Yip Hon Weng
Singapore
“But we must also keep building our trust. It is the only infrastructure a small country cannot afford to lose. Every generation since Independence has earned our place in the world. Our responsibility is to see that the next generation is given the chance to do the same.”
“It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall.”
“Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice. Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building.”
The complete record
Every one of 873 lines we hold for Yip Hon Weng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 18.
“But we must also keep building our trust. It is the only infrastructure a small country cannot afford to lose. Every generation since Independence has earned our place in the world. Our responsibility is to see that the next generation is given the chance to do the same. A hundred years from now, when our great grandchildren ask what sort of country this was, I want them to be able to say what merchants once said of the Hanseatic cities: they knew what to expect of Singapore; and Singapore kept faith. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Motion.”
“Stronger international protection for undersea cables, for freedom of navigation through chokepoints, and for the infrastructure the digital economy sits on. Those are no longer commercial assets. They are strategic ones. In the 20th century, we built the port. In the 21st, we must help decide the rules the port will live under, not just how well we follow them. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every generation of Singaporeans has faced the same question. How does a small country stay indispensable? Our founders built a port where people could trust. The next generation built an airport, a financial centre and a reputation the world came to rely on. We will have to give solutions in a world that is increasingly difficult to navigate. Three proposals began that answer. First, position Changi and PSA as the trusted gateway for the wider Johor-Singapore-Riau region: off-airport check-in, integrated cross-border transport and bonded cargo corridors, extended to Batam and Bintan, every measure designed to benefit our neighbours as much as ourselves. Second, build a national resilience that lets us stay reliable through a National Crisis Logistics Compact to stress test our supply chains, rehearse them, publish a Hub Resilience Statement and coordinate before crises arrive. Third, move from a country that competes under international rules to one that helps write them. In digital trade certification. In autonomous shipping and AI governance. In green shipping standards. And in the protection of undersea cables and chokepoint navigation. These may seem like transport proposals but are really national ones. Connectivity has never just been an industry for Singapore. It has been our strategy and often our safety. We can keep building. And we should.”
“Singapore is credible as a contributor to those rules not because we insist on our own advantage, but because we do not. Minister Chan Chun Sing made a related point at Shangri-La Dialogue last month. UNCLOS was written for a world in which oceans mainly carried ships. Today, they carry the digital infrastructure of the world economy. Over 99% of Singapore's international communications runs through undersea cables. The law has not kept up. This is not only a legal problem. It is a strategic opening. Countries that help set standards shape the markets that run on them and gain influence out of proportion to their size. Through TradeTrust and our IMO work, we have done this before, by designing frameworks that are practical, neutral and useable everywhere. The Government, and not only MOT, should bring the same ambition into transport, logistics and the infrastructure that underpins them in four areas. These are the four places where frontier technologies and international rules will meet. First, the operational layer. Common standards for trusted digital trade and cargo certification, so Singapore-issued documents are honoured elsewhere without translation. Second, the technological frontier. Rules for autonomous shipping and AI in port operations, so questions of liability and accountability do not remain open as ships and ports run themselves. Third, the transition. International standards for green shipping. A country that supplies close to a fifth of the world's marine fuel, 56.77 million tonnes last year, should be helping write those standards, not receiving them second-hand. Fourth, and most importantly, the strategic dimension.”
“In year one, it should stress-test our five most critical supply chains, run a whole-of-nation logistics exercise modelled after Exercise Northstar, publish a Hub Resilience Statement and establish a standing industry council for crisis coordination. We have long taken military contingencies seriously. We have done the same for cybersecurity. Our economic infrastructure deserves the same discipline. We should not wait for a crisis to discover our weak points. Find, strengthen and rehearse them now. Preparation is a capability in its own right. And when the next storm comes, the world has to know it can still count on us. Preparation alone only manages a world we did not design. If we want to help shape the century, not just weather it, we must do one more thing. We must help write the rules. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is my third proposal. For 60 years, we have shown that we can compete under international rules. The next 60 will require us to help write them. The world we are entering is different. Competition is no longer about products and prices. It is about who sets the standards, defines the technology, runs the institutions, and ultimately writes the rules. Why should anyone follow rules written by a country of six million? Because the rules a small country writes are not designed to favour a small country. They must work for whoever sits at the table. We can afford to write rules that treat every party fairly, because we cannot assume we will always be at the top. That is why our Digital Economy Agreements have been adopted by countries much larger than us. It is why the Housing Development Board (HDB), once heterodox, is now studied globally.”
“Third, establish digital customs clearance and bonded cargo corridors from southern Johor into PSA and the Changi Airfreight Centre. Each of these measures is designed to benefit our neighbours as much as us. A traveller checking in at Johor Bahru spends money there. A cargo corridor creates jobs on both sides. Batam and Bintan enter on the same terms. A city-state alone is fragile. Our ambition should be for the wider region to become what it was for centuries: an integrated trading system in which each partner does what it does best and Singapore's role is to help hold it together. Merchants have to know what to expect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second proposal moves from what we build outside our borders to what we build inside them. A gateway means nothing if the country behind it is not reliable in a crisis. The Red Sea has been repeatedly disrupted. Undersea cables in the Baltic have been cut again and again. The Strait of Hormuz remains under pressure. These are not distant. They are pressure on the arteries our economy depends on. For us, resilience is not defensive. It is a competitive advantage. Our position rests on trust: trust in freedom of navigation, trust in international law, trust that we will remain open and reliable whichever way the world turns. Foreign interference is not just a security problem. It is an economic one. If our autonomy is compromised, or even seems to be, we lose the confidence that brings people here. I would therefore urge the Government to set up a National Crisis Logistics Compact, bringing MOT, MTI, MFA, the Ministry of Defence and major industry partners into one framework.”
“It is about honouring those who built this port with their hands and giving the next generation the tools to run it in a very different timeline. I know the question this will provoke in this Chamber and across the Causeway. It is being asked in Johor and Riau too. If we integrate more with our neighbours, will the good jobs not simply move? Let me answer directly. Some will move. It has been moving for 30 years. But the jobs that we have always been trusted to do best will not move – financing, brokering, customs, maritime law, air traffic control, supply chain command. And equally, the engineers, technicians, marine crews and training pathways from ITE and polytechnics to a control room. We are not proposing to hand Singapore's value away. We are proposing to grow Singapore, Johor and Riau together, each anchoring what it does best, connected by the trust the region has built. There is a proven model close to home. Hong Kong International Airport's SkyPier ferries passengers from Shenzhen and other Pearl River Delta ports directly to airside. They check in at their departure port, never clear Hong Kong immigration and arrive at their gate – something similar between Johor and Changi, jