Mariam Jaafar
Singapore
“One trusted person who knows their story, who checks in, who believes in them when they do not believe in themselves can make all the difference. As we scale, how do we protect that relational core as numbers grow?”
“I thank Members for the robust debate. I think healthcare is probably one of the most complex Ministries. On behalf of this Health Government Parliamentary Committee, I would like to say thank you to the healthcare family, from everyone at MOH to the frontliners in the hospitals and community. With that, I seek to withdraw my amendment.”
“Every young Malay/Muslim deserves to know: they are seen, they are valued, they are supported – in faith and in life. When our youths are anchored in faith and supported in well-being, our community – and our nation – are stronger. Singapore College of Islamic Studies”
“We must adapt S+3M: financing not only healthcare, but health itself, not by abandoning the principles, but by fulfilling them fully. Shared responsibility must include shared prevention. Personal ownership must empower early action. Equity must recognise cumulative burden. This is not about spending more.”
“Could MOM share the uptake and outcomes so far? And could we expand practical models so seniors can pace themselves while staying engaged? And with the Tripartite Workgroup on senior employment, when can we expect key recommendations and how will success, beyond placements, be tracked?”
“Can we strengthen incentives for FWAs and provide structured coaching at key transition points, so caregivers do not have to choose between career and care. Third, re-entry. Can we create structured return pathways so that stepping up for family does not mean stepping back professionally. Supporting caregivers is not charity.”
The complete record
Every one of 375 lines we hold for Mariam Jaafar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Thank you, Speaker. I wanted to follow up on the thrust of my Parliamentary Question Nos 15 and 62. First clarification, could the Minister please clarify whether the Government is planning on the basis that the current disruptions are temporary, or are we entering into a period of structurally more permanent and more volatile global environment? Secondly, in adapting to the shifts, what are the key trade-offs that the Government is managing? For example, between resilience and cost competitiveness, someone has to pay for resilience, or between targeted support and more broad-based coverage. Could the Minister provide specific indications on the thresholds that the Government is monitoring, not in the context of price caps, as Minister of State Gan addressed earlier, but in energy prices, duration of disruptions, cost increases in certain sectors? So, what would trigger a shift in the policy response? And lastly, beyond the tactical immediate stabilisation measures, what are the longer-term structural changes that the Government is considering, taking into account that we do have the restructuring committee's recommendations that are also coming out, but what are the current assessments on the biggest gaps or limitations that the Government may have, in terms of policies, as we shift to a more permanently volatile environment? And I ask this in the context of both being resilient in a defensive way, but also in an offensive way. So, the current policies are great at making it easy to do business, but do we need to shift more to, for example, thinking about how we assess risks, or how we share risks, as well as rewards, in a more volatile environment?”
“One trusted person who knows their story, who checks in, who believes in them when they do not believe in themselves can make all the difference. As we scale, how do we protect that relational core as numbers grow? Fourth, measure transformation, not transactions – not just payouts issued, but job retained, sustained preschool attendance, debt reduced, stress stabilised. Do coaches have the capacity and tools to anchor this deeper work? Fifth, mobility must include future readiness. With AI reshaping our economy, digital literacy, AI familiarity and tech-enabled income pathways must be part of progression goals. If we do not equip families for the economy of tomorrow, we risk stabilising them for yesterday. If we get this right, ComLink+ do more than support families in difficulty. It will restore belief. And in a society facing inequality and technological disruption, belief may be our most precious asset. Let us design ComLink+ not only as a ladder out of hardship, but as a national statement that in Singapore, mobility is never accidental. Taskforce on PwD Lifespan Assurance”
“Earlier this term, I spoke of the need for joined-up longitudinal pathways in education, health and careers that follow a family across life's transitions, so that no one is left to fall through the cracks. Budget 2026 takes a meaningful step in this direction through the enhanced ComLink+ framework. ComLink+ is not just short-term relief. It is a mobility platform. Its strength lies in its progression engine. When support is integrated, milestones are clear and progress is sustained, families do not only cope, they move forward. I welcome the enhancements in Budget 2026 – higher cash payouts tied to stable employment and preschool attendance, intermediate milestones, higher caps and the new $500 quarterly Partnership Payout. These strengthen the incentive structure. But if ComLink+ is to become the architecture of modern social mobility, five shifts matter. First, integration must be structural, not best effort. A family may juggle a family coach, a healthcare team, an employment officer and a school representative. That is a lot of people. Could we move towards one shared progression plan across agencies – one dashboard, one set of goals, one coordinated journey? I ask the Minister if MSF is moving in this direction, so families experience genuine integrated support rather than parallel case files? Second, design for fragility. Progress is rarely linear. A contact job ends. A grandparent falls ill. A small shock can reverse months of work. We must recognise momentum, not just milestones. As ComLink+ scales, how will MSF ensure temporary setbacks beyond a family's control do not permanently disqualify them from progression payouts? Third, scale must not dilute trust. Trust is the foundation of transformation.”
“Every young Malay/Muslim deserves to know: they are seen, they are valued, they are supported – in faith and in life. When our youths are anchored in faith and supported in well-being, our community – and our nation – are stronger. Singapore College of Islamic Studies”
“(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our young people face a lot of pressure – school, exams, social media. Many are quietly asking themselves: "Who am I and where do I belong?" When stress, identity and belonging collide, our mosques can be more than just places of worship. They can be safe harbours. Mosques can be powerful partners for youth well-being, because they offer community, meaning, trusted adult that provide guidance. For many youths, struggles with anxiety or identity are not just emotional questions. They are spiritual ones. They are questions about purpose, about self-worth, about their relationship with their faith. Spiritual guidance is not separate from well-being. I am encouraged that Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS) and the mosque sector have been stepping up on youth engagement, including initiatives, like NEXTGEN. But we need to do three things. First, listen. Give youths a real voice. Involve them in sustained youth co-design at district and congregational levels, so programmes speak to real challenges youth face. Second, equip. When a young person is struggling, they may approach an ustaz or a youth leader long before they approach formal services. Are we ready for that moment? Can we consider piloting trained youth counsellors in mosques, peer support groups and formalising clear referral pathways? Spiritual guidance and professional care must work hand-in-hand. Third, reach out. We cannot wait for youths to walk through the doors of the mosque. We must go to them instead. Bring mentoring and resilience workshops into community spaces and digital platforms. Meet them where they are.”
