promotional rate that applies only part of the term cannot be used as the headline figure. Two, we should ask for explicit active consent before any trial converts to a paid subscription. Silence is not consent. Three, we should enforce contractual symmetry. If it is one click to sign up, it should be one click to cancel. Four, we should empower the CCS with direct administrative powers like the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, which can levy fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue for consumer law breaches without going to Court. Today, many companies behave well, but some bad actors act with impunity until they are taken to task. We need to give the CCS stronger teeth to tackle their bad behaviour.”
“Chairman, let me begin with a Latin phrase every lawyer knows – caveat emptor. Buyer beware. This was a doctrine that was borne for a simpler world – a world of physical retail and handshakes, where buyer and sellers stood on more equal ground. This world is gone. Today, the ordinary Singaporean faces sophisticated commercial machinery engineered to extract compliance in revenue through confusion, inertia and sometimes even fear. The CPFTA was not designed for this world. It is falling short today and Singaporeans are paying the price. I will address two dimensions to this failure: first, the deceptive commercial practices that quietly train our wallets of everyday consumers; and second, the physical predation targeting our most vulnerable and destroying their retirement savings. First, deceptive commercial practices. Long part of the playbook of usual suspects, like telecommunications companies (telcos) and gyms, the CCS has already demonstrated that such misconduct is spreading to other industries, like direct-to-consumer brands and e-commerce. In August 2024, CCS took action against Sterra, a water filter brand that falsely claimed that Singapore's tap water was unsafe to drink and sold products marketed as being manufactured in Korea and Singapore when they were in fact manufactured in China. Last December, CCS acted against PRISM+ for fake countdown timers on their website that served no technical function and simply reset to zero; and against COURTS for silently adding unsolicited products to customers' shopping carts. COURTS knew about this in 2024 but they made no changes until the CCS intervened.”
“Three, withdrawals restricted to wealth building uses only – education, entrepreneurship, housing or retirement savings. One more reason this is timely is that the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS) appears set to launch in 2028. A Baby Bond built on the same lifecycle investment logic could roll over directly into the LRIS at maturity. Potentially structured as an extension of the same scheme, drawing on the same commercial providers, a hypothetical $5,000 endowment at birth, compounded over a lifetime, could become $200,000 with a conservative lifecycle approach, or even $400,000 and more with a more aggressive equities-based strategy. And therefore, Chairman, I ask the PMO to commission a feasibility study on the Baby Bond scheme for Singapore. It will be a useful arrow in a quiver to tackle wealth inequality. 4.15 pm Supporting Transnational Singapore Families”
“Chairman, earlier this month, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) published Singapore's wealth inequality data for the first time. Our Wealth Gini stands at 0.55, higher than our Income Gini and likely an underestimate. Wealth and income inequality are distinct problems and they require distinct solutions. Wealth compounds across a lifetime and passes down across generations. MOF's own data shows that social mobility is moderating among children born to fathers in the bottom 20%, the proportion who remains stuck in that bracket increase across successive cohorts. The ladder is still there, but the rungs are getting further apart. The child development account has one great feature. The first step grant is automatic, but the Child Development Account (CDA) is designed for money to be spent on healthcare and childcare, not saved. And its most substantial feature, co-matching of up to $15,000, accrues only to families who can afford to deposit money in the first place. The families who need the help most, benefit the least. I propose that Singapore study the introduction of a Baby Bond. A universal state endowed account opened automatically at birth, invested in a diversified and low-cost portfolio over 18 years. If directed to Singapore equities, it gives every Singaporean child a stake in the nation. Time and compounding do the heavy lifting. A meaningful endowment invested early becomes real capital by adulthood. I propose three design principles: one, a universal starting grant. The same base endowment for every Singaporean child. After all, we are all equal at birth. Two, public funding only and no private contributions. The UK's Child Trust Fund allowed private top ups and it ended up compounding the advantage of families that were already ahead.”
“Not red tape for every business, but a targeted accountability mechanism for sectors receiving extraordinary levels of public support to answer one straightforward question: are the productivity gains from state-backed AI Missions flowing into the wages of our workers or are they flowing into shareholder returns? Mr Speaker, this is a Budget with genuine ambition and the WP supports much of its direction. But ambition must come with accountability. The strategic advantage of AI must be felt in the wages of our workers, not just in the earnings reports of the companies deploying the technology. Own the technology, not just rent it. Protect the worker that is being asked to adapt to it and ensure that the gains of AI accrue to workers and not capital owners. These are not obstacles to Singapore's AI ambitions, they are the conditions that make these ambitions worth pursuing. [Applause.]”
“Paralysis is exactly what we cannot afford in an economy that is undergoing structural transformation. The Government is rightly optimistic about AI's potential, but responsible governance requires managing all our outcomes, including the downside. Redundancy insurance is a suitable hedge; and I urge the Government to act on it. The EIS deduction condition I proposed earlier on maintaining graduate and entry level pipelines as a condition for tax deductions addresses new workers entering the workforce, but there is a parallel question about existing workers. What happens to the person already in the job when AI arrives? Right now, the tax system is largely neutral on the question. A firm can deploy AI to augment its workforce or to replace it and incentives are often available either way. Without a nudge, the default logic of capital is to substitute labour. Labour is expensive. Shareholders benefit when headcount falls. AI makes substitution easier than it has ever been. I propose a targeted retraining tax credit, available only to firms that can demonstrate that they have reskilled a specific worker into an AI-augmented role rather than retrenching them. Retention done right cost less than redundancy. Let us make the fiscal system reflect that. Which brings me finally to the distribution question. Global evidence consistently shows that productivity gains from AI do not automatically translate into wage growth. The Government is investing taxpayer resources and regulatory sandboxes in four national AI Missions: advanced manufacturing, connectivity, finance and healthcare. These are the right priorities, but they come with a public obligation. I propose that an annual AI gains audit, scoped specifically to these four sectors, be implemented.”
