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 2 of 2.
“The Prime Minister announced four national AI Missions in this Budget. I want to look at two of them through the lens of Edge AI. In advanced manufacturing, the robots on a factory floor cannot depend on a cloud connection. A production line that hesitates because of network latency or halts because of an outage is a competitive liability. The AI running that factory needs to operate locally and be resilient to disruption. In connectivity, the autonomous systems that manage our containers at our ports make thousands of routing decisions every second. Our ports handle a large proportion of the world’s transshipment volume. These decisions cannot wait for a round trip to a data centre. The export potential follows directly. As the rest of the world scrambles to solve their energy and latency constraints, the software that makes AI run efficiently on local hardware will command a significant premium. We are already being pushed to solve this problem. We should be solving it deliberately and with an eye on selling the solution. I am not a deep technical expert and I am not offering a comprehensive blueprint today. What I am suggesting is a way to think about where Singapore has a right to win, and Edge AI is one possible answer to that question, among many others. The same logic points towards explainable AI – building tools that make the reasoning that AI models make transparent enough for regulated industries to deploy. Finance and healthcare, the two other sectors that are the focus of our AI Missions, are just these industries that operate under obligations to explain automated decisions. Singapore's regulatory institutions and our reputation for the rule of law may give us a genuine advantage in the space as well.”
“We lack the land, the power grid and the capital to train trillion-parameter frontier models. But Singapore has been here before. When we faced constraints in other industries, we did not try to outspend our larger competitors. Instead, we identified niches where our specific combination of capabilities gave us an advantage and we built from there. We have already done this in AI. Singapore has produced SEA-LION and MERaLION, large language models built on open-weights foundations, fine-tuned for Southeast Asian language context and our cultural context. We identified a gap in our region and we filled it. That was and remains the right instinct. We must now look further afield with global ambitions. I want to make the case for another niche, one with global export potential – Edge AI and the efficiency research that underpins it. The rest of the world is running into the same energy wall that we face when deploying. Data centres are straining electrical grids everywhere. The United States (US) is planning new nuclear plants, specifically to power AI data centres. My colleague, Dennis Tan, earlier highlighted in this House the outsize environmental impact of an indiscriminate rush to embrace large-scale models for every minor task, a dilemma that every nation is grappling with. This global problem, in other words, is the same problem our constraints have been forcing us to think about – how do you make AI run on less? This is the field of model distillation and quantisation, compressing large AI models so they can run locally, with minimal degradation in performance, without an Internet connection to the cloud, on a fraction of the energy. The result is what practitioners call “Edge AI” – intelligence that runs on the device itself, rather than routing data to a distant server.”
“Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has set out an ambitious vision for AI. He asks us to harness it as a strategic advantage. I agree with that framing. The question I want to put to this House today is: a strategic advantage for whom? The answer will determine whether Budget 2026 fulfils its promise; that growth must translate into good jobs and rising incomes for Singaporeans. I want to address three things. How can we own the technology rather than just renting it? How can we protect the worker who is being asked to adapt in this new age? And how can we ensure that the gains are shared with the people who helped create them? Let me start with the technology itself. Mr Speaker, I want to push our AI ambitions further. Right now, the heavy fiscal levers in our AI strategy are largely focused towards adoption – identifying where AI can improve our existing industries and subsidising our businesses to deploy it faster. That is necessary but not sufficient. If our industrial strategy remains focused on fast adoption, we are agreeing to a permanent, compounding transfer of value to foreign technology companies. Every API call we make, every subscription, every enterprise licence, is rent paid to a landlord in Silicon Valley or perhaps China. Singapore has never just accepted that kind of relationship with any industry. We move up the value chain, extracting value at the source. We do not just use semiconductors; we manufacture them. And our ambition for AI should be no different. We need to stake out our own defendable positions and capture the value that comes with them. The question is therefore where, specifically, we have a right to win. And I think that the answer starts with understanding Singapore’s constraints. We cannot win a compute war.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Just to set the context, Manus AI is an example of a company that was redomiciled to Singapore from another jurisdiction. The timeline was they were launched in March of last year, moved to Singapore in around the middle of the year and the acquisition was announced in December. So, one cannot help but feel that Singapore's business environment was taken advantage of opportunistically to achieve certain aims and then now, being cast aside. So, my three supplementary questions are: regarding redomiciled companies, are they subject to any targets on hiring Singaporeans? The second follow-up supplementary question: if they are, what timelines are they expected to comply with in order to meet these targets, after redomiciling? And finally, does MOM have any considerations to discourage companies from using Singapore as a flag of convenience, without accruing any benefits to the Singapore labour force?”
“My position on all six limbs of the Motion is: I will I agree with limbs one and six of the Motion; and I do not agree with limbs two to five.”
“I did not make the point that I personally disagree with the ruling. We have not formed an opinion. As Ms Lim mentioned, the WP has our own processes. It is in progress. My point is that the Leader has made the assertion that, based on the way we are going to vote on this Motion, that that would imply that the WP sees themselves as above the law.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of clarification for the Leader of the House. In her round-up speech, she made the assertion, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the voting patterns of the WP's MPs will, in some way indicate that we find ourselves above the rule of law, that we do not agree with the rule of law, or we find ourselves above the law. I respectfully disagree with this assertion. The rule of law implies that we respect the independence of the Courts and their role as an independent arbiter in disputes. And once an adjudication is made and a ruling is passed, we respect it and we abide by it. This is in the interest of order; and if not, we will have anarchy. That does not preclude us from disagreeing with their verdicts and that does not mean that if we disagree, we are above the rule of law. This is clarification that I have.”
“Prioritise blocks with enclosed corridors and densely packed units. Fourthly, we should implement more rigorous inspection regimes for fire-fighting infrastructure – wet risers, dry risers, booster pumps – with published compliance rates and mandatory remediation timelines. And finally, we should support our Town Councils with clearer enforcement mandates, and more monetary resources and support to maintain the safety standards and keep fire safety infrastructure in good working order.”
“Infrastructure does not just age, it degrades and testing regimes may not catch all failure modes between annual checks. Let me address the issue of single staircases. Block 229, the block in question, is a 25-storey point block with only a single staircase. Residents trapped above the burning unit had to flee upwards to the 24th floor, because the single staircase near the fire became impassable. Elderly residents had limited options. Some sheltered in place whilst black smoke seeped into their homes and others relied on neighbours for assistance. Seven people were hospitalised, including a firefighter and a child. This is not an isolated pattern. Several fires in the last years were in blocks with similar single-staircase configurations, where the most direct escape route was compromised. And here is the equity dimension: we have most of our elderly, least mobile residents living in buildings with older infrastructure and design standards from an earlier era. Those least able to move quickly in an emergency are those most likely to be living in such housing. Income can also be a factor. Many rental blocks feature densely packed flats and enclosed corridors as well. We can do more to protect these residents and so here is what I propose. Firstly, we should consider "Fire Escape Viability" – presence of single-point egress or enclosed corridors – as one factor in Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme selection for flat redevelopment. Secondly, I propose that we further expand the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFAD) to all older flats. We prioritise older estates and those with more elderly residents. Thirdly, we should roll out sprinkler systems in common areas of older blocks systematically, and not just as pilots.”
“Firstly, I think we should push for battery swapping systems to be commonplace, like the model that is made popular by Taiwanese firm Gogoro. Batteries charged in controlled, outdoor environments – this serves both safety and sustainability. Secondly, I propose that we build public charging hubs for AMDs, perhaps co-located with electric vehicle (EV) chargers in HDB car parks. Equip them with fire suppression, thermal monitoring and make them faster and cheaper than home-charging. Create the incentive for residents to charge AMDs outside of the home. And thirdly, I would suggest that we implement periodic inspections of AMDs, especially batteries, with enforced replacement timelines as batteries degrade and age. I think once sufficient infrastructure is built out and residents learn new habits, we might even consider that it would be viable to outlaw the charging of PMDs and PABs within homes, eliminating the risk entirely. Mr Speaker, I now move onto my final point. Fire safety in Singapore varies by when your block was built. Newer BTOs have fire-rated doors, thumb-turn gates and multiple redundant evacuation routes. Older blocks sometimes have single-staircase designs, enclosed corridors that trap smoke and densely packed flats. In July of last year, a fire broke out in Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The fire was so intensed that it shattered windows and spread vertically to the floor above. Flames breached the very compartments that our flats are designed around. When firefighters arrived, they discovered that the dry riser was not in proper working condition. Water could not be charged up to the affected floors. Firefighters had to manually haul hoses up 10 storeys via the staircase. This represents a maintenance challenge.”
“When we banned personal mobility devices (PMDs) from footpaths, many users simply migrated to modified mobility scooters instead. The risk was just transferred. The new year has just begun and AMD fires are already making headlines. Just last Friday, four people were hospitalised in Tampines after a PMA fire. As for the fatal Bukit Merah fire I mentioned earlier, the SCDF findings indicate the blaze likely originated from a non-compliant PMD battery pack in the living room. Lithium-ion battery fires are different. Thermal runaway, which is a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases toxic fumes and jet-like flames that breach fire compartments make them extra deadly. The intensity builds in seconds, giving residents little time to react, or fumble for a key. Standard residential fire extinguishers are often useless as well. We tell residents not to fight these fires themselves. Yet, we expect them to store, charge and manage these devices within their homes. On my estate walks, I have had several residents share their fear that their neighbours' AMDs being charged right by their front door, a ticking time bomb that might one day trap them within their own homes. Not much can be done to assuage their fears, as today, as it stands, such charging practices are by and large permitted. The reality is this. Trying to enforce "compliant batteries" is futile when e-commerce makes cheap imports trivial. The upcoming Land Transport and Related Matters Bill that was tabled today double styled on regulation but is unlikely to solve the enforcement gap. Our current approach relies on compliance when it is fundamentally an infrastructure problem. So, these are my proposals.”
“But more worryingly, I believe that HDB continues to offer and subsidise the option of installing an old-fashioned wrought-iron gate with a double cylinder lock as an alternative option. That is, we offer residents the option to replace an old gate that is a fire risk with a new gate that is also a fire risk! We are subsidising the installation of new fire hazards in 2026. This is not legacy infrastructure we are dealing with and managing, but a new risk that we are actively creating. It would seem, to me, that there is an easy path to addressing this risk. Here are my suggestions. One, we should make the installation of new entrance gates with an interior thumb turn an "essential improvement" under the HIP scheme, fully subsidised and not optional. Wrought iron gates with double cylinder locks should also be eliminated as an option. Secondly, we should encourage or even mandate that the pre-installation by developers of gates with single cylinder thumb-turn locks. Easy egress should be the default option and residents that prefer double cylinder locks for whatever reasons will have to make the choice to install it themselves. We should also develop a phased replacement plan for legacy gates with double cylinder locks for estates that are not set to have an HIP exercise in the near future, prioritising older estates. And finally, we should incorporate the risks of keyed gates, additional padlocks and sealed window grilles into public education campaigns on fire safety. The second part of my speech will address battery fires. Active mobility device (AMD) fires rose 21.8% in 2024 to 67 cases while personal mobility aid (PMA) fires saw a dramatic 120% spike.”
“In August last year, a fire broke out in Jalan Bukit Merah. A couple in their 30s were seen at the kitchen window shouting for help. Their neighbours crawled through smoke to reach them but were stopped by a locked entrance gate. Unfortunately, this couple were found unconscious in the kitchen and later died in hospital. We will never know if the locked gate might have been the decisive factor in this case. There is an additional compounding factor. We often install big, chunky padlocks on our HDB gates. This is featured on many entrances. So, now, you have two locks, two keys and two points of failure. In a smoke-filled flat, fumbling for one key is difficult enough. There are also window grilles. Many households install these keyed grilles to prevent falls from height. But over time, keys get lost, or the grilles are not even designed to be opened, to begin with, which means when firefighters arrive with a ladder, another potential exit is sealed shut. So, what is slightly confounding to me is that we are hyper-cognisant of the threats to egress that are faced by new technologies. We now require digital locks that are installed on fire-rated main doors to be certified, recognising that they pose a potential egress risk. Yet, for established practices like keyed gates, window grilles and other risks, we have normalised a clear safety deviance. So, I would also like to touch briefly on the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Right now, as part of the HIP, residents have the option to replace their old gates with a mild steel gate with an interior thumb-turn, so much like those that are installed on new BTOs. Critically, this is a paid, optional improvement, and is not part of the "essential improvements" package.”
“So, today, I want to address three areas where I think we can close important gaps. First is barriers to egress; second, battery fires we invite into our homes and third, the widening gap in fire safety standards across different generations of flats and estates. So, let me take each in turn. Mr Speaker, there is an anomaly in our Fire Code that I think is worth examining. Clause 2.3.9(a) of the SCDF Fire Code stipulates that exit doors must be openable "without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge" from the inside. This is very sound policy. In a panic, people fumble and seconds matter. But this clause specifically exempts residential units. So, the standard we apply to shopping centres and offices is deemed optional for our own homes. This is, of course, a deliberate policy choice. But the question is whether we should revisit it. For decades, our HDB flats came standard with a wrought iron gate secured by a double cylinder lock. So, that is sometimes known as a "key-to-key" lock, that is a lock that requires a key to open from either side. In 2019, HDB transitioned new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects to mild-steel gates with a single cylinder lock with an interior thumb turn that allows for easier egress in an emergency. So, residents in these their flats do not need to fumble for a key to get out. These gates are designed such that it is not easy for a prospective intruder to reach around the bars and operate the thumb turn from the outside. Of course, I think this is a very positive development, but it also means that millions of our flats still have legacy double cylinder locks. For decades, concerns about intruders overrode the need for fire safety. I understand the logic. But this sometimes comes at a heavy cost.”
“Mr Speaker, today I wish to speak on the topic of fire safety in our homes. When I read about the Wang Fuk Court tragedy in Hong Kong, Grenfell Tower in London, or even the Le Constellation bar fire in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago, I think: these are world-class cities, cities with resources, cities with regulations, and yet, fire found a way. To me, a fire feels different from other disasters. Earthquakes feel distant. Typhoons feel abstract. But a smoke-filled corridor feels immediate. It feels like it could actually happen to me. I would venture that many other Singaporeans feel the same. Fire fatalities rose from three in 2023 to five in 2024. And by August 2025, we had already recorded at least eight fire deaths. While this may be a statistical blip, given the small numbers, it is a sobering reminder that fire remains an ever-present danger in our lives. To be clear, I believe that Singapore has strong fire safety standards. Our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are designed as fire compartments to delay the spread of fire until help arrives. Our Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is well-trained and effective, and our fire codes and building codes are well thought out and comprehensive. But our good standards make continued vigilance all the more important. I am glad to hear that the Government has started a review of existing fire safety regulations governing building construction and maintenance work. But we must not limit ourselves to just the lessons from Wang Fuk Court, tragic as it was. We must also be cognisant of other hidden dangers, whether they are established practices that have become collective blind spots or new emerging risks that require novel approaches.”
“Speaker, my clarification is directed to Minister of State Rahayu. I just have a quick clarification to make. In addressing a point made by hon Member Ms Elysa Chen, I believe Minister of State stated that, "Ms Chen would also be assured to know that it is still possible for persons who are still dissatisfied with the decisions of the Appeal Committee to seek to challenge it in the Courts by way of judicial review. We will provide more details on the process at a later time." Sir, I just wanted to clarify if Minister of State Rahayu is still referring to the existing statutory power of the Courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over executive actions or is this envisaged as a distinct process?”
“Yes, I am seeking a response from the hon Member Mr Foo.”
“Yes, my clarification for Mr Foo is, essentially, "reason to suspect" and "reasonable grounds to believe", the two thresholds that we are discussing and we have proposed in our amendment, these are well established legal tests: one is a subjective test and one is an objective test. And the reason we have, on balance, decided that the objective test is better is precisely to avoid situations where you have online harms where, basically, no parties are angels – he said, she said, we said, they said. We have all seen scenarios where influencers have cat fights online. We want to avoid a situation where the Bill is weaponised by one party against another and that is, why we have proposed that the threshold be set at a higher level.”
“Yes, I would like to seek a response from Mr Alex Yeo. Thank you.”
“Belabour the House. So, the crux of my point is that section 19, also a definition of online harm, has the structure of first setting out a definition before proceeding to have a carve-out. So, I do not see why we do not – we cannot treat other definitions and other harms the same way, where we are proposing that you have a broad definition of what online harassment could be, and we explicitly and expressly carve out fair comments, so that there is clarity for everyone who is reading the legislation. Thank you.”
“Thank you. So, I think my response to that would be, I believe Mr Yeo was referring to the defence of fair comment, the defence, the tort of defamation. I think it has been stated that the test for fair comment involves four elements, but none of that refers to malice. So, as stated in the case of Review Publishing v. Lee Hsien Loong, there are four elements to the test. The words complained of are "comments", "though they may consist of or include inferences of facts", "the comment is a matter of public interest, "the comment is based on facts", and finally "the comment is one of which a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved". So, the element of malice actually comes later as a rebuttal to the usage of this defence. I do not intend to belabour the court with an extended discussion on the legalese here. I think suffice to say —”
“Thank you. Before I proceed with my substantive clarifications, I think I want to get a preliminary clarification from the Member. Is the crux of his point on the fair comment issue that essentially he thinks the amendment we have proposed is extraneous because it is already covered by the definition of the harm?”
“Yes, I do. I have a clarification of Mr Alex Yeo.”
“This means content posters are not necessarily informed, the content stays online. It remains visible to the poster; it also remains visible to the victim. None will be aware that the contents' reach has been throttled. The victim will continue to see the harm, wondering if the report achieved anything at all.”
“Subsequently, does it also cover a former Singaporean resident who has now moved overseas, who is still being targeted by the Singapore-based individual? So, I ask the Minister who is protected by this Bill, who is excluded and whether the prescribed connection will be made clearer? Fourth, the exemption for public agencies. Clause 4(2) states that public agencies cannot be given directions or orders under Part 5. Part 5 contains the Commissioner's enforcement powers. This means that if harmful content originates from, is hosted by or is facilitated by a public agency, the Commissioner cannot compel the agency to act. Clause 4(3) goes further. Public agencies cannot be sued under the civil proceedings – provisions in Parts 10, 11 and 12. So, Mr Speaker, online harm is online harm, regardless of its source. A citizen harassed through content on a Government platform or by a Government account experiences the same distress as one harassed on a private platform or by a private account. So, I ask the Minister, why are public agencies exempt from the Commissioner's enforcement powers and from civil liability? What is the policy rationale for the asymmetry and what recourse does an individual have if they experience harassment, perhaps, from a rogue public employee using an official account? Fifth, Engagement Reduction Directions and Class of Material Directions. Clause 40 grants the Commissioner power to issue engagement Reduction Directions. This allows the Commissioner to require a service provider to reduce the engagement of end users with a Class of Material Direction without removing it. Clause 41(3) explicitly states that it is not necessary to give any person who may be subject to a Part 5 direction, an opportunity to be heard before the direction is given.”
“The Bill does not answer this; so, I ask the Minister, will victims who expose their harassers in this manner be caught by clause 10? If not, what safeguards exist in the Bill's design to prevent this? Second, I would like to seek clarifications on standing to appeal where directions are given to platforms. Clause 28 sets out who receives Part 5 directions. Some, including the stop communication and restraining directions, can be issued directly to the communicator, but others, such as Access Disabling, Account Restriction and Engagement Reduction Directions are issued to platforms or administrators. When a direction is not issued to the communicator directly, can they still appeal? Clause 61(1)(e) allows the recipient to appeal, but the communicator is not the recipient. The subsequent subsection says that they may appeal only if they fall within a description, the Minister may prescribe under clause 82. So, I ask the Minister, will the regulations be made to ensure that communicators have standing to appeal directions that restrict their content, even if those directions were not issued directly to them or will this remain subject to Ministerial discretion? Third, the meaning of prescribed connection to Singapore. I understand Minister of State Rahayu has addressed this example. She has given the example of long-term residents in Singapore who will fall under the ambit of this provision. We would like to seek further clarifications. So, it is clear that Citizens, Permanent Residents (PRs) and long-term residents are eligible to make a report. We would like to understand what else the ambit of prescribed connection in Singapore could mean. Does it cover a foreign spouse on a long-term visit pass harassed by someone in Singapore?”
