Tan Wu Meng
Singapore
“So, if I may just recall briefly what I said five years ago during the debate on the President's Address. Healthcare is about all our people's lives, your life and mine, the lives of our loved ones, the life of every Singaporean. And with that, let us all hope for healthier and happier lives together.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank all who contributed to this debate. Our MOH leadership and MPs of all persuasions. Also want to express deepest thanks to our entire healthcare family, our front liners, the support team and our public officers. If I may briefly seek the indulgence of Speaker —”
“I thank the Ministry of Transport (MOT) for sharing that there are plans to introduce regulations to address the issue of online shops selling AMDs that are in breach and unsafe.”
“The online Community Justice and Tribunals System brings convenience to those who can go online. What happens to seniors who are less digitally-savvy, less literate or who may not be so familiar with the English language?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank MOE for this move. On the topic of social capital and social network diversity, can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that for these studies, will MOE look at it much further into the future?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her answer. My Clementi residents shared with me that they discovered their child was vaping. Because they did not know what to do, they brought their child to the nearest Police station. The Police referred the case to HSA and the child was issued with a $300 fine for vaping.”
The complete record
Every one of 550 lines we hold for Tan Wu Meng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“Less than two weeks ago, just before the Budget Statement 2024 by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – our Finance Minister, there was another announcement, halfway across the world from Singapore. A tech company which is already changing the world – a tech company called OpenAI, which brought you ChatGPT not too long ago. That company announced a new AI platform, called Sora. Sora allows you to key in text – type in some text, a prompt – and it can produce videos, which are indistinguishable from what Hollywood can produce today and what smaller studios can produce. Just one year ago, during the Debate on the President's Address in April 2023, I had spoken in Parliament about the age of AI and how fast things were changing – how software, like ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Midjourney V5, had appeared in the market within less than a year or so. AI which can hold a conversation with you and can write an essay for you – that is ChatGPT. AI which can take high-school exams, advanced placement exams in the United States curriculum and outperform many humans – that is GPT-4. AI which can create photo-realistic pictures of events that never happened – that is Midjourney V5. Just one year ago, I had spoken about how with increases in computing power, once you go from generating one make-believe image to 30 images a second, you go from AI-generated photos to AI-generated video. At the time April 2023, I had expected the technology to take another two to three years. As it happened, it took place faster than I had imagined. Within 10 months, OpenAI had announced the Sora platform-produced AI-generated video. So, that is the world today – technology disruption happening very quickly. New challenges everywhere. The unexpected, increasingly the norm.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget and may I also stand in support of the speech by my immediately preceding Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleague, Mr Shawn Huang. Just the other day, I met a young Clementi family – daddy and mummy with their little girl, just a few months' old. We talked about how the world has become more dangerous; more uncertain; full of challenges – a dangerous world. A world where big countries bully small countries and sometimes invade them – invasion and occupation. A world where small nations and small communities can come under siege, have their water supply cut off; electricity supply cut off; food and access to medicine blocked. A world where climate change is accelerating, where sea levels are rising and that means a world where some islands in 50 to 100 years' time, will be underwater; a world where some island-nations may not exist by the end of this century. And as we were talking – this Clementi family and I – we realised that their little girl and her children and her grandchildren will know whether our generation today made the right choices. And the choices before us will require much imagination and resolve. Eleven years ago, in the TODAY newspaper, I wrote about how we need to imagine the unthinkable before it happens – not just bigger versions of yesterday's challenges, but new challenges which did not exist before. Today I will speak about three of these challenges. Challenges which in our time, will require fresh thinking – a fresh approach: artificial intelligence (AI); Singapore's energy security; and keeping Singapore's society together as a people. On artificial intelligence.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. I should declare that I have Clementi residents who are freelancers as well. Can I raise two supplementary questions to the Minister? The first question is, does the Ministry agree that the Public Service plays an important role in setting labour market norms and, in particular, aspirational norms and best practices? And the second question is, does MOM have a sense of whether, at a whole-of-Government level, our agencies, our Ministries, our Statutory Boards, abide by the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons? And lastly, in terms of approaching tenders and contracts with listed firms, would the Ministries consider this as another best practice in looking at the awarding of contracts as well?”
“As I said during the 2020 debate on the President's Address, when the invisible hand of the market becomes unbalanced, sometimes we need the visible hand of the regulator to attain the appropriate outcome for our people, in this case, to make sure that insurance companies make decisions which are reasonable and proportionate. So, I call upon this Government to get MAS on board, look at improvements and reforms to the insurance sector, especially for young Singaporeans who may be facing mental health and mental wellness concerns and young Singaporeans who may then be labelled with a diagnosis, with their whole life ahead of them. Because, Mr Speaker, as I have said before in this House, healthcare is about all our lives – your life and mine. The lives of our loved ones. The life of every Singaporean. And therefore, it is a serious matter when a young Singaporean runs the risk of not being able to get insurance coverage for life. And let us all remember, it could happen to anyone of us, or any one of our loved ones. I stand in support of the Motion.”
“And I would just like to revisit some of what I said. As I said 11 years ago, in a well-functioning market of insurance providers and potential clients, an efficient outcome would be for the applicant's additional risk to be appropriately priced in through a higher premium. But what we see instead is, even if someone has that additional risk from the pre-existing condition, the insurance company, more often than not, according to my residents, regards them as someone they would not want to insure at all. In short, instead of a slope of additional premiums based on incremental risks, there is a cliff which people fall off when they are left out from the private insurance market. Yes, indeed, there is MediShield Life in our public care system but, as the Minister for Health pointed out yesterday in response to my PQ on the private healthcare sector, the Minister for Health himself has acknowledged there is an important role for private healthcare ecosystems and that presumably includes the role of commercial insurance in the private sector in addition to the MediShield Life framework. I also mentioned previously that with modern computational methods – 21st century mathematics, in short; it is not completely rocket science – it should not be too difficult for insurers to estimate and calculate the right price for the additional risk. But, again, we see perverse outcomes, and I think many Members in this House will have observed this with your own residents where that incremental increase in risk leads to a total denial of insurability from that insurance firm. Sir, this is one area of market failure where regulators can step in. While insurance in general is a business, the commercial health insurance market can and should serve a public good.”
“This question arose partly from a The Straits Times Forum letter earlier that year – dated 18 July 2023 – where a worried parent, Tan Hui In, shared about how their teenage daughter was turned away by two large insurance companies because of a mental health diagnosis. She could not get coverage for hospitalisation or critical illness, not even for non-pre-existing conditions unrelated to mental health. I have young Clementi residents who follow these issues and are concerned as well. Some are going through a tough time and want to seek help. But sometimes these young Clementi friends also asked themselves, "What if they are subsequently labelled with a mental health diagnosis and thereafter cannot get insurance from a commercial insurance company?" Even if the actual number is not large, the effect, the sense of fear and anxiety about whether one might someday be denied insurance upon being labelled with the diagnoses, that fear extends beyond the number of persons who are actually affected and denied coverage. And so, I put it to the Government and I put it to the Ministers, that all the efforts in the plan, all the efforts to increase subsidy for mental health care, in the mental health care ecosystem, all the efforts to improve access at multiple levels in the community and through various intermediaries, all the efforts to make workplaces more inclusive and more fair to persons with mental health conditions, I put it to the Government that we risk these policies and proposals not coming to their full potential or possibly even being undermined, as long as this issue of the private insurance market is not addressed. I raised broader issues of insurance coverage 11 years ago, in 2013, in an op-ed piece in The Straits Times.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a medical doctor working at a public hospital and I have worked in the private sector before. I stand in support of the Motion in the name of Dr Wan Rizal, my Parliamentary colleague. Today, I will speak on insurance and, in particular, I direct my questions to the Ministers-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) as well as the Minister for Health. May I start by drawing the Ministries' attention to the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy 2023? I read through it, 49 pages. In the entire report, the word "insurance" appears just once in a footnote on page 28. Yet, insurance today is an integral part of the healthcare landscape. It helps pool risk and safeguard Singaporeans from catastrophic bills arising from catastrophic unexpected illness. In the public healthcare system, we have MediShield Life under the Ministry of Health (MOH). But in addition to MediShield Life, many Singaporeans purchase health insurance from the private sector too – Integrated Shield Plans, critical illness cover, life insurance and other forms of general insurance – hoping to attain peace of mind and support for their families should the unforeseen or unimaginable happen. So, it is a serious matter when a fellow Singaporean is worried about being denied insurance coverage or worried about being at the receiving end of an unreasonable or disproportionate decision by their insurer. Last year, on 19 September 2023, I raised a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Health on what happens when young Singaporeans encounter stigma from insurers or are declined insurance coverage because of a mental health condition.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I had previously raised a Parliamentary Question on DPS and a supplementary question as well on the pace of reviews. Would the Ministry have an updated sense on whether the change in per capita household incomes (PCHIs), compared to the 2017, has resulted in a smaller proportion of potential applicants qualifying for DPS? Can there also be some additional closer looks at situations where a person with disabilities may themselves be a caregiver to young children because, in Clementi, we do have residents who have started families, are raising children and are, therefore, shouldering additional caregiver duties and responsibilities at home?”
“When they face such clauses, they are worried about whether they feel comfortable to share with MOM about what has happened or with their Member of Parliament, for that matter.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers to my two PQs yesterday and today. I declare that I have Clementi residents who are affected by the recent Lazada e-commerce retrenchments and that there are sisters and brothers in the Labour Movement who are concerned at the initial reports of what had happened. I have two supplementary questions to the Minister. Firstly, can I draw the Minister's attention to the MOM statement on its website about the role of MRNs? To summarise the first paragraph, the MOM website basically says that for specified companies, notifying MOM of retrenchment exercises will allow the tripartite partners to help affected employees find alternative employment and/or identify relevant training to enhance employability. Can I ask the Minister, given that in some cases, the retrenchments may be very substantial and involve large numbers of workers, is there a role for mandating earlier notification to MOM when a firm retrenches a very large number of employees, so that help can be provided to the employees early on, in line with the policy objectives on the MOM website? Secondly, Mr Speaker, one of the Clementi families who contacted me mentioned that during the retrenchment, the company told the retrenched worker that they could not disclose information on the terms of the retrenchment to anyone. I understand this was a verbal instruction, but verbal instructions do have weight when a worker is worried about what will happen next. Can I ask the Minister, does MOM have a position on such non-disclosure arrangements when it pertains to a worker sharing information with a Government agency such as MOM, or for that matter, with a key tripartite partner such as the union? Because some residents have said they are worried.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I should start by declaring that I work at a public hospital, although I have also worked in the past at a private hospital. I have two supplementary questions to the Minister. Firstly, many in this Chamber would have experience of large organisations and their behaviour, and would have observed how incentives, culture and leadership all play a role in shaping the organisation, as well as the day-to-day reality on the ground. Has the Ministry given consideration to what incentives will be needed, what approach will be needed to the culture of these hospitals and whether it will have any say in the leadership approach in these hospitals to ensure that the outcomes that the Ministry seeks will be achieved? Secondly, a question that some of my residents have asked is, if these models of care were already very much viable and having an existing market niche, why has there not been a second Mount Alvernia or similar model in Singapore so far? And may I suggest to the Ministry that although we do not want to prejudge the analysis, it is important to look at the drivers which shape whether certain models of care are viable, whether it is in terms of how the land cost is approached, how the tender is structured, including what backup measures there are to ensure that the institution does not drift from the intended purpose?”