“I renew that call today – for young workers starting out and for those mid-career workers who need to stay current as well as for our senior workers looking to embrace new technology. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme currently targets workers aged 40 and above, but the disruption is hitting many earlier. Singaporeans in their mid to late 30s, the Millennial cohort, whose careers were built on skills that AI is now absorbing are facing displacement before they even qualify for mid-career support. Lowering the qualifying age to 35 is a simple, concrete and targeted step that addresses where the disruption is actually occurring. That brings me to the third and final question. AI is not just changing how we work. It is changing what we owe each other. The assumptions baked into our social contract about risk, about reward, about the relationship between capital and labour were written for a different economy. Budget 2026 is an opportunity for us to update this. So, what do I ask for? The WP has called for a redundancy insurance across multiple Parliaments. I argue for it myself in my maiden speech. I will not repeat the following argument today. But I want to offer a different frame for it. Critics have called it a welfare crutch. I want to make the opposite case. Redundancy insurance is the engine of the economic agility that this Budget demands. A worker with six months of financial breathing room can say yes to retraining. They can take the risk of moving sectors. They can be the bold, adaptable Singaporean that the Government is asking them to be. Without that buffer, the rational response to uncertainty is not agility, it is paralysis or grabbing the first job that comes along, plunging workers into a cycle of underemployment.”
“The broken rung is the most visible symptom, but the disruption does not stop at entry-level workers. Mid-career workers face a parallel challenge – skills that took years to build being absorbed by AI faster than retraining programmes can respond. So, what do I ask for? Data first. We cannot manage what we do not measure. I call on MOM to publish granular employment data for new graduates, broken down by sector, role type and AI exposure levels. If the broken rung is happening here, we need to see it in our numbers before we can respond to it. The Government's 400% Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS) tax deduction for AI expenditure is a powerful lever as well. While the details are being firmed up, I ask that the Government require that firms claiming the EIS deduction above a meaningful threshold demonstrate a credible plan for maintaining graduate and entry level roles, not by preserving roles that AI has genuinely made redundant, but by investing and reimagining what junior work looks like in an AI-augmented firm. Public money for AI adoption should come with a commitment to developing the workers who will work alongside it. The Government's announcement of six months of free premium AI tool access for workers taking selected courses is also a welcome step. But six months is a trial period. Mastery takes longer. AI is not a course you complete, it is daily practice, much like using spreadsheet programme is. A worker who builds that habit over six months and then has the access removed is being set up to fall again. The Workers' Party (WP) has called for SkillsFuture Credit to cover AI tool subscription on an ongoing basis.”
“Research published in October last year by Stanford University and ADP found that since late 2022, which was when ChatGPT broke cover, entry-level hiring in AI-exposed sectors in the US has fallen by 16%. For software developers aged 22 to 25 specifically, the headcount has fallen by a greater 20%. We do not have such granular data for Singapore but that alone is part of the problem. This is what I call the broken bottom rung of the ladder. Now, I want to be clear that what is at stake here is not just in economic terms but in human terms as well. The first job is not just income. It is the place where you discover what you are capable of. Where someone more senior takes a chance on you, teaches you something you could not have learned any other way and passes on a standard of craft or judgement that you will carry for the rest of your career. It is where professional identity is formed. If that rung is gone, not because graduates are less capable, but simply because it is now cheaper to automate the tasks that used to justify hiring them, we do not have an unemployment problem; we have a rupture in how knowledge and expertise pass from one generation to the next. The experienced professionals of 2046 are the junior hires of today. If we do not hire them today, we will not have any in 20 years. After my Parliamentary colleague, Eileen Chong, and I put out a call for feedback some months ago, we heard from many young Singaporeans who are living this. Graduates who applied for over 100 roles; who took unpaid internships, hoping it would lead somewhere; who are talented, willing and being told by the market there is simply no place for them yet. They are simply asking for a chance to start.”
“These are just ideas, and there will be other niches that neither side of this House has yet identified. So, what do I ask for? The Government has already committed $37 billion under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2030 (RIE2030) plan, with AI explicitly within the scope. I ask that within that envelope, Edge AI efficiency research – model distillation, quantisation and on-device deployment – be named as an explicit priority, with success measured by commercial export potential and not just domestic adoption. My more specific ask concerns the national AI Missions. The four Missions are already funded. I ask that each Mission consider Edge deployment capability as a key design criterion, whether an efficient, low-latency, sovereign Edge model is appropriate for the use case. And more broadly, I ask that the Government establish a formal process for identifying Singapore’s AI export niches, applying the same constraint-aware logic that produced SEA-LION and MERaLION, across our strategic industries. Not just Edge or Explainable AI. A systemic search for where Singapore has a right to win and a commitment to back those niches with capital. The goal is to ensure that in years to come, Singapore is a genuine owner of commercial AI capability that we can export to the world. Not just a well-compensated tenant but a landlord of our own. But owning the technology is only the first part of the answer. The second is protecting the people being asked to adapt to it, including those the market has already started to leave behind. Mr Speaker, the aggregate economic data looks encouraging – broad-based wage growth and lower income inequality. But averages can be dangerous and they can mask a specific problem that I think deserves more attention.”