“I thank Members for the robust debate. I think healthcare is probably one of the most complex Ministries. On behalf of this Health Government Parliamentary Committee, I would like to say thank you to the healthcare family, from everyone at MOH to the frontliners in the hospitals and community. With that, I seek to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $20,035,377,700 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,467,566,400 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“And has the Ministry done any modelling on if we made MediSave chronic, MediSave preventive care, based on balances, how would that actually impact the sustainability?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister did not actually address many of the direct questions I had in my speeches, but he did acknowledge that there were many good ideas. So, I look forward to seeing some of those perhaps come in future, but I wanted to focus on three clarifications today. One is to Minister of State Rahayu on the Woodlands pilot. I thank her for her sharing. My clarification is how is MOH also working with other agencies to get the most out of this pilot? It is one thing to have the HPB's digital wayfinding to find healthy food options. There is another to increase the number of healthy food options, especially halal food options. And that would require working with, say, the Ministry of National Development. Because when we have a coffee shop where there is only one halal store and it serves roti prata and mee goreng, and when you depend on those, it is kind of hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle. My second clarification is for the Minister on the AI topic. The consultant in me says, absolutely, yes, fully support the practical use case approach. The important thing is that these use cases must scale; and some of the things he outlined does that. But scaling also requires a lot of work on infrastructure, governance and talent that I brought up in my cut speech. So, I wonder if he could say something about that. My third clarification is also for the Minister, and I am happy to hear about the changes to MediSave500/700, or now we call it MediSave chronic and MediSave preventive care. It was actually entirely the crux of my suggestion on MediSave flex for that purpose. The Minister shared data on the healthcare expenditure on preventive care, for example, but how much of MediSave is used today for chronic and preventive care?”
“Two, interoperable systems that allow AI models to learn across institutions while keeping clinicians in control. Three, governance rules: every AI recommendation must be explainable, auditable, accountable. Clear innovation governance; top down or bottom up. On global collaboration, our stance must be clear: we welcome expertise, but only under frameworks that protect our data, preserve sovereignty, build local capability and benefit patients. Regulations must also keep pace. AI evolves quickly. We need national validation, certification and post-deployment monitoring – standards for bias, explainability and real-world performance, so patients and clinicians can trust every AI decision. Finally, talent. AI in healthcare is a translation problem. We need professionals fluent in both clinical realities and machine learning. Sir, we are on track to drive efficiency with AI. But Singapore must be a place where AI solutions are built, tested, certified and scaled safely, and where patient outcomes improve at every step. Healthcare should not merely adopt AI. Singapore must set the standards for trusted, safe and effective AI. Will the Ministry outline a clear roadmap, with timelines, for strengthening data access frameworks, validation standards and talent development, so Singapore leads in trusted healthcare AI? Integrated Shield Plans - Additional Withdrawal Limits”
“With care and support closer to home, her diabetes is under control and she stays independent. If we can redesign a town for health, we can redesign a nation. AI in Healthcare First, I declare my interest as managing director of a management consulting firm that works in AI and healthcare. AI in healthcare is often discussed in terms of use cases – detecting disease earlier, automating paperwork, predicting risk, personalised medicine. These are impressive. But today, I want to ask the Minister a bigger question: what is our ambition? If healthcare is truly a national AI mission, our goal cannot be incremental adoption. We must build a system – the infrastructure, the governance, the talent, the plumbing that lets AI transform care safely, effectively and at scale, with better outcomes for every patient in Singapore. Once we show that AI delivers real patient benefit safely and reliably at scale, Singapore will naturally move from adopter to a global leader in trusted healthcare AI. Singapore has laid strong foundations: HEALIX enables analytics across clusters; the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) aggregates patient records; the Health Information Bill clarifies rights, responsibilities and safeguards; and early AI pilots are already easing clinician workload and improving patient outcomes. But infrastructure alone does not make us a leader. Much of our data is still fragmented. Interoperability supports care delivery, but safe access for innovation and AI development, including with third parties, remains rather limited. To lead globally, three things matter. One, stronger data frameworks – national data architecture, secure sandboxes, synthetic datasets, and federated learning that enable AI innovation without compromising patient privacy.”
“We have a diverse mix of seniors and families, the full range of housing types, strong community institutions, and opportunities to strengthen chronic care. With two hospitals, several polyclinics and Active Ageing Centres within easy reach, we can test how to bring care closer to home and refine integrated care team models. The pilot rests on four pillars: first, stronger referral pathways and chronic disease support. Second, moving care closer to home, with smoother transitions; third, redesigning neighbourhoods so that the healthy choice is the easy choice; and fourth, activating communities as health advocates. I support this initiative. But it cannot be policy on paper – it must be about real people, living healthier lives, every day. I therefore have two questions and three requests for the Minister. The questions: one, how will success be measured? Two, what resources will be available for grassroots activation? The requests: ensure town-level care hubs are fully integrated and consistently staffed so residents can access services without delay; expand the scope of community-based care and caregiver support, to cover more conditions and families; and involve my residents directly in co-designing interventions so solutions reflect their real needs and let us avoid stigmatising any community. Health outcomes are shaped by the systems – transport, food, work patterns as well as socio-economic factors, not moral failings. Imagine this. Mdm S, 54, does strength training three days a week at the Active Ageing Woodlands Gym under the watchful eyes of a volunteer buddy. When she does not feel like cooking, there are plentiful healthy and affordable Halal options at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre.”
“Healthcare is often framed as personal responsibility. Individuals matter, yes, but in Singapore, healthcare risk is shared. Premiums are pooled. Subsidies are pooled. Caregiving burdens are shared. There is no such thing as a purely private health cost. When preventable illnesses rise, premiums rise, taxes rise. Families feel the strain. Caregivers leave the workforce. Yet today, only about six in 10 eligible residents participate regularly in recommended chronic disease screenings. Four in 10 remain unprotected. Preventive care saves lives and reduces costs, but only if people participate. If prevention is essential, it should not depend on who remembers to click a link. Opt-in assumes time, awareness and confidence – luxuries not everyone has. Prevention must be the default. I propose: move to opt-out screenings, proactive, personalised health coaching supported by digital nudges. Collective responsibility is not about blame. It is about design. And design does not sit with MOH alone. It is about what our children eat in school. What is affordable at the hawker centre? How workplaces structure time and stress? Whether our neighbourhoods invite movement or discourage it? The healthy choice must be the easy choice. If we design upstream, we save downstream. Will the Ministry consider making key preventive programmes opt-out and outline how the Ministry will work across Government to embed preventive defaults in daily life? Improving Health in the North Healthier communities do not just happen by chance – they are designed. MOH has launched a programme to improve health in the North, and Woodlands, my Constituency, is piloting an integrated preventive health model. The North is well placed for this.”
“We must adapt S+3M: financing not only healthcare, but health itself, not by abandoning the principles, but by fulfilling them fully. Shared responsibility must include shared prevention. Personal ownership must empower early action. Equity must recognise cumulative burden. This is not about spending more. It is about spending earlier, so that we spend less later – financially, socially, emotionally. And, Sir, none of these changes one thing. The Government must do everything in its power to keep healthcare affordable and rein in healthcare inflation. If we get this right, we will not only treat illness. We will preserve independence and dignity. We will not only pay bills. We will invest in health. Will the Ministry commit to studying and reporting, ideally before the next Budget, how S+3M can be recalibrated to better support chronic and preventive care? [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Two households may have the same per capita household income (PCHI), but the one supporting elderly parents and young children carries a heavier burden. Adjust subsidy tiers for households with multiple dependents. Subsidies must be easy to use, visible and structured to encourage early preventive action. Automatic enrolment, co-payment reductions, integrated Medisave bonuses and seamless digital claims are ways to nudge behaviour. MediSave. Even with subsidies, Singaporeans face costs over the long term. MediSave must evolve. I propose MediSave flex where the annual withdrawal limit is linked to balances, with an upper cap to maintain sustainability. Let it fund chronic disease management, broader preventive screenings, evidence-based doctor-referred functional health or nutrition programmes, early rehabilitation after minor injuries or hospital stays, early interventions for dementia or frailty, expanded mental health support. Keep the remainder MediSave core for major episodes. Unused flex balances roll over, rewarding responsible early actions. Bonuses can be awarded, tied to improvements in chronic disease management and functional assessments. Together subsidies and MediSave flex nudge Singaporeans to act early, adhere to chronic care, and engage in preventive programmes. Singaporeans get more flexibility while the systems preserve catastrophic coverage. MediShield Life remains for rare, high-cost hospitalisation, keeping premiums affordable. Explore premium credits for preventive prescriptions if they are shown to save costs. MediFund remains the final safety net for those genuinely in need. S+3M actually has been a safety net catching us when we fall. But in an ageing society, we need a springboard that keeps us standing, strong, independent and healthy.”
“Our lifestyle risks are rising faster than our population ages. More sedentary work. More screen time. Richer diets. Chronic conditions appearing earlier. Singapore is investing in population-level prevention – 6 % of our healthcare Budget, with plans to double. Healthier SG fully subsidises routine screenings and immunisation programmes. Active-living infrastructure like parks, fitness corners, cycling paths, Active Ageing Centres and community health programmes encourage functional health. These are centrally funded. But prevention is more than screening. Some seniors need physiotherapy to prevent a fall. Some need home rehabilitation to prevent a re-admission. Some need cognitive stimulation to prevent the onset of dementia. Some adults need weight management programme to prevent diabetes progression. Some youths need early mental health interventions to prevent a spiral. These are investments in independence, not discretionary lifestyle perks. S+3M must evolve, not just to pay bills, but to shape behaviour, support prevention and sustain independence. Subsidies. I propose three upstream shifts. One, early disability support. Many schemes require three Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Introduce an early intervention tier for "pre-frail" seniors – funding physiotherapy, balance training, and strength exercises. One month of rehab today can prevent a decade of nursing home care tomorrow. Two, subsidised diagnostic pathway. When referred by a Healthier SG general practitioner (GP), the first specialist consultation and primary diagnostic scan, CT or MRI, public or private, should be subsidised. A treatable condition should never become a terminal one because someone hesitated over the cost. Three, fairer means testing for sandwiched families.”
“Chairman, I move, "That the total sum allocated to Head O of the Estimates be reduced by $100." S+3M, subsidies Medisave, MediShield and MediFund, is one of our nation's quiet triumphs. It has protected generations of Singaporeans from catastrophic bills. It has preserved system sustainability. It has embedded shared responsibility, personal ownership and equity. But it was built for yesterday's risks. S+3M was designed for acute hospital episodes. A surgery, a stroke, a sudden hospitalisation. Today, our dominant risks are chronic, progressive, community-based: diabetes, dementia, frailty, mental health conditions. They do not bankrupt a family overnight, but they exhaust a family slowly. Dementia day care costs about $63 per session. Even with the latest subsidies, a middle-income family still pays over $12,000 per year, before transport, home care, medications, and lost caregiver income. At my Woodlands Meet-the-People Sessions, I often hear two concerns: one, "why can't I use my Medisave? It's my money"; and two, "I already used up all my MediSave for chronic care". 7.00 pm Mrs L, a retiree, cares for her husband with early dementia, while managing her own diabetes. She told me, "I saved all my life. Why does it still feel like my money isn't enough to stay independent?" Or K, 24, pays out of pocket for mental health care because her condition is not officially chronic. "I'm probably going to need this for the rest of my life. How is that not chronic?" These are the lived realities faced by our fellow Singaporeans. Incremental cap adjustments and coverage expansions help, but they do not fundamentally reshape incentives. Our system still signals we pay more attention when you are already very sick. That must change.”
“Could MOM share the uptake and outcomes so far? And could we expand practical models so seniors can pace themselves while staying engaged? And with the Tripartite Workgroup on senior employment, when can we expect key recommendations and how will success, beyond placements, be tracked? Let us ensure our seniors do not just live longer, they thrive. Let us ensure they do not just earn a living, they contribute, mentor and lead. Let us ensure they do not just survive, they succeed. Because when seniors succeed, Singapore succeeds.”
“Sir, in Woodlands, I meet seniors in their 60s and 70s who tell me, “I want to keep working, but I need work that works for me.” With longer health spans, many seniors want to work. Some need to work. And yet, many struggle. I welcome the extension of the Senior Employment Credit and the CPF Transition Offset, but they are not enough. 4.00 pm Many seniors struggle with a skills mismatch. Training grants exist, but too often they feel one-size-fits-all. One 72-year-old man told me: “They keep pushing me to AI courses, but that is too far a stretch for me. It will not help me actually get a job.” Other seniors face physically demanding roles or inflexible workspaces. Offices, factories and retail spaces are often designed for the young and able bodied. Meaningful part-time or flexible roles are scarce. Many do odd jobs, which provide neither security nor opportunity to contribute their expertise and experience. So, I ask the Minister, can we give seniors tailored training that actually fits their capabilities and abilities, and dedicated support to place them in jobs that actually fit their lives? Can we help seniors better navigate SkillsFuture course options so they can actually use their credits? Can we redesign workplaces, especially for SMEs in sectors like retail, logistics and services to be more senior friendly? Can we redesign work itself? Lighter duties, flexible hours, assistive tools, mentor-type positions, so experience is valued as much as energy? Can we give grants and tax incentives for businesses that make all this possible? These interventions complement, not replace, existing wage support schemes. If we want seniors to remain independent, we must redesign work, not just subsidise it. I also note the extension of the part-time re-employment grant.”
“Can we strengthen incentives for FWAs and provide structured coaching at key transition points, so caregivers do not have to choose between career and care. Third, re-entry. Can we create structured return pathways so that stepping up for family does not mean stepping back professionally. Supporting caregivers is not charity. If caregivers thrive, their children thrive. When Eldercare Becomes a Challenge”
“Adult caregivers are the invisible backbone of our society. They care for ageing parents, chronically ill spouses, children with rare conditions and family members in need. They do this quietly, faithfully, often at great personal cost. My Woodlands resident, Mdm A, spends about 12 hours a day caring for her elderly parents and aunt. She has not had a full night's sleep in months. She told me she feels isolated, guilty and trapped and yet, she continues, because the family depends on her. Caregiving often reduces working hours. It slows wage growth. It delays promotions. It sometimes forces caregivers to leave the workforce altogether. And yet, when their responsibilities ease, returning to work is not simple, especially after years away. Skills become outdated. Confidence dips. Employers hesitate. Opportunities shrink. But these sacrifices are not just personal. They ripple across generations. When parents are stretched thin, children may receive less attention. Those in lower-income households may receive fewer enrichment opportunities and reduced exposure to pathways that expand social mobility. Today's caregiving responsibilities can quietly shape tomorrow's inequalities. I welcome enhancements to the Caregivers Training Grant and the Home Caregiving Grant. But much more can be done to better understand and alleviate the inter-generational impact. Can the Minister share what evidence exists on the inter-generational impact of caregiving? I believe we must go further in three areas: relief, retention and re-entry. First, relief. Can we expand practical respite and navigation support. How can we reduce the social isolation they face? How can we ensure their children do not miss out? Second, retention.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. First of all, thank you so much for addressing the increase in capital intensity at some length. I have asked in two Parliamentary Questions yesterday about it that I did not get to ask a supplementary question for, so I am going to take the time to do it now. At the same time, I am very heartened to hear the promise that in Singapore, we will not have jobless growth. I also am very heartened by the promise at the end of your speech on greater transparency on outcomes. So, I was wondering if you could share if capital intensity continues to increase, how will the Government's measures of outcomes change, if any? My second clarification is, you talked about making the hard calls. I think it is very easy to talk about hard calls in terms of raising revenues, but let us also remember that hard calls are also in how much we choose to invest to grow the economy. And so, I would like to just hear his thinking around how he will balance the need for immediate support, preserving fiscal space for unforeseen pandemics or higher than expected healthcare increases, but also importantly putting more into things that will grow the economy. Even though a billion dollars is being laid out for AI, for example, I would like to hear whether there is openness and preserving fiscal space for investing in growth.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his responses. This is an issue very close to my heart. I have three supplementary questions. First, are there any early indicators for cohorts in the 1990s and the 2000s of the data on where they stand today in terms of upward mobility? And does the Government have any targets; you talked about trends, but do you have targets for what you would like it to be at, in the next time we run this cycle? Secondly, the in the bottom quartile, which has not actually moved in terms of upward mobility, what are the barriers, what are the persistent barriers that keep them there? And how are we evolving our policies for this? And then, thirdly, as we think about artificial intelligence (AI) and technological shifts that are reshaping jobs, how are we ensuring that children from lower-income households are not disproportionately affected? I think I raised this point in my Budget speech yesterday and I am very keen to hear what the Ministry is thinking about that.”
“As we pursue this agenda, will the Government commit to tracking and releasing annual value creation, productivity and wage uplift outcomes attributable to AI adoption across key sectors alongside data on jobs displaced by AI? And if our AI strategy does not translate into higher wages and better opportunities for all Singaporeans, will we recalibrate our approach to ensure the value created by AI accrues meaningfully to Singaporean workers and families? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore has always thrived by thinking ahead, moving decisively and building trust. Agentic AI is another defining moment. It is not simply a new technology. It is a redesign of how value is created and how organisations function. We must build a nation that does not merely use AI but orchestrates it. If we get this right, agentic AI will not replace Singaporeans. It will multiply our capabilities. For a small nation, multiplication is not optional. It is how we remain sovereign, how we remain competitive, how we remain extraordinary. In the age of agentic AI, those who orchestrate will shape the future. Those who merely operate will follow it. Singapore must orchestrate. I support the Budget.”
“There is a risk we must confront directly. AI is a national multiplier. But multipliers widen gaps unless access is equal. If higher-income households deploy AI to accelerate learning, entrepreneurship and career progression while lower-income households lack access, capability and confidence, inequality will compound. Inclusion cannot be an afterthought. AI literacy cannot stop at universities, polytechnics, schools or corporate reskilling. It must reach my most vulnerable Woodlands residents and across Singapore, who are already navigating multiple stressors in life. We must recognise the effort and responsibility our residents already show in working, learning and caregiving. AI must amplify that effort. Here ComLink+ provides a blueprint. The model includes case workers, customised action plans, milestone-based incentives and long-term engagement. That architecture is actually what AI inclusion requires. AI literacy cannot be delivered as a one-off workshops. It must be coached, contextualised and sustained. Today, ComLink+ supports families with goals around employment and education. We can introduce AI Capability Milestones, such as when the parent completes foundational AI literacy module; when a child demonstrates safe and effective use of AI for schoolwork; or when a family sets up supervised AI tools for job search or for their home-based business. Supported by AI coaches, we ensure every Singaporean has the skills to supervise AI; the tools to deploy AI; the confidence to question AI; and ultimately, equal access to opportunities in AI. That is the type of inclusion that ensures national multiplication, not division. From ambition to outcomes. Sir, this AI agenda is ambitious.”
“This means serious investments in mid-career reskilling and professional certifications in AI supervision and AI operations, mentorship and applied learning and building a culture of collaboration with AI. Not humans versus AI; but humans with AI. At the same time, entry-level jobs may narrow in sectors adopting the diamond-shaped organisation. We must act early and create meaningful pathways into work for graduates and tertiary students. Mandatory AI literacy modules across Institutes of Technical Education, polytechnics and universities, structured apprenticeships and externships when they are still in school, when they work directly alongside seasoned professionals and AI systems and curricula that develop critical thinking, problem-solving, functional skills, ethics, systems thinking and domain knowledge necessary to progress quickly into mid-level roles. This flows down into lower education. If we train our children to memorise, AI will outpace them. If we train our children to question, to synthesise, to exercise judgement, AI will be their multiplier. Exams must reward reasoning – not recall. Because in the age of agentic AI, the scarce resource is not information. It is wisdom. Second, we must modernise our human resources (HR) in career frameworks. In a diamond-shaped organisation, progression may no longer mean managing ever larger teams of people, but larger and more complex fleets of AI agents. Performance systems must recognise those who deploy AI effectively to increase output, accuracy and quality or to create new value. If we fail to modernise our institutional frameworks, we risk stagnation – not because Singaporeans cannot adapt, but because our institutions did not. Inclusion – multiplication without division.”
“They should publish playbooks, host cross-sector learning, mentor SMEs and bring along their supply chains and share implementation frameworks. Because the true measure of a Champion is not how far ahead it moves but how many others it pulls forward. I talk now about the organisational shift – from pyramid to diamond. Sir, the most disruptive shift is not technological. It is organisational. For over a century, organisations have been shaped like pyramids. Few decision-makers at the top; a broad based of individual contributors, executing day to day operations; and layers of middle management, coordinating work. Agentic AI collapses layers of execution. What emerges is a diamond-shaped organisation. A narrower base, where AI agents handle routine work; a strong, skilled middle, responsible for supervising, designing and orchestrating of fleets of intelligent systems; and a strategic apex focused on judgement and direction. Not every sector will move at the same pace. Construction or patient-facing healthcare roles will evolve more slowly. But in fields, like software development, marketing and customer service, the change will come sooner than you know it. This has serious workforce implications. First, we must prepare Singaporeans for the middle of that diamond. In a diamond-shaped organisation, the middle layer becomes more important, not less. They must not only demonstrate AI literacy; they must master AI supervision and orchestration. They must be able to frame problems, direct AI agents, curate inputs, validate outputs, apply domain judgement and ethical reasoning. Tool access is necessary, but not enough. So, we must teach Singaporeans not just how to use AI but how to think with AI, to challenge it and to govern it.”
“Exportable "RegTech agents" that embed Singapore's regulatory philosophy – transparent, rules based, trusted – cementing our position as a global finance hub. In healthcare, hospital workflow optimisation, preventive health monitoring, care-coordination agents. With one of the fastest-ageing populations in Asia, we can become a testbed for systems that reduce administrative burden on clinicians and support community nurses and caregivers and export these solutions to other ageing societies. In logistics and connectivity, orchestration agents that dynamically optimise supply chains, predict congestion or autonomous trade documentation agents. It will make the world's busiest port also the world's most intelligent port. In urban systems and sustainability, our Smart Nation Infrastructure provides rich datasets. If we can demonstrate an AI-managed city that is safe, efficient and trusted, Singapore becomes a living export showroom. These are not tools. They are sector-wide operating systems – generating intellectual property, productivity gains and exportable capability. But this requires ambition and capital. AI transformation, agentic or not, is costly and capital intensive. It requires compute, system integration, workflow redesign, cybersecurity, governance infrastructure and workforce re-training. It will take years, not months, and it cannot run on annual budgeting cycles. If we expect our Champions of AI to redesign operating models over multiple years, then support and financial backing must also be structured and multi-year, tied to measurable productivity outcomes and anchored by accountable leadership at the chief executive officer (CEO) and Board level. Champions of AI must not just be showcases that inspire. They must be multipliers.”
“Every Budget, we discuss vouchers, rebates and support packages. These measures matter. They make a real difference to my Woodlands residents and to other Singaporeans. But they are temporary reliefs. They help families cope with this year's prices. But what determines whether families truly get ahead, in the years ahead, is not vouchers, but jobs and wages. And this is about ensuring that our Singaporean families' incomes rise faster than prices. Small states do not get many opportunities to lead and to shape global frameworks. This may be one of those moments. True strategic advantage requires building sovereign capability. Leadership in the core systems that AI runs on; interoperability and audit standards; governance frameworks that are trusted internationally. We can do more than deploy. We can create. We can disrupt. Our AI Missions must, therefore, be more than transformation roadmaps. They must be innovation engines – living laboratories for multi-agent systems, safety standards and human-in-the-loop designs. We should have open R&D agendas, cross sector labs and build cross border innovation models, partnering with global AI platforms, AI startups and talent. 3.45 pm Where might this matter most? I would look to sectors where, one, we already have strong data infrastructure; two, trust and regulation matter; and three, coordination complexity is high and the value of intelligent coordination is high. These sectors present opportunities to design, govern, deploy and export agentic AI solutions and governance frameworks. In finance, think autonomous compliance agents, real-time regulatory reporting and cross-border risk management.”
“Our resident labour force is already declining. Productivity growth, therefore, must come from expanding capability. We cannot compete on scale or spend, but we compete on coordination, trust, governance and execution. We may not build the largest frontier models or global AI platforms. But we can build the most trusted agentic systems and applications – AI that is safe, accountable and designed for real industries. With agentic AI, we can multiply cognitive capacity at national scale. This is not hypothetical. A leading bank in Singapore is already deploying Agentic AI to deliver what it calls "bionic" wealth management. AI Agents now conduct real time portfolio assessments, recommend personalised offerings and send tailored outreach material, all in seconds. This frees the Relationship Manager to focus on judgement, relationships and strategy. That is the opportunity: AI handling complexity at speed, while humans exercise wisdom. By 2028, my firm estimates that Agentic AI will double its share of AI-driven value creation, from 17% today to 29%, outpacing traditional AI and GenAI. So, the question is not whether Singapore will use AI – we will. The question is where the value will sit? If the core systems are all designed elsewhere, the standards are all written elsewhere, we may use AI extensively, but see much of the value be captured elsewhere. We will optimise workflows, but not own the intellectual property. We will upgrade processes, but remain dependent on other people's roadmaps. Our workers may use AI, but the highest value jobs will sit elsewhere. But if we build capability here, design systems here, govern standards here, then higher value work, higher productivity and higher wages will sit here. Sir, this is the real cost-of-living strategy.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I first declare my interest as Managing Director and Senior Partner of a management consulting firm that does work in the space of AI. Sir, I have spoken on AI several times in this House. In the Budget 2024 debate, I proposed three principles: first, AI strategy must be driven from the centre with direct oversight from the Prime Minister; second, we should focus on high value, sector-specific deployments, at scale; and third, that trust and governance will be our differentiator in a world racing ahead with AI. I am encouraged to see these principles reflected in Budget 2026: in the National AI Council chaired by the Prime Minister; in the AI Missions across advanced manufacturing, connectivity, healthcare and finance; and in the stronger enterprise incentives including the Champions of AI and SME grants, and the emphasis on deeper AI literacy, governance and responsible deployment. This shows that rigorous debate in this House matters. But Sir, the context has shifted – again. Two shifts now demand our attention. The first is a technological shift. The second, an organisational shift. The technological shift, from tool to operator. Three years ago, the world was captivated by generative AI (GenAI). Today, the frontier is agentic AI. Agentic systems do not just predict or generate content. They reason. They break down goals into tasks. They execute multi-step tasks. They collaborate with other agents. They act with bounded autonomy and they improve through iteration. In other words, agents will not just assist work. They will organise it. They will not just recommend decisions. They will execute them. AI is moving from tool to operator. For Singapore, this matters. We are a small, open economy with no natural resources and limited land.”
“Both. Okay. My second supplementary question is for the middle aged and older group, people in their 40s and 50s who are less active today, but want to start and lack the confidence to start with gym equipment. How does the Ministry ensure that there are programmes that are safely-guided and appropriately-paced through ActiveSG gyms and other community partners? And strength training is expanded under Healthier SG; so, how will the Ministry ensure that there are enough venues as well as enough trained instructors to provide a consistent quality and safe venues? And I will bring in my Parliamentary Question (PQ) for written answer – which is a request, whether the Ministry will consider working with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to get an ActiveSG facility in the Admiralty part of Woodlands where there currently is not any; today, they have to go to Woodlands Swimming Complex which has the only ActiveSG facility in the area, or Sembawang.”
“Let me clarify. I am asking actually not really for senior seniors, who I think are supported by the AACs. But in my house visits, I have gotten an increasing number of people in their 40s and 50s who do not really want to exercise with seniors but who are starting to feel on their holidays that they are getting tired easily and things like that. So, they want to keep functional independence. I have three supplementary questions. One, can the Minister of State share whether the Ministry has tracked functional outcomes of those who have been involved in the programmes that she has cited for seniors and for some programmes that exist for younger seniors too, for example, ActiveSG's Combat Age-related Loss of Muscle (CALM), and whether there has been a significant benefit in their functional performance since? My second supplementary question is for middle — did the Minister of State answer Question Nos 1 and 2, or just Question No 1?”
“Some of these GPs cared for my residents when they were young and are now caring for their children. That is longitudinal data in action. Smaller providers often have limited manpower and IT resources. If onboarding, cybersecurity and reporting requirements are too costly or complex, smaller GPs could struggle. Older GPs could decide to close shop. We then risk widening the gap between large institutions and community care – exactly the opposite of what this Bill intends. Financial support, shared services models and practical implementation timelines must be clearly set out. MPs Yip Hon Weng, Joan Pereira and Choo Pei Ling will speak on how to support these GP clinics and community partners. Fourth, protection for doctors and allied health professionals. NEHR must support, not replace, professional judgement. Clinical protocols, medico-legal guidance and professional standards must be clear so that healthcare workers are not unfairly exposed. A doctor himself, Member Dr Hamid Razak, will speak on medico-legal clarity for doctors, while Member Choo Pei Ling together and Member Dr Wan Rizal will speak up for allied healthcare professionals – community nurses, therapists, social workers – who play a critical role in community care and must also have clarity and protection when using NEHR data. Fifth, cybersecurity and accountability. Public trust requires resilience. Audit logs, breach detection, structured response and transparent communication to citizens are essential. Past breaches have left long shadows. Member Yip Hon Weng will address resilience and cybersecurity measures, drawing on perspectives of the Defence GPC. Members Choo Pei Ling and David Hoe will speak on breach response, transparency and recourse.”
“Sensitive information, for instance, mental health records should require higher-level authorisation or additional justification. Member Alex Yeo, a lawyer, will address this from a legal and governance standpoint while Member David Hoe will bring his characteristic moral framing and empathy for the most vulnerable in our community, that I have come to admire so much in a short time in this House. And earlier, in the PSGA debate, Member Cai Yinzhou made the case that when Government agencies and external parties want to use health data for non-healthcare purposes, there must be clear use cases, justifications and safeguards. Second, employment and insurance use. The Bill rightly prohibits the use of NEHR data for employment and insurance eligibility. This is crucial. But prohibition on paper is not enough. Indirect access or inference – for example, where doctors are asked for medical reports or insurers rely on clinical documentation – must be tightly controlled. We must have clear guidelines for clinicians. Doctors must not be placed in ambiguous positions of having to decide what can or cannot be disclosed, and patients must not be pressured to consent to disclosures that undermine the spirit of the law. Our labour Member Dr Wan Rizal will speak from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) perspective on safeguarding workers' rights – particularly for those with mental health conditions, this is his passion. Third, support for smaller providers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard people say that older GPs might be a problem when it comes to implementing this Bill. Let me be clear: in the transformation our healthcare journey is on, GPs are not the problem; they are the solution. Many Woodlands residents have seen the same GP for decades.”
“If the GP does not know what medications were changed, if the community nurse does not see the discharge summary, if the social worker is unaware of the medical risks at home, care becomes fragmented. Residents repeat their histories, tests and procedures may be duplicated, caregivers are left uncertain and opportunities for early intervention are missed. Conversely, when information is shared, care becomes coordinated and outcomes improve. Residents feel assured, caregivers feel supported and the system functions more effectively. The Bill also enables a learning healthcare system. With longitudinal data, we can anticipate disease, manage chronic illness better, support public health planning and evidence-based policy-making and accelerate medical research breakthroughs, from early cancer detection to precision or personalised medicine. For public health planners, this data allows us to understand which neighbourhoods are ageing faster, where chronic disease is poorly controlled and where caregivers are under strain, so we can deploy resources where they are needed most, not where the voices are loudest. But none of this can succeed without public trust. And trust, Sir, is not built by aspiration. It is built by rules, limits and accountability. And that is why the Health GPC will be watching five critical issues closely. First, access controls. The Bill allows broad categories of “authorised users” to access NEHR data for healthcare and care coordination. My residents’ greatest anxieties relate to sensitive data including mental health, reproductive health and social vulnerabilities. This fear is real, but the solution to fear is not fragmented care. The solution is stronger rules on who can see what. Access must be purposeful, proportionate and auditable.”
“It is the difference between safe medicine and risky medicine, between early prevention and avoidable deterioration. It is foundational to patient safety, quality of care, system efficiency and dignity. The HIB strengthens this foundation by ensuring that essential health information – medications, allergies, diagnoses – can follow the patient, not remain trapped in institutions. It enables care teams across settings to work from a shared understanding and make better clinical decisions. It also enables the sharing of health information outside the NEHR to support critical programmes, such as Healthier SG and Age Well SG. This is particularly important in the community setting, where healthcare and social care must operate in close coordination. In Woodlands, the Health Promotion Board and the National Healthcare Group have embarked on the Improving Health in Woodlands Town Project, and it has my full support. It integrates health, social and community services using shared data dashboards to guide proactive care, from identifying at-risk residents or residents with chronic diseases and connecting them to health and social services to smoothening transitions from hospital to community and home care, to promoting healthy living and to partnering with grassroots organisations and communities to curate health-related activities and link up residents to relevant interventions, supported by Community Health Dashboards for local planning and progress monitoring. This Woodlands project could show what becomes possible when care is joined up, data works for the people and communities lead the way – a model that could inspire the rest of Singapore. But none of this works if information does not move.”
“For many of them, especially seniors and those managing chronic conditions, the biggest challenge is not access to care but continuity of care. My Woodlands residents tell me: “I have to repeat my story every time”; or “My GP didn’t know what the hospital had done or that my medication had changed”; or “My mother was discharged, but no one seems to have the full picture.” One of my “Ah Mas" in Woodlands carried a plastic bag stuffed with her medical records – and yes, medications, just like the Senior Minister of State’s resident “Ah Gong” – wherever she went, just in case. That is not integrated care. And this is not only about the very old. Woodlands Hospital is already seeing residents in their 40s and 50s at the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E), presenting with diabetes and complications. They bounce between providers, miss follow-ups, have poor disease control and ultimately, fall out of the system. That is exactly why longitudinal, joined up information matters. If we wait until people are frail, we have already failed them. Continuity of care is directly linked to public health and early intervention. When middle-aged residents presenting with advanced diabetes, it tells us we did not see them early enough, support them consistently enough or connect the dots across years of care. A health information system that allows us to identify patterns – not to police individuals, but to detect communities at risk – gives us the ability to intervene before preventable diseases derail lives. This is responsible public health planning. Continuity of care is not an abstract principle. It is about whether a doctor sees the whole patient, not just the part that walks into their clinic that day.”
“Sir, I first declare my interest as managing director and senior partner of a management consulting firm that does work in the healthcare space. Over the last several years, healthcare in Singapore has been on a profound journey of transformation – from hospital to community, from treating sickness to preventing it. This Bill marks a decisive step on that journey. At its heart, the HIB is not about technology. It is about enabling a healthcare system that is more connected, more proactive and more centred on the patients, not on institutions. As MOH puts it: “One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey”. This Bill establishes a statutory framework governing how selected health information is collected, accessed, used and shared – not just for medical treatment but also for community health, preventive care and population well-being. The Health Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) supports this Bill. Over the course of this debate, my colleagues will examine it from the perspectives of patients, general practitioners (GPs), allied health professionals, workers, legal safeguards and cybersecurity. We are united by one conviction – this Bill must deliver safer, more continuous and more trusted care. I will focus on what the Health GPC regards as most critical – continuity of care, especially as care shifts into the community. Mr Deputy Speaker, our residents do not experience healthcare as a single episode or a single institution. They experience it as a journey – often a long one – across GP clinics, polyclinics, hospitals, community hospitals, community health posts, home care teams and social services. Yet, too often, our systems still treats each encounter as if it were disconnected.”
“This Bill does not just respond to online harm. It rebuilds trust in the digital public space. It tells victims: "You are seen". It tells platforms: "You are accountable". It tells society: "We can be both open and safe". So, I urge all Members today: let us pass this Bill with a united voice and continue refining it, so Singapore remains not only the safest place to live, but the safest place to be yourself, online and offline. Online safety is everyone’s right.”
“They care about timely, practical action – recognition of their harm and real, enforceable recourse and real accountability. And a system that prevents someone else from being hurt in the same way. This Bill gives them justice that is felt, not just written on paper. Our goal must be quick relief and effective, accountability, not endless second guessing and legalese. And that is why I did not support these amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, "online harm" is not faceless. It is the woman who is a victim of doxxing; the honest small business owner whose reputation is destroyed overnight; the retiree who is targeted and manipulated online, losing his life savings; the woman whose private images become public forever; the young creator attacked for speaking up. But is also every Singaporean who has ever hesitated before posting something kind, for fear that cruelty will follow. This Bill protects all of them – and reminds us all of our responsibility. Safety online cannot be legislated into existence; it must be built through culture, enforcement and example. Some may ask: why does this matter so much for Singapore? Because the Internet is where our children learn, our businesses grow and our communities gather. When people feel safe online, they feel they belong. And when they feel they belong, they can speak, create and care for other another. Our laws already protect people in physical spaces – at work, at school, in our homes better than most other places. This Bill extends the same promise into our digital spaces. Mr Deputy Speaker, I recently met a teenage girl in Woodlands who was a victim of cyberbullying. When I asked what she wanted most, she told me, "I just want to feel safe when I’m myself online." That, at its heart, is what this Bill is truly about.”
“We are not here to copy the UK and Canada. We are here to protect Singaporeans today. But he also seems to believe the thresholds, the blanket threshold that applies for this instance to also to victim redress. And I actually wonder if the Minister can clarify that. The UK Online Safety Act does use the reasonable grounds to believe in specific context, such as when defining the scope of regulated services, when defining the platform's duty of care, and for final enforcement, but I believe not to victim redress, which happens at the platform level, so it is not equivalent to the OSC stepping in to issue, takedown or redress orders. In practice, Ofcom's own guidance shows it can and does act on complaints and indications of harm. When Ofcom or the platform can act to prevent further harm in the early-stage assessment phase, while evidence is still being gathered. That does not seem dissimilar to the balance that this Bill strikes. The "reason to suspect" threshold ensures victims are seen and helped immediately, while safeguards prevent abuse of the system, including appeals for reconsideration. This is practical, principled and humane lawmaking, putting people over procedure. Can the Minister confirm my understanding? Removing the finality clauses from the appeals provisions and adding a right to appeal OSC cases to the High Court could turn quick relief into long and costly litigation. The Bill already provides for a clear appeal architecture – reconsideration by the Commissioner, then an independent Online Safety Appeal Panel and Committee. This ensures that powers are reviewable, not arbitrary. Let me make this relatable. Parents worried about cyberbullying, or professionals whose reputations are harmed online, do not care about legal theory.”
“We should consider whether "content generating intermediaries" should be prescribed under our online safety framework with clear obligations on content moderation, age assurance and transparency. This could include, for example, documentation of model training or data governance, or disclosure of AI safety plans as has been passed in California. Any adaption must also reflect the unique harm pathways, user prompts leading to AI outputs, in contrast to social medica and be risk-based to safeguard Singaporeans without stifling innovation. Sir, I know these will be difficult issues and balances to grapple with. But in times or rapid technological change, our task is not to fear the future. Uncertainty should not make us pessimistic, it should make us better builders of systems that are inclusive, safe and resilient. Our laws must remain principles-anchored, technology-neutral and future-ready. I have also studied the amendments proposed by the hon Member Ms He Ting Ru and other Members from the WP with interest. I appreciate the desire for safeguards against overreach, but as many have said today the law must put victims front and centre. A "fair comment" exception risks confusion and loopholes. Harassment is clearly defined, "fair comment", as seen by the debate earlier, is vague and legally complex – and may give bad actors an easy excuse. Raising the threshold for OSC action from "reason to suspect" to "reasonable grounds to believe" would raise barriers for victims and delay timely relief. Waiting for victims to produce evidence of reasonable grounds to believe before acting is not protection. It is delay, it is harm, it is injustice. The hon Member Mr Andre Low has made some comparisons to other jurisdictions – UK and Canada.”
“I also have five suggestions where we might go further. First, moving from reactive to anticipatory protection. Today, duties are triggered after harm occurs, hence victim redress. Other jurisdictions now require major platforms to assess and mitigate certain risks before harm occurs, especially for children and vulnerable groups. A limited, risk-based set of anticipatory duties – not blanket surveillance but responsible design – would help to prevent harm. Second, enhance algorithmic accountability. Platforms shape what we see. Algorithms are the new gatekeepers of truth. Platforms should explain, in principle, how their systems amplify or reduce harmful content. Much like how banks must disclose material risks, systemic accountability requires visibility. Third, strengthen rehabilitation, digital literacy and AI awareness. Not every harmful act online is malicious. Sometimes it comes from ignorance, inexperience or immaturity. Courts should have discretion to combine compensation with digital-literacy or restorative programmes, especially for younger offenders. Long term safety is not just about punishment. It is about cultivating a culture of respect online. Fourth, extend transparency to outcomes. Platforms could publish anonymised statistics: notices received, actions taken, average response times – so that the public can trust and policy-makers can measure progress. Fifth, as technology evolves – so must the law. Periodic reviews are essential to ensure the framework remains effective, especially for emerging technologies like generative AI and immersive platforms. Gen AI tools like ChatGPT can create harmful content. Left unchecked, this can put children and vulnerable users at risk.”
“By defining administrators’ duties, we give WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord group owners clarity: act reasonably and promptly when put on notice and you will be fine. Most community admins want safe spaces, the law should back them up with guidelines and safe harbours for good faith action. It empowers the OSC to issue Right-of-Reply Directions, Reduce Engagement or amplification and award enhanced damages for persistent offenders – strong but calibrated safeguards for each type of online harm. And it is forward looking. Even though the first phase focused on five online harms, the planned inclusion of inauthentic material or deepfake abuse and online impersonation recognises how AI is changing the very texture of online truth. The Bill is also legally coherent. I have to admit that preparing to debate this Bill was quite a challenge, given the number of consequential changes to related laws such as harassments protections, remedies for identical reports, recognition of humiliation as harm. I commend the Ministry for the hard work aligning our justice system with the digital reality. But I have three clarifications. First, for the new civil torts, what factors will courts consider? Speed of removal? Context? Labelling? Prior warnings? A short practice note would guide platforms, administrators and users, to act correctly and swiftly. Second, timelines, including for appeals. What are the expected service levels from report to direction and typical reconsideration timelines? A fast track for high-risk harms would be reassuring. Third, data protection and identity notices. When identity disclosure is required to pursue relief, what privacy safeguards and purpose restrictions will apply? We should deter abuse while protecting victims’ and bystanders’ data.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Bill. This Bill matters – to every parent who has ever worried about what their children see online, to every small business owner targeted by scams or false associations and to every young person who has faced abuse, ridicule and humiliation online, sometimes spilling offline. This Bill tells them something powerful: that the law sees their pain. That we are serious about safeguarding the dignity, privacy and well-being of every person online without stifling creativity, innovation, expression or enterprise. This Bill is a major step forward. It is principled and practical – the product of years of careful consultation and iteration, including insights from last year’s Motion on Building a Safe and Inclusive Digital Safety in this House. In that debate, I called for an inclusive and safe digital society even in the age of AI. I said that platforms that profit from attention must also take responsibility for harm, including AI-generated content such as deepfakes. This Bill delivers. For the first time, victims have a single front door and a clear pathway to redress. Perpetrators and platforms can no longer hide behind the anonymity of code or contract or algorithm. It holds intermediaries and platforms accountable when they fail to act reasonably upon notices. It clarifies the shared responsibility. We move beyond "blame the victim" or "blame the platform" to reasonable duties on everyone with power to prevent harm – users, group owners and administrators, and service providers and platforms, paired with liability for frivolous or abusive notices to prevent weaponisation. It empowers good actors.”
“Many Singaporeans tell me, "I do not mind working hard. I just want a fair chance." That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is what this Bill helps secure – a fair chance for every worker to show their worth and a clear process when they feel otherwise. We must keep building workplaces where Singaporeans feel seen, valued and given room to grow; not passed over, not second-guessed. We must keep them engaged in their work, because fairness is not only about protection, it is about participation – giving our people the confidence to stay in the workforce, reskill and take on the next challenge. TAFEP and MOM can play a key role here, by training not just HR managers, but supervisors and team leaders. Because fairness is not a compliance function, it is a leadership habit. And when employers model that habit, they earn something no law can command: the loyalty and trust of their workers. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill does not just settle disputes; it strengthens our compact as a society. It says to every worker, you will be judged by what you contribute, not by where you come from. And it says to every employer – you will be treated fairly and and given a clear process when disputes arise. That balance between protection and partnership is what has made Singapore work. If we can keep that balance strong, then every Singaporean, whatever their background, can look at this system and say, "it is fair, and it works for me." That is the promise we renew today. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“And a short certification course for SME supervisors on workplace fairness, grievance handling and mediation would also help, so they know what "doing the right thing" looks like in real life. And for firms that exemplify fairness, we can create a "Fair Employer Mark", recognising companies that lead by example. Because compliance by fear is fragile; compliance by pride is lasting. Sir, we must also guard against over litigation. The Bill rightly channels most cases to the ECT, keeping the process proportionate. But in the initial years, we should review outcomes through a tripartite monitoring panel to check if cases are rising for the right reasons, and to spot sectors where culture, not law, is the root issue. That allows us to adjust early before disillusionment sets in. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to return to a point raised by several Members in the last debate. The Bill rightly protects against discrimination on many important protected characteristics. But there are still Singaporeans who may not see themselves reflected in it. Neurodivergent employees, platform and freelance workers – they form a growing part of our workforce, yet many may not feel fully included, even though TAFEP guidelines apply. Fairness that feels selective is fairness that can breed resentment. So, I hope that MOM will commit to a phased review of protected characteristics in good time, guided by data from mediation cases and tripartite feedback. Let us evolve protection as our workforce evolves – steady, consultative, but unafraid to broaden the circle of inclusion. But ultimately, no law can legislate respect. Fairness must live in the daily decisions of our workplaces – who we hire, how we train, how we promote, how we treat one another.”
“That is not quite what the law provides, so she might have been misunderstood. But you see how even the perception of risk can chill a worker into silence. We must therefore work to make the process clearer for workers. MOM and TAFEP can provide plain-language templates, sample grievance letters, timelines, Frequently Asked Questions, so that even an elderly auntie cleaning tables at the coffee shop can navigate the process confidently. Workers could also be given confidential pre-mediation advisory, where they can understand their rights and options, through TAFEP or trained resources in the community, so that workers who are unsure or afraid have safe, local places to seek advice before taking action. And crucially, workers must feel protected from retaliatory actions. The Bill rightly prohibits retaliation – but in practice, fear of retaliation remains the biggest reason people stay silent. In jurisdictions like the UK and Australia, the burden of proof for retaliatory action shifts to the employer once the employee has established a prima facie case. Could the Minister clarify how retaliatory action claims will be processed under the Workplace Fairness Bill? We should have strong retaliatory protections, so that fairness is not only about the right to be treated fairly, but also the confidence that if you stand up for that right, you will not stand alone. Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot build fairness for workers without making it feasible for employers. Our SMEs employ seven in 10 Singaporeans. Many want to comply, but run without HR departments. So, let us make compliance intuitive. MOM could issue sector-specific starter kits – one-page grievances procedures for retail, food and beverage, logistics, care services and other key sectors in multiple languages.”
“Employers too, especially SME bosses, have shared their worries that one wrong move or one problem-hire could land them in trouble, even as they face real economic pressure and constant policy changes. All want fairness. All want clarity. Other countries have grappled with this challenge. In the UK, over 70% of early conciliation cases via the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service are resolved without going to tribunal, usually within four to six weeks. In contrast, the formal Employment Tribunal system, where 100,000 claims are filed yearly, is slow with a one year wait time, costly and legalistic. Australia's Fair Work Commission resolves around 60% to 70% of discrimination cases at conciliation; quick, informal, inexpensive. In New Zealand, the Human Rights Commission closes 94% of discrimination complaints through mediation or early resolution, with 77% satisfaction. Sir, the mediation-first model we are adopting – in a three-tiered framework that progresses from internal grievance handling to mandatory mediation to adjudication – is wise. It keeps trust at the centre of justice and allows employees to pursue claims without the need for legal representation if filed under the ECT. But mediation must be real and not ritual. So, mediators must first be professionally trained in employment law, discrimination claims and cross-cultural communication, and they must reflect the diversity of our workforce. Second, the process should be guided. Seeking redress is already intimidating, as the burden of proof often rests on the worker. The same Woodlands resident I mentioned earlier told me that the mediator she spoke to said she could be liable for the entire claim amount if she pursued it at the ECT.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, fairness at work is not an abstract idea. It is what every Singaporean hopes for – when they look for a new job, when they ask for a promotion, or when they return from maternity or hospitalisation leave. I rise in strong support of this Bill. When this House passed the Workplace Fairness Bill in the last term, it was a milestone in our tripartite journey. It affirmed a simple truth that every worker in Singapore deserves to be judged on their ability, not their age, gender, caregiving responsibility, nationality, race or religion. But principles mean little if people do not know how to seek redress when those principles are violated. This Bill turns principle into practice, giving both workers and employers a clear, fair and accessible way to resolve disputes. But Mr Deputy Speaker, the true test of fairness is not only in how the law is written, or how processes are set up. It is in how workers experience it every day. Fairness must not only be fair but must feel fair to the people who live it. In my maiden speech in this House in 2020, I spoke of residents I met in my first months on the ground in Woodlands: the 50-something PMET was told he was overqualified, the 40-something banker who watched a foreigner take his job, the 30-something Malay accounts clerk who finds that job ads ask for Mandarin speakers only, the 20-something graduate who gets low-ball offers. Since then, I have met many more. Just last night, a resident came to my MPS for help. She had been terminated with notice, just after returning from hospitalisation leave for in-vitro fertilisation treatment.”