“It seemed like a big amount then, but in hindsight, it seems like it was a quite a good deal at the time, given what OpenAI grew into. This also links to a point I made a few years back during a Budget debate. Sometimes when we invest ahead of the market, invest in certain technological capabilities which may see tenuous today, but which could have high yields tomorrow, it means that we are able to get those dividends later on. Many of the big tech firms today, whether Apple, Google, Meta, back then known as Facebook, would not have seemed sure bet investments in their very early years. But those who were willing to make those bets yielded substantial dividends and today our tech powerhouses. So, let us think about that as we move into the next phase of AI, the next phase of tech in the digital world for Singapore. What investments can we bet on that may seem tenuous today but which could put Singapore in a position to be a world power of such capabilities in years ahead. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I stand in support of the Motion by Ms Tin Pei Ling. [Applause.]”
“But the whole point is, the first step is to have that healthy scepticism to sense when something might be a bit "sus". To sense, while at the same time not losing faith in society being able to move forward. It is of course, a whole-of-Government effort, there needs to be many ways to look at it, education, regulation, social norms, making sure tech firms are held accountable as well. But we need to move on this very quickly because by the time the genie is completely out of the bottle, the horse has bolted, it is much harder to rebuild these norms and reconstruct the democratic process in our society. So, in summary, Mr Speaker, just two key points, but fundamentally about seeing through the eyes of our people. The first, seeing through the eyes of our consumers and making sure that firms in the digital space and in the financial sector, retail banking services, they treat consumer protection the same way online as we would treat consumer protection for an offline tangible product in the home, around the home. Secondly, likewise seeing through the eyes of our people in a world where we have to cope with deepfakes, training, educating our people to see better, so that we can safeguard this very precious idea that is Singapore, in a world that is continually being disrupted by AI. One last point I wanted to make is that we need to double down our investments in AI capability in our Government and in our industry as well. There has been mention of the AI roadmap version 2.0, but sometimes let us also ask ourselves, can we have even higher levels of ambition? From public domain information, if I recall correctly, not too long ago, I think less than a decade ago, Microsoft pumped $1 billion investment into OpenAI.”
“The issue of deepfakes is going to be a serious matter for democracies around the world – because if we can no longer discern easily what is real and not real, you cannot even have a functioning democracy. No government, regardless of which political party they come from, will be able to govern in any country without that fundamental basis for deliberative, democratic discussion. That means, as a society, we need to deal with this pre-emptively. The Prime Minister not too long ago, in a Facebook post, talked about how there was a deepfake of him trying to sell certain investment products, a fake video. But that is just deepfake 1.0. Project that forward three, five years, 10 years, with more computing power, you can imagine how authentic those deepfakes are going to be. Therefore, as a society and as a government, we must not shy away from moving pre-emptively to address the issue of deepfakes. I have called upon this Government to look at ways of electronically watermarking content, so called "proof of human", whether it is proof of human when someone transacts with an AI bot, with a tech firm online that may be giving answers by AI, but the broader point is that we need ways to confirm that the content is real and is a human. We also need to continue moving upstream, a point which I made to the Education Minister yesterday in Question Time. From young, we will have to continue training and teaching and bringing up our young Singaporeans, our children and grandchildren, to be even more aware of deepfakes and how subtle they can be. In short, as a young Clementi friend not too long ago, this young Clementi friend was sharing about his worry about deepfakes, saying, "You know, look, some of these look a bit sus", suspicious.”
“If there is a home appliance in your kitchen and someone can trick you into pressing the wrong button so that someone is injured and loses their life savings along the way, you know what the approach will be when it comes to that home appliance. I call upon this Government, MAS and the other agencies to take a hard look at the financial institutions and banks and ask: are the banks and telcos and technology firms shouldering enough responsibility in the digital world that tangible goods providers shoulder in the physical world? So, that is the first part of my speech, Mr Speaker. The second part of my speech will be on the age of AI and what Singapore needs to do to adapt. I spoke on this last year, during the debate on the President's Address. Early last year, I spoke on the age of AI and it was a humbling moment, because after the speech was delivered and it got a little bit of viral traction online, I think, just a little bit over 100,000 people around the world watched it – not that many. But we started getting emails, messages, from people around the world. Someone from the USA wrote to me, someone from Africa wrote in as well and it touched a chord. But this is not about that speech. It is about what Singapore represents to the world. When people see our Parliamentarians, whether our Ministers, office holders, whether our backbenchers of various persuasions, looking to the future about what the world will be like, people look at what Singapore is thinking about and they want us to try and find the way forward as well. And so, on the issue of AI and the issue of deepfakes, I have a few suggestions as well for the Government to consider. Some I have put forward before in Parliamentary Questions and in my speeches, but let me just reiterate again.”
“But the key point has to be this: the norms that we approach consumer safety in banking, the approach to consumer safety for banking should not be too different from consumer safety in other more tangible areas of the marketplace. As I shared to the Minister of State from MAS not too long ago, if today, a company had a consumer product and if somebody could be tricked by a stranger into configuring that product wrongly so that there was either bodily harm or damage to property resulting in the loss of someone's entire life savings, we know what the consumer protection approach would be. We see that with vehicles, where if there is a design flow in the vehicle that predisposes to human error or catastrophic outcomes of human error, that vehicle has to recall, that manufacturer is dealt with in a very serious way. Yesterday, in a written question to the Minister for Communications and Information on operating systems, what was quite notable was that a certain operating system accounted for virtually all of the online banking scams made known to the Police, while a certain different operating system did not figure very much in the figures reported in that Parliamentary written answer. So, again, we see quite a different situation between these consumer products. Once again, I call upon this Government to take a consumer protection focus and make sure that manufacturers as well as service providers, including financial institutions, are held accountable in a way that is not too different from other sectors of society. If your family owns a car and there is a design issue leading to bodily harm or loss of your life savings, you know what the manufacturer must do.”