“We appreciate that judicial review is always available, but the scope is generally limited, in this case, it will be generally limited to the process of the Commissioner making their decisions and not about the merits of the case itself. The proposed amendment we have tabled is very limited in scope. It proposes expanding this right of appeal to the Courts to three limited grounds. We understand that a balance needs to be struck and we are striving to achieve that. With reference to Minister Tong's suggestions that that there may be a David and Goliath situation if we avail of appeals to the Courts. We believe that the existing provisions within the Bill, as drafted, notably section 63(4) which provides that there is no automatic stay on directions, even when an appeal process is proceeding, helps to ameliorate that concern. There will be no continuing harm to victims as the appeals process is proceeding. Furthermore, when we avail of the Courts, there are mechanisms that can address some of these concerns as well, such as in-camera private proceedings as well as gag orders to protect the identities of victims. Mr Speaker, beyond these three amendments, I now turn to six areas where the Bill requires clarifications from the Minister. First, I would like to address the scope of doxxing. Clause 10 defines doxxing as publishing identity information where a reasonable person would conclude was likely to have been intended to cause harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation. Here is my concern. If a victim identifies their hitherto anonymous harasser online to warn others in the community, could a reasonable person conclude that this was intended to cause the harasser distress or alarm?”
“The third set of amendments that I will be addressing establishes independent oversight. The Bill establishes an interim appeal mechanism. Clause 60 creates an appeal panel whose members are appointed by the Minister. Clause 63 provides the right to appeal Commissioner decisions to an Appeal Committee drawn from this panel. Crucially, clauses 63(5) and (6) state that no further appeals will be permitted beyond this Appeal Committee. This makes a Ministerially-appointed committee the final arbiter. Our amendment deletes these two clauses and sub-clauses and inserts a new clause C, establishing a right of appeal to the General Division of the High Court. Our proposed appeal mechanism is not unlimited. It is confined to three grounds, a point of law; secondly, that the harmful activity did not occur; and thirdly, that compliance is not technically feasible. This is similar to the appeal mechanism in POFMA. This ensures that the Courts do not become a general review body for every single Commissioner's decision but remain available as an independent check on questions of legality, fact and feasibility. Mr Speaker, this is not about distrusting the Commissioner or the Minister. This is about institutional design. When the state exercises coercive powers, especially a power that could affect livelihoods, reputations and businesses, there must be a route to independent judicial appeal of cases. So, some may say that our proposed amendments may introduce additional burdens on the Courts. I also appreciate Minister of State Rahayu and Minister Tong's earlier clarifications as to the policy considerations at play here. Minister of State Rahayu referred to the inherent right of judicial review, which is still available as there is no ouster clause within the Bill.”
“In the third scenario, a journalist publishes leaked documents exposing corruption in a government-linked entity, but under clause 11 this could also fall under the definition of non-consensual disclosure. Mr Speaker, I do not suggest these outcomes are intended, but the Bill, as drafted, seems to permit them. The definitions contain minimal carve-outs. There are no obvious exclusions for public interest and they do not go far enough in recognising that not all disclosures of private information are harmful and not all uncomfortable speech is harassment. So, our amendments insert these safeguards. For clause 9 we add that communication is not harassment if it constitutes fair comment on a matter of public interest. This is drawn from the established common law defence to the tort of defamation. For clause 11, we add that disclosure does not fall within the definition of if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in privacy. We list seven examples – including exposing wrongdoing, informing the public on matters of significant concern and protecting public health and safety. This amendment is modelled on a well-established balancing test in comparable common law jurisdictions, including the UK. As drafted, it is also very similar to the test as codified in the Australian Privacy Act. For clause 19, we add communication does not constitute instigation if it relates to a matter of public interest. Our amendments do not weaken the Bill. They sharpen it. They ensure that the Commissioner's powers are used to protect victims, but not to chill legitimate speech. They prevent this Bill from inadvertently silencing criticism, investigative journalism or public interest disclosures.”
“This is the same standard used in comparable legislation overseas, including the UK's Online Safety Act and Canada's proposed Bill C63, or their Online Harms Act. This requires evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person, not merely a suspicion. Some may argue this is semantics. We do not believe this is so. In the UK Act, they explicitly distinguish between "reasonable grounds to suspect" in order to begin an investigation as opposed to "reasonable grounds to believe" to take enforcement action. We believe that this is the right approach. The former permits inquiry, the latter permits coercion. The distinction matters. If we are serious about protecting victims, we must be equally serious about ensuring the Commissioner's enforcement powers rest on evidence, not suspicion. Our amendment achieves both. The second set of amendments I will be addressing concern legitimate discourse. Clauses 9, 11 and 19 define three online harms: online harassment, non-consensual disclosure of private information and instigation of disproportionate harm. These definitions are necessary, but we think they are incomplete. Let me give three scenarios. First, a citizen posts fair criticism of a public official's conduct. If a reasonable person were to conclude that that criticism is, "abusive or insulting", and it is likely to cause the official distress, under clause 9, this could be harassment. Secondly, a victim of harassment publishes text messages from their harasser online as a call for help or perhaps, a warning to others, under clause 11 this could constitute non-consensual disclosure of private information.”