“Mr Speaker, I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate and speak, but a number of Clementi residents had been sharing about the timeliness of this Motion and I feel I should just share a couple of perspectives. I will speak today about the consumer protection angle to scams and secondly, more broadly, on the landscape in the age of AI and Singapore's survivability. Firstly, on the issue of scams. There is, I would say, agreement on all sides of the House that it is a serious issue, especially in the era of digital banking, where senior citizens who grew up in a world of face-to-face counter transactions now can have their bank accounts and life savings depleted at the click of the device by a scammer far away, outside of Singapore. This is a serious issue, especially in societies such as Singapore, where we progressed rapidly from third world to first and seniors growing up in the pre-digital era today exist in a world of digital access and digital technology. That is the first point about consumer protection. Even as Members on both sides of the House call for additional measures to scrutinise how banks treat their customers, I would like to once again call upon the MAS and the relevant authorities, to call upon and make the point I have raised previously in this House on multiple occasions, which is that there needs to be a consumer protection approach to scams involving banking customers who get scammed out of their savings online. In recent times, there have been efforts by the MAS – initially called the risk sharing framework or risk allocation framework, depending on how commentators look at it.”
“I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. May I draw the Minister's attention to my speech from the 2022 Budget Debate two years ago where I spoke about Singapore, the climate crisis, our climate ambition and our energy security. In particular, can I ask the Minister, given the speed of developments in the climate space, including what commentators described as the risk of a climate endgame with catastrophic change upon the world, will Singapore – at a whole-of-Government level – look at moving ahead of the market in certain strategic areas? Two years ago, I had asked about Singapore and a potential position as a hydrogen hub. The Minister mentioned this in her earlier answers. Can I ask: is there a role for us more actively moving ahead of the market in a calibrated way so that we can be the first mover and not last mover or too late to move when the market finally evolves.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Last year, during the debate on the President's Address, I spoke on the age of AI and how Singapore needs to survive in it. I am glad that MOE is taking a serious look and making a serious push regarding AI in our education system. I have got two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, I have met Clementi parents who are excited by the prospects of AI but also the concerns about the implications for inequality and what happens when some households have better information technology (IT) access, IT opportunities and training opportunities than others. Can the Minister assure us that the opportunities he described in his answer are evenly available for students across households of diverse social economic backgrounds? That is my first question. The second question is that there are also Clementi parents worried about media literacy in the age of AI. Recently, the Prime Minister, himself, mentioned the risk of deepfake videos. Are we educating our younger generation to be mindful of deepfakes, the risk of being tricked as well as the risk of deepfake technology being abused against peers in unethical ways?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Can I ask one more supplementary question? I have raised previously in this House the idea of forced vs unforced errors, especially given the emergence of new scams, such as deep fakes, where a bank can be masqueraded in a way that seems very authentic. Can I ask the Minister of State, in this framework, if someone has been tricked by a deep fake scam or a scam that seems so authentic that a reasonable person would be at significant risk of being tricked, would that be an authorised transaction and would it be subject to support and compensation under the waterfall system?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I can also confirm that my Clementi residents have great difficulty when they approach a bank trying to get a physical token. I, myself, approached a bank as well and was told that the physical token had been phased out and it was not an option. So, it seems quite clear that there are a number of banks across Singapore who are making it very hard for customers to get a physical token – making it hard without fear or favour, possibly. I have three supplementary questions to the Minister. Firstly, I have Clementi residents who were scammed out of their life savings. The preliminary findings suggest these were phishing or malware scams. These residents did not ask to be transitioned to the OTP SMS or a digital token. They did not ask to have all their risks concentrated in a single device – their handphone. When MAS looks at existing cases, given the new framework, will the goodwill consideration by the banks take into account these new norms? The second question is, we know that some smartphones already allow malware downloads much more easily than other smartphone operating systems. What is being done to ensure the smartphone manufacturers are awakened to this responsibility and do the right thing by customers? Thirdly, Mr Speaker, if I can suggest a consumer protection perspective. If today, there was a consumer home appliance and a reasonable lay person could be tricked into using it the wrong way, causing injury or damage that will cost their life savings, we know what the consumer protection approach would be. Will MAS consider this as well, especially given the clear and present concern that so many Clementi residents face?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public healthcare institution. Eleven years ago, a number of young healthcare workers, including myself and others, had advocated for such improvements within the same healthcare institution campus. In 2016, seven years ago, I had asked a Parliamentary Question on how we could smoothen that journey across different hospitals across Singapore. These are welcome developments, and I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. Firstly, we have some elderly residents who are less mobile and who are worried about having to make additional appointments to see a medical social worker, whether it is for review or renewal of their support. A less-mobile resident who needs a caregiver to accompany, this has implications for the caregiver, too. Can I ask the Minister, are there ways we can better resource our medical social worker (MSW) departments so that more patients can have the assessment and review with an MSW on the same day that they come to the clinic or for treatment at the hospital? Secondly, can I also ask the Minister, given there are some patients who have great difficulty getting out of the home, would MOH consider working with either the SSOs or the local family service centres to help engage local teams who might be able to visit a less-mobile patient at home, so that the patient does not have to go and make an additional trip purely for the purpose of means testing?”
“I thank MOH for the answer. I have got two supplementary questions. As illustration, I have a Clementi resident who sought treatment at a private hospital. The hospital website said at the material time that the doctor and the doctor's clinic were covered on their insurance company's panel. The doctor affirmed that it would be covered on the insurance company's panel. After the treatment, the insurance company said it was not covered and it was not on the panel. Yet, six months later, my resident showed me, on my resident's handphone, that the private hospital still reflected that doctor and that clinic as being on the panel. When my resident appealed to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), they recommended that he contact the insurance company. When my resident appealed to MOH, he was referred back to the doctor and the insurance firm. In the meantime, the private hospital sent debt collectors after my resident. Can I ask the Ministry who can consumers best seek help from in these situations? Is there a "no wrong door" policy to guide consumers, because consumers sometimes worry whether every door seems the wrong one in such situations? Secondly, can I also ask what recourse is there if the hospital provided outdated information, the consumer acted on the outdated information and thereby suffered financial disadvantage? Are there lessons which can be learnt from the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 regime, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) that could be applied to this as well?”
“I thank MOH for the answer. I have got two supplementary questions. My Clementi resident was terminally ill, admitted to an inpatient hospice. Her family shared they had difficulty getting an assessor to go to the inpatient hospice. Eventually, the AIC asked if the hospice could arrange a Resident Assessment Form. But then, the family were told there needed to be two assessments done six months apart. Sir, I know our agencies mean well and try their best. But six months is a very long time for a terminally ill patient in a hospice. My resident died that same month. Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, can MOH do a review of existing policies to see how assessments and outcomes can be expedited for terminally ill Singaporeans who do not have much time left? Secondly, can I also ask how can we improve access to ElderShield claims and payouts for persons who are less mobile at home and therefore, cannot easily seek medical assessment?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I ask the Minister if he would consider one suggestion? Would MOH look into setting up a website portal so that members of the public can provide authenticated experiences of their dealings with insurance companies, including when the company is unreasonable in refusing to provide insurance coverage, such as in the case of the person, a member of the public, Tan Hui In, who, in The Straits Times Forum in July, mentioned how their daughter had bipolar disorder but got turned away by two large insurance companies? Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister to consider this because such a platform will help the public see better which firms are kind or which firms might be considered "one kind"?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I would like to declare that some young Singaporeans around Clementi had seen the news in TODAY online about live chickens and chicks being used in an art installation at NGS. Some of these young Singaporeans felt very concerned, some as young as Primary 5 and Primary 6. They shared their views with me, and I raise these views on their behalf. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if he can confirm exactly what happened to these chickens and chicks after they were made use of for the art installation? When was the last check done on the well-being of these animals? Did they show any evidence of distress or harm thereafter? Because it has to be a longitudinal follow-up to make sure they are still alright. Can I also ask the Senior Minister of State, given the profile of the venue, NGS, is this a trend of what is going to come? Because there are some young Singaporeans who are concerned, notwithstanding the educational objectives described, about what message we are sending when animals are made use of in an art installation in this way. These are legitimate views, and I would like to seek the Ministry of National Development's (MND) view on these as well.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. Let me first declare that I have Clementi residents who were affected and shared their concerns with me as their Member of Parliament. I declare that I have a Clementi resident who remembered voting in 2020, but in 2023, found she was not on the Registers belatedly and she regrets not having had the chance to vote and choose her President at the ballot box that day. I also have Clementi residents who saw how hard our election officials, how hard our public officers worked, and the heroic efforts made by our public officers when technical difficulties arose. Can I ask the Minister supplementary questions on what I will call the "3Rs": reliability, resilience, responsibility? Firstly, on reliability. When an electronic registration system is tested, is it benchmarked for 100% accuracy in the tender requirements, at least as good as paper, if not better? On resilience, can I ask ahead of the Presidential Election, was there a proper full-dress rehearsal, incorporating set-up, log-in, getting the terminals up and ready, and then, comprehensive load-testing beyond what would be the traditional expected loads, to stress test the system? This is because I have residents who have concerns about whether someday, there may be cyber interference and we know what advanced persistent threats are out there. Lastly, the third "R", on responsibility. I note that the ELD website mentions "Your vote decides the future of Singapore". How we design these systems also shapes the voting process as well. Can the Minister assure us that ELD will do its level best to learn from this and continue improving, in particular, contractor specifications, tender requirements, so that the situations like these can be avoided in future?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have two sets of supplementary questions on this. I have Clementi residents who have also been following the news. Some are consumers, some are drivers, and they are understandably wondering what it means moving forward. Firstly, Mr Speaker, without prejudging the outcome, can I ask, based on previous CCCS assessments, whether CCCS may look at whether there will be substantial lessening of competition in just a single aggregate market or at the individual markets of taxis, private hire as well as the total aggregate point-to-point markets? That is my first question. The second question would be – again without prejudging the outcome – has there been any situation where CCCS, as part of assessing potential economic benefits, even if there are substantial lessening of competition, is the tripartite lens applied so that if there are tripartite outcomes which are overall beneficial to workers and the functioning of the labour market and bargaining power between workers and firms, would that be a consideration as well, as part of the economic outcomes in the analysis?”
“I thank Mr Speaker. I seek a bit of brief indulgence from Speaker. I filed all three of my Oral Questions on the CPIB case and I hope Speaker will allow me to just ask three clarifications to the Prime Minister. Sir, it has been said that there are decades where nothing happens, and then there are weeks where decades happen. May I ask the Prime Minister three clarifications? Firstly, on the timeline of CPIB's disclosures, in hindsight, would it have been foreseeable that HPL would make a disclosure publicly that their Managing Director had been subject to a notice of arrest and asked to provide information on his interactions with Minister Iswaran? And in hindsight, would that have possibly shaped CPIB's assessment of whether to disclose upfront that the Minister had himself been arrested, rather than stating in the initial press release that he was assisting with investigations? That is my first clarification. My second clarification, without prejudging the issues, pertains to the Public Service Division (PSD). In the event that CPIB makes adverse findings against a particular public officer in the Public Service, will that public officer's previous official decisions be subject to retrospective review to ensure that there has not been any inappropriate influence swaying the decision? Thirdly, some may call recent events the reputational crisis of a generation for Singapore. Can the Prime Minister and Government assure us and our residents that every effort will be made to repair the damage to Singapore's reputation so that people, businesses and others around the world will know that Singapore is going to settle the matter and put things right, because if we become just another ordinary country, Singapore will be finished.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital looking after cancer patients. I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question. On 6 April 2023, the cover story for the international scientific journal, Nature, looked at the correlation between air pollution and lung cancer in non-smokers. In that journal, an article was published suggesting that PM2.5 levels could contribute to an increased lung cancer risk in people who are non-smokers or never smokers. The contribution, of course, was much less than what you get from smoking, but it was nevertheless notable and it made the front page of this international scientific journal. Would the Ministry consider looking at the PM2.5 target levels, given the emerging scientific evidence and to see whether we can bring the PM2.5 levels even lower as time goes by, as the science evolves and our understanding of the contribution of pollution to health and disease evolves as well.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, just two more supplementary questions to the Senior Minister of State. I also declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital. My first additional supplementary question relates to Mr Yip Hon Weng's query about patients who could not make a booking but later on sought A&E care. May I suggest to the Senior Minister of State that my written Parliamentary Question filed yesterday may provide a way to analyse this by looking at persons who logged in the day before a next day appointment, but did not eventually make a booking? It is not the full data set but that could be a way to analyse this. Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State what is being done to support our healthcare workers, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals working at our polyclinics? Because the polyclinics are very busy, our healthcare brothers and sisters are at the front lines; and we have to support them to do their best as well, for the patients and for the community.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions. I have Clementi residents, especially seniors who are worried about the experience of the polyclinic booking system. One resident tried to make an online booking for her elderly mother – four days in a row, logged in at the booking time, could not get a slot. Another senior, not IT-savvy, cannot go online, went to a polyclinic, was told to book online. He cannot go online. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions? Firstly, can the Ministry and the polyclinics explore the role of a hotline, so that seniors who cannot log in with smart phones and computers can still have a chance at the online booking process? Secondly, can we try to further improve the subsidy for consultations at CHAS GP clinics so that a visit to a CHAS GP clinic can receive comparable subsidy to a visit at a polyclinic?”
“I thank the Ministers for their Ministerial Statements. I have a clarification to put to the Senior Minister. The financial sector and banks have a category called "politically exposed persons" (PEP). Depending on jurisdiction, it can include Ministers, Members of Parliament, leaders of political parties of any persuasion and their immediate family members. Should the Public Service consider having a framework whereby the personal transactions of PEPs with Government agencies be automatically flagged out for additional scrutiny? This helps further ensure that public officers are in the clear, protects the public officers from allegations of malfeasance and it also helps ensure that a PEP is in the clear as well, regardless of their political persuasion.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can I draw the Minister to the questions I raised on KOM five years ago in January 2018? At the time, I said, "If a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation." Can I ask the Minister whether she agrees that we have to maintain Singapore's reputation for zero tolerance against corruption? My second question to the Minister is: have CPIB and the Government considered the use of bounties or rewards for whistleblowers and tipoffs that lead to a conviction? I note that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore recently offered a reward for whistleblowers who report tax evasion. Would CPIB consider a similar approach, especially for cases where Singapore's reputation is at stake?”
“Lastly, if there are situations arising that need appeal, can the Senior Minister of State assure us there will be options available for patients to raise the matter to MOH for further study?”
“I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital. I raise this in my capacity as Member of Parliament (MP), as I have Clementi residents who are concerned about the matter in this Parliamentary Question. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if he can reassure the House that based on the Minister for Health's commitment last year during the March 2022 Committee of Supply debate on the Healthier SG concept. The Minister at the time said individuals will have a choice – you can choose whether to enrol or not in Healthier SG, you can choose whom to enrol with, even doctors who are far away from your home, there is a variety of reasons why some Singaporeans decide to do that, such as because the clinic may be nearer to your workplace, near your parents' place. So, my first supplementary question is, can the Ministry of Health (MOH) confirm that this choice will still be available to persons seeking to enrol in Healthier SG because someone may seek care with a family doctor nearer to their workplace or with their caregivers? Secondly, can I also draw the Senior Minister of State's attention to the points I raised during the Healthier SG debate last year on 4 October 2022? At the time, I had raised Clementi residents' concerns whether it will become harder to seek specialist care in a hospital outside their own geographical cluster because sometimes, residents may seek to see a specialist at a hospital not next to their home, but where they are going to be cared for by a family member during their illness. Can the Senior Minister of State assure us that this freedom of choice will still be available to patients seeking referral for specialist care from polyclinics?”
“Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions. The Senior Minister of State, in his example of the Public Service gaining experience with the use of ChatGPT and GPT-4, essentially alluded to the idea of a responsible person when AI is being deployed for a purpose. Can I first ask the Senior Minister of State whether this approach will be encouraged in other settings, including in the private sector? So that, for example, if a firm uses AI to make decisions on human resources, there can be appropriate accountability if the AI results in discriminatory behaviour against job applicants. Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State if agencies might wish to study the role of a proof of human marker for certain AI applications and platforms? This is so that Singaporeans and members of the public interacting with an online portal can know whether the chat is being generated by an AI or by a fellow human being.”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed answer and exposition. I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital and I have seen first-hand how vaccinations has saved lives, when people are ill with COVID-19. I raise this Parliamentary Question in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. Deputy Speaker, there are Clementi residents, fellow Singaporeans, who, early in the pandemic, underwent COVID-19 vaccination to protect themselves, their loved ones and the community. Some had applied for the VIFAP. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? Firstly, would Minister agree that if the policy intent of VIFAP is to provide goodwill financial assistance to persons whose serious side effects were assessed to be related to the vaccination, then the assessment must be based on the latest up-to-date scientific and medical understanding? Secondly, would Minister consider that as the understanding continues to improve, older VIFAP cases should be subject to retrospective review closer to the three-year dates of limitation of claims, so that the latest up-to-date scientific and medical understanding can be applied to older cases as part of that review?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions. Firstly, what is the process for handling disputes where the bank has assessed, based on their own records, that SMS OTP was used to validate the transaction, especially if the bank says SMS OTP by definition means it was legitimate, yet the customer is able to provide evidence, testimony from the telco that may suggest a different assessment of what happened? Is there a process for having this review besides FIDReC or does the bank have the final say on this question? Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I also ask the Minister of State what is being done to prepare not just for the last war on scams but the next one? A year ago, in February 2022, I asked in Parliament about the risk of emerging deepfake audio and video calls. Since then, there have been potential cases in the United States of deepfake audio voice calls. Can I ask the Minister whether the proposed equitable framework for sharing of losses will look at such emerging risks and will it also consider my previous suggestion on the difference between a customer making a forced error – for example, with a deepfake – versus an unforced error?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. A number of my Clementi residents are quite concerned about the implications of the online booking process for polyclinic appointments. Some may be quite elderly, less able to go online, less able to quickly click to secure the appointment when the bookings open. I have residents who tell me that, for some polyclinics, the online slots are used up within half an hour of the online booking starting on some days. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOH is looking at the take-up of these online bookings, whether there is a trend towards fewer seniors being able to get these online bookings and whether the seniors are as able to attend the polyclinics as before? Secondly, can I also ask the Senior Minister of State in the event there are CHAS GP clinics interested in participating in an online booking portal, whether there could be a future pilot project to integrate these GPs into the online booking process as well, if there is interest?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. May I draw the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's attention to a Facebook post by the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) on 15 April 2023? The President of HSEU stated in this post, and I quote, "More broadly the review potentially impacts support care staff in the healthcare sector as there is much overlapping similarities in job functions and skillsets...". May I also draw the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the following paragraph in HSEU's Facebook post, "HSEU was not consulted for this wage review. HSEU reiterates that any review of sectoral wages and remunerations should adopt a tripartite approach." Given this, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if he can help address the second and third parts of my PQ? Firstly, whether potential implications for support care staff in the healthcare sector have been considered in the review. Furthermore, whether a tripartite approach was considered in the review; if so, to what extent and, if not, why not?”
“But looking into the security aspect of it, as Members know, it is not only about efficiency, but we must make sure that Singapore remains safe and secured. With regard to the MMBS, currently, we have the back-up system. As we saw during the disruption, we were able to go into manual clearance and we were able to bring out other aspects of the BCP. However, when NCC is rolled out, this would be where, even though there will be disruptions, the system will enable the passenger to still be able to use the biometrics component in the travel experience. So, we are essentially building a system that is more robust and will have more resiliency in the future.”
“I thank Mr Speaker and the Minister of State. I can indeed confirm there were Clementi residents who were affected and concerned by what happened. I also want to put on record my thanks for the ICA and CAG officers who did their best under these unexpected and very difficult circumstances. Can I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? Firstly, given that the MMBS would be considered critical information infrastructure for our checkpoints with ICA, what existing back-up redundancy is there during business-as-usual? That is the first question. My second question is whether there are best practices throughout Government or internationally, on how we can take lessons from such situations to improve the resilience of our critical information infrastructure, especially at checkpoints where any delay can lead to very extensive backlogs and implications for Singapore's reputation? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I shared earlier, we are actually at the frontier of technological development, with regard to clearance matters, especially border security. If we look at what ICA has been doing, especially in recent years, it is really to see how we can improve technologically, to provide a more seamless experience and travel experience for the passengers, whichever checkpoints that they go through. We also have very good contacts with our counterparts overseas. More often than not, they would like to come to learn from us. Nevertheless, we are always open to learn from the other countries too. So, I assure the Member that this is a process that we have been undertaking and we want to make sure that we provide one of the best services.”
“It means educators could have more time to befriend students, understand each student's journey, be that cheerleader, that mentor, that shoulder to cry on in times of difficulty, or that person to motivate the student to grow beyond what they dreamed they could do. So, amid these challenges, many opportunities. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, five years ago, during the debate on the 2018 Budget, I had called upon this Government to make a big push towards in-house AI capabilities because even though there is a role for private sector capability and outsourcing, there is no substitute for having some of that capability in-house, within the Government. We need to make sure our Public Service deeply understands AI and its opportunities, whether in health, whether in defence, but across the board in policymaking. Amid a world of AIs, deep fakes and generative AI creations, we need to double down in our public policy on how we bring people together, on how we bring fellow Singaporeans together for these face-to-face interactions, which will be the key bedrock foundation of our society and inoculation against deep fakes and other AI disruptions. We need to strengthen human relationships, deepen human trust and we need policy to guide that direction in a world of AI disruption, so that amid big changes in the world, Singapore and Singaporeans continue having that sense of togetherness so that we can survive and thrive in a dangerous world and continue to dream and overcome whatever the world throws at us. [Applause.]”
“I debated this in Parliament some time back with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong when he was Education Minister in a Parliamentary Question. These life skills are more important than ever today. Today we already have computers studying us and what catches our attention. Whether it is Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, there are algorithms which look at what catches the eye, what draws your attention, what makes you more likely to click or move your mouse or manipulate the computer screen. The software is already watching us even as we watch the screen. E-commerce platforms do this; the social media platforms do this too. They use it to make money, shape consumer behaviour, and study what we want. In a world of AI, we can also leverage this to transform the education process. We already know that different students learn differently. Some students learn better by listening, speaking; they learn better through a verbal way. There are some students who prefer to learn by reading and absorbing. There are many students who learn best by doing things with their hands – building, creating, coming up with something with their hands and handiwork and craftwork. With AI, it will be possible to customise the learning process to each student's individual skills, understanding what works best for that particular student. This does not mean teachers will become obsolete. Instead, it means teachers can be freed up to focus on human skills, life skills, and helping prepare students for life. Life skills such as how to work as a team, how to connect with your peers, or how to grow as a person. No AI can replace this.”