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to first declare that I work for a financial technology company that may fall under the definition of online service provider as envisaged in this Bill. Mr Speaker, the WP understands the motivations behind this Bill and we deeply wish to support it but we have some reservations. Ms He Ting Ru has addressed the first question the Bill raises which is would it adequately protect the most vulnerable victims. She has outlined how we can strengthen that protection – I support these amendments. I address the second question: will this Bill be fair, accountable and properly calibrated in its exercise of its powers? The Bill grants the Commissioner significant authority to issue directions, compel removal of content, impose obligations on service providers to reduce engagement with material without the creator's knowledge. These are necessary powers to address real harms, but there are also powers that should be carefully designed for their intended purpose and appropriately constrained by institutional checks and balances. I will address three amendments that address our concerns about the Bill's architecture and six areas requiring Ministerial clarification. Let me begin with our proposed amendments. First is raising the threshold for state action. Clause 26 of the Bill sets the threshold at which the Commissioner may issue directions. The current text reads "reason to suspect". We believe that threshold is too low, too low for the powers being granted. "Reason to suspect" is a subjective test, it permits actions based on intuition or preliminary information without requiring objective evidence. Our proposed amendment raises this to "reasonable grounds to believe".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister and Minister of State. My first question is actually relating the substance of my Parliamentary Question, which is filed for tomorrow, which has not been addressed – which is, I understand, Minister has mentioned many prospective actions that will be taken in response to the Review Panel's recommendations. My question was more has there been any retrospective review of ongoing or past cases, whether it be in 2020 or recently, in response to the Review Panel's findings to make sure that we have not overlooked any other similar cases to avoid another tragedy? I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I understand that Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services were merged into the Protective Service department earlier this year. I think was implicit in Minister's response, but I would like to confirm if the officers continue to specialise in their respective specialties. Secondly, on supply of social work professionals, is there a whole-of-Government approach to increase the supply of social work professionals, be it through incentives or making the profession more attractive to individuals to consider?”
“Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. In his speech, he referred to one of the policy pillars being our reasonable calibrated approach to discussing such views in public, referring to religious issues. I want to refer to the Minister's citing of the IPS 2024 survey on racial and religious harmony and the headline statistic in Annex C, where it is stated that 65.4% of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony is high or very high, and this is on the uptrend from the last time the survey was run. Of course, this is a heartening statistic, but there is some nuance to it. That same report highlighted that there was a perception gap between what the Chinese majority felt versus minorities, quite a significant one, as well as a perception gap between the younger generation and the older generation. Those 35 and below felt that racial and religious harmony was worse than the older respondents. So, my clarification for the Minister is: would the Minister consider recalibrating that reasonable and calibrated approach that the Government has taken with racial and religious harmony in Singapore, given these findings? Maybe perhaps it is not working for certain demographics, such as our younger Singaporeans, who may feel that safe spaces, as my fellow Member referred to, can be more open. Because if we are constantly wary of tripping over, whether it is actual legislation or, perhaps, unseen "out of bound" markers, perhaps these conversations might not be had in the most open and respectful manner.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have filed a PQ on the Seletar Line for subsequent Sitting, so I will just ask my supplementary question today. I understand that feasibility studies are still ongoing. The original indicative timeline that was initially announced for the Seletar Line was sometime in the 2040s. Given that the NEL overcrowding issues are quite bad already today, and I understand the Cross Island Line is upcoming, but the proposed routing for the Seletar Line is likely to be more of a direct parallel and provide more direct loading relief for the NEL. So, given that, will the Ministry consider accelerating the timeline of the Seletar Line's development?”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate it is early days for the VERS policy and I appreciate that we are also in broad agreement about its objectives. I think I just want to raise some supplementary questions to clarify and hope the Minister can clarify that these topics are under consideration as we build up this policy. Firstly, as a preamble, I think we can agree that most of the residents who may be subject to VERS will probably be seniors and the elderly. A lot of them will have paid off their mortgages. They would have been expecting to live in these flats until they pass on. So, how can we assure the public that we will consider these considerations when we try and ensure that these seniors are not left with, let us say, outstanding mortgages that the compensation amount cannot cover, or they are forced to deplete their retirement savings in order to top up with cash outlay, in order to secure replacement accommodation? And secondly, I understand the voting process is also being worked out. Perhaps the Minister can also clarify if we are thinking about doing the voting at the estate level or at the block level? How will we deal with situations where let us say three blocks in a five-block cluster have agreed to it, but two blocks are hold-outs? And also, I understand voting is part and parcel of existing programmes like upgrading. However, the consequences of being in the minority that disagrees and is brought along when the majority agrees to the VERS programme, are much heavier for those who are unwilling to participate. So, how will we make sure that the needs of the minority who disagree are met?”
“My clarification is to the hon Member for Jalan Besar GRC. I thank him for his point on the Jobseeker Support Scheme. We are in agreement on many of the objectives of that scheme. I think the WP differs on implementation. So, through the Jobseeker Support Scheme we think it is a good start, but it actually excludes even the median income earner in Singapore, because the qualifying criteria is $5,000 monthly income and also annual value of your property of $31,000 or less. Our proposal covers everybody. It is a social insurance, it is a risk-pooling approach that will allow for PMETs, which, as in my speech, I had mentioned, almost two-thirds of the Singapore workforce to largely qualify as well. Secondly, to his point on whether it is fiscally sustainable. Our approach is to have this scheme be funded largely by the premiums paid by employees and employers, and we think this is more fiscally sustainable than the Jobseeker Support Scheme, which is funded by taxpayers. The way this scheme can work is for the premium reserves to be built-up in times of relative stability, like today. So, we would say that this would have to be implemented as soon as possible so that over time these reserves can be built up and then they can be drawn down from in times of disruption. 6.52 pm”
“The Government should share information openly with these committees and not jealously guard it as proprietary knowledge. But the deepest trust of all is demonstrated through permissive discourse. When differences of opinion are tolerated – nay, celebrated – in our society, in civil discourse, in the media, in politics. It is why we believe that when disputes over facts arise in our public square, our independent courts and judges should have oversight on what is, or is not, a falsehood. Trust is, after all, a two-way street. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken of the need for us to be a "we first" society. It is a call we can all get behind. But as we heed this call, it is our duty in this House to give the vision meaning for the people we serve. So, if by "we first", the Prime Minister means a secure Singapore where every family has an affordable home and a robust safety net to catch them when they fall, then we are on the same page; and if by "we first", he means investing deeply in the skills and boundless creativity of every Singaporean, then we can work together; and if by "we first", he means trusting our people with the freedom to explore, create and find their own path, then we can take heart. These three pillars – security, investment and trust – form the foundation of a strategy for a thriving people. A compass for our next chapter and a promise about the society we can become. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“The right investments in our people will ensure that AI's promise translates into better wages and better jobs, not just higher profits for shareholders. Yet, even the best-laid plans for security and the most ambitious investments in our people will fall short if they are not built on a foundation of mutual respect and this requires the final and perhaps, most crucial pillar of our strategy: trust. Mr Speaker, I welcome the President's focus on trust as a national priority, but we must be more courageous in our definition of what trust means in a mature democracy. To truly thrive, trust in Singapore must become a two-way street. We have long been asked to trust the Government's judgement, wisdom and intentions. In this new era, the Government must also learn to trust its people with information, with genuine dialogue and with the fundamental dignity of participation. Trust is demonstrated through transparency in governance and that is why the WP has called for a Freedom of Information Act which shows that we trust citizens with the information necessary to hold the Government accountable. When the Government holds data that could inform public debate, it should be shared. When policies are formulated based on evidence, that evidence should be accessible to scrutiny. Trust is also demonstrated through genuine dialogue rather than managed consultation. Defending robust debate shows we trust the wisdom of our people to engage with complex issues and reach sound judgments. The current Parliamentary committee system, while useful, lacks the teeth necessary for true legislative scrutiny. The WP again calls for establishing Standing Select Committees for each Ministry, with MPs from all parties properly resourced to provide meaningful oversight.”
“We possess world-class universities, but we hear of a persistent concern from both employers and graduates themselves, a gap between academic excellence on the one hand and the practical skills that are needed in a modern workplace. Our polytechnics and the Singapore Institute of Technology have proven the value of structured work-integrated learning as a core part of the tertiary curriculum. Given this success, we should push for work-integrated learning to be the norm for as many tertiary students as possible, ensuring our graduates enter the workforce ready to contribute from day one. A targeted grant to help our local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) offset the costs of providing such placements could be a powerful catalyst. But crucially, payouts should be structured to incentivise retention and discourage exploitation. This ensures our graduates enter the workforce with the practical, real-world skills that the AI age demands. Finally, as we pursue our national AI strategy, we must also ensure its benefits are democratised. SMEs should continue to receive assistance to adopt AI tools and AI literacy should be woven into our school curriculum. Students should be encouraged to command it as a creative and analytical tool. SkillsFuture credits should also be allowed to cover subscriptions to AI assistants and tools, ensuring that all Singaporean workers, regardless of their means, are able to utilise the latest and best tools to enhance their own productivity. But above all, we must continue to be vigilant to ensure AI serves our workers, not replaces them. In an age of AI, our people's ability to learn, adapt and apply knowledge quickly is our single greatest competitive advantage.”
“But for all the good intentions, there remains a persistent disconnect, a "last mile disconnect" between training and employment. Many workers still see SkillsFuture as a supermarket of courses, a system that provides plenty of choice but sometimes lacks clear pathways to career advancement. We hear from those who have diligently completed courses, only to find their new certificates hold little currency with employers who still prioritise degrees, certificates and linear work experiences. This is the paradox of our current system. We have built a comprehensive architecture for upskilling, but we have not yet solved the problem of market recognition. The challenge, therefore, is one of pace and integration. Last year, the former Minister for Education articulated a vision for stackable micro-credentials and cross-recognition between our IHLs. We must accelerate this vision. To start with, as we continue to push the IHLs to grow their micro-credential offerings, the existing careers and skills passport should evolve from a simple certificate library into a dynamic, living credential, a system where micro-credentials from any IHL can be seamlessly stacked over time, allowing adult learners to build towards a formal, credible qualification awarded by one of the universities or other IHLs. Backed up by the collective reputations of our renowned institutions, this would go a long way to bridging the disconnect between adult learners and employers. This acknowledges the busy, unpredictable reality of adult life and provides a flexible pathway for all Singaporeans to stay relevant. Secondly, we must address the skills gap afflicting our fresh graduates.”
“Platform work has emerged as the primary economic buffer for this era, offering a crucial bridge for those transitioning between traditional jobs. The Platform Workers Act is a commendable first step to shore up this vital buffer. But it stops short of addressing algorithmic management, the digital boss that controls every aspect of the platform worker's existence. Concerns about a "digital boss" are not new, but the AI revolution brings renewed urgency. These black-box algorithms determine job allocation, pricing, performance evaluation and even disciplinary action. Recent advances mean that they could become supercharged, rendering them even more powerful and even more inscrutable than before. Workers deserve to know when AI systems had made decisions about their lives and livelihoods, and they also deserve the right to human review as a fundamental backstop. We cannot allow the digital economy to become a digital dystopia where human dignity is sacrificed on the altar of algorithmic efficiency. The freedom to explore and chase one's dreams should not be the exclusive playground of the bold or the privileged. By strengthening our foundation of security, every Singaporean will have the licence to try new things because should you fail, you will not have too far to fall. But Mr Speaker, a strong foundation of security is only the first step. To truly thrive, we must build upon it. This brings me to the second pillar of our strategy: investment in our people. The Government has rightly focused its efforts here through SkillsFuture and recent updates like the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for mid-career workers are positive developments. The ambition is correct.”
“The scheme will be funded by small equal contributions from employers and employees amounting to 0.1% of your monthly salary. To put that in perspective, for a median income earner, that is just over $5 a month, and only half of that is paid for by the worker. This creates a true safety net that catches everyone, one that gives workers the confidence to explore new opportunities rather than clinging desperately to dying industries. This represents a profound shift in how we should think about support for the unemployed. In the AI age, career transitions will become the new normal, not the exception. Workers need the security to retrain, to upskill, to reinvent themselves without the spectre of destitution haunting their choices. Housing security must also evolve to acknowledge changing aspirations and economic realities. Build-To-Order (BTO) prices should be pegged to a house price-to-income ratio of three for first-time applicants. We should offer 70-year lease options at lower prices for those who prefer affordability over asset appreciation. The BTO access age for singles should be lowered to 28 and grants should be equalised for single parents who face unique challenges in building stable homes. Housing is not merely shelter. It is dignity, stability and the foundation upon which families build their futures. As someone who has navigated this journey myself recently, I know the anxieties many young Singaporeans face. When we cannot settle into our first homes until our 30s, we are denied the chance to put down roots, to plan for families and to contribute fully to society's fabric. Just as a home provides foundational stability for the family, our economy also requires its own form of security.”
“Singapore's success to-date comes from world-class execution of a sound playbook. But as we chart the course for tomorrow, we must question if yesterday's maps are still adequate for these new waters. Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the Government's and Prime Minister's focus on assurance and cost of living. I agree with the diagnosis, but temporary reliefs are insufficient for the systemic challenges ahead. In an era of AI-driven disruption, we should acknowledge that our existing social safety nets are ill-equipped for the scale of the change ahead. A stronger, permanent foundation of security is required, and this is not charity, but is the cornerstone of national competitiveness. The impact of this AI revolution can already be felt. Recent surveys of US employers showed 25% of AI users expected to hire fewer workers in the next six months, versus just 10% who intended to hire more. We can already see the same early warnings here in Singapore. Younger workers, lacking the tacit knowledge that accumulates with experience, are particularly vulnerable to task replacement from AI. This is not a hypothetical disruption. After my party colleague Eileen and I put out a call for feedback a couple of months ago, we have heard from many young Singaporeans who have shared their stories about struggling to start their careers, struggling with the job search as well as underemployment concerns. So, the first pillar of our new foundation must be redundancy insurance for the AI age, not merely jobseeker support, but a comprehensive scheme designed for workers facing the reality of career churn in the digital economy – 40% of last drawn salary, capped at 40% of Singapore's prevailing median income, for up to six months.”
“Mr Speaker, the world has fundamentally changed. It is a new world fraught with peril, but awash with opportunity, one that needs a new strategy to not just survive the challenges ahead, but to thrive despite them, a strategy built on security, investment and trust in our people. Two great forces define our current moment: the great re-ordering of global power and the AI revolution transforming how we work. Together, they represent a convergence of challenges that invite a rethinking of how we approach governance and policy. The World Economic Forum projects that 22% of jobs will undergo structural change by 2030. This is not some distant threat. It is a near-term reality already reshaping our economy. But this AI wave is fundamentally different from previous technological revolutions. Where past disruptions primarily hit the factory floor, this one targets the boardroom, the artists' studio, the claims desk. From administrative assistants to software developers, from graphic designers to even chief executives, AI capabilities can now match many tasks performed by these workers. In Singapore, this threat is amplified by our unique economic structure. Nearly two-thirds of our workforce are professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), precisely the demographic most exposed to AI displacement. Some of us call this the knowledge economy. Researchers from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believe 60% of jobs in advanced economies will face AI exposure. But for Singapore, given our economic make-up, this figure is probably higher still. Half of these jobs could benefit from AI integration, boosting productivity and wages. But the IMF thinks that the other half face automation, creating downward pressure on wages and hiring in these sectors.”