“We have to recognise these new and challenging realities. So, each new technology, even as it brings new challenges, also brings opportunities. In the new world of technology, there will still be these opportunities, moving ahead. For example, AI content creation will change as more computing power becomes available. Today, it takes time – if you key in an instruction into Stable Diffusion, DALL.E or Midjourney 5 – to create that image, that one frame. But as computing power increases, imagine if those images can be created 30 times a second. That means you now create a complete AI-generated video. Imagine now, if you add in dialogue, sound and movement, you are basically making your own movies, your own content without Hollywood, potentially cinema-quality as well. The next step, of course, then is monetising, marketing and creating opportunities out of that content. Because if you have a very marketable AI content that you have designed, you can sell it to the rest of the world. Generate revenue in the same way that content is generated today on social media platforms. There will be these opportunities both in the content as well as in the backend – the AI programming, the infrastructure, the data centres, the engineering. There will be opportunities for Singapore as well, but we need to move quickly before others get there before us. We also need to continue nurturing and deepening the life skills and human skills which AI cannot replicate. That includes in the digital world, helping our students get better at building friendships, face-to-face interactions, communicating with fellow human beings, persuading, building networks, growing social circles.”
“My Clementi residents tell me that the older blocks with void decks are not quite the same as the newer blocks, which do not have void decks and therefore have fewer shared spaces for organic interaction in the same way as before. My residents feel that about the newer blocks. When neighbourhood centres are designed and outfitted, do policymakers lean in favour of having more hawker centres and coffee shops as a way of bringing people together, even building, designing ahead of demand, or does the market get to decide after the fact? Do our policies bring Singaporeans of different backgrounds and different journeys together throughout life, especially from young – children who have come from different starting points and different stories, but who all can learn from mixing with one another? Because this too builds trust. When people connect, engage, come together, and learn from one another, that sharing and exchange of social capital lifts up a society. It deepens our closeness and identity as Singaporeans. And the beauty of social capital is that unlike fiscal capital, which when redistributed is a case of addition and subtraction. But when we have social capital, exchanging and sharing, it multiplies, makes our society richer, more interesting, more unique, deepens our identity as Singaporeans. We need to make sure that mixing, that face-to-face interaction happens all the more so in an era of AI. We also need to equip our students to compete in a world of AI. We cannot hide from it. Even if tomorrow, as some jurisdictions have talked about, we legislated against the use of ChatGPT and other technologies, that would not protect our students or our people – not when a competitor or another firm halfway around the world might be making use of AI.”
“What happens when any photo or video can be a deepfake? What happens when people can no longer trust what they see online, whether on a broadcast video, a WhatsApp message, a social media platform or something that is circulating around? What happens when people feel they cannot trust what they see and hear? You can imagine how foreign troublemakers will try to damage our society – circulating deepfakes of community incidents that never happened, deepfakes of opinion shapers or people in the news. That is the world we are going to have to deal with. This means every policy has to keep social togetherness and social cohesion – one eye on it, sometimes both eyes, but always mindful. In a world of unnatural AI, where the unnatural AI is the new natural, we have to assume that the natural workings of society are going to be very, very different. If you are a policymaker and you are not already thinking about how to strengthen social cohesion in this brave new world, then business-as-usual policies will actually mean the progressive weakening of our social togetherness in a world disrupted by AI and generative AI. I use the word "togetherness" with some consideration. You can have different views, come from different backgrounds, have different ideas, different perspectives, but that togetherness is what allows us to pull together and move forward as one people, especially in times of difficulty. This means we need to double down on how people meet, face to face, in the community. When HDB estates are designed, do the shape of blocks and neighbourhoods make it harder for people to come together when going out for work, to play, or to school? Or does the shape of estate designs make it easier for people to interact spontaneously or serendipitously?”
“Just as today, we look back and reflect on what the founding generation of Singaporeans and leaders did, the choices they made, the directions we took, in SG100, there will be another generation looking back at what we decide today and in the next few years. And they will know whether we chose well. It is incumbent on us to make those decisions soon, given how quickly the world is changing. There is not much time. We have to move very quickly and very decisively. I will speak first on togetherness in our society. There is an old saying from Mr Lee Kuan Yew to the effect that "all other policies would 'bend at the knees' for our water survival." We still face existential challenges and dangers as a small country, whether it is water security, our ability to defend ourselves in an ever more hazardous world. But there can be no policy stability, no policy continuity, no ruggedness of policies to bend at the knee for other issues if as a society, we are fragmented, divided and splintered. We will be less than a dot if we are splintered. There can be no consensus on redistribution or a social compact, regardless of what view is put forward on any side of the House or in our society. There can be no consensus without that basic idea of togetherness – a togetherness that each of us sees fellow Singaporeans as our brothers and sisters. Before we can be our brother's keeper, we have to see that fellow citizen as our brother or our sister, as the case may be. So, I would suggest that in this new era, every policy in the Government must have one eye on the impact of governance and policy, on our cohesion and our social togetherness as a nation and as a people. AI will pose great challenges for social togetherness and social trust.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. The world order is changing. Some of these changes are once in a generation, some might say once in a century. Not just the relationships between the great powers, the US and China, but the relationship between humans and technology, between humanity and artificial intelligence (AI). Just one year ago, if someone had suggested you could log into a server online, have a conversation with a software application, have it write a detailed essay that might be indistinguishable from some journals, you might have been told that was a bit speculative. Just one year ago, if you said you had an AI which could outperform many humans at advanced placement exams in the US, you might have been told that was a stretch goal. Just one year ago, if you said software could generate photo-realistic images of scenes and events which never happened just through some text instructions written and keyed in via a keyboard, you might have been told that was some way off. And yet, today, we have ChatGPT, GPT-4 architecture, Midjourney 5 – and that is just one year on. Now, imagine that technology developing five, 10, or 15 years from now. Just imagine. In short, the genie is out of the bottle. What has been invented cannot be un-invented, whether it is the light bulb, the computer, the smartphone, cloud computing or AI in its current form. What has been invented cannot be un-invented. That is the world we live in – a brave new world for Singapore and Singaporeans in the generation ahead. This means the world of SG100 will be very different from the world of SG50 just a few years ago. Some might say the world of SG100 will be as different from SG50, as SG50 was from the early days of our Independence in 1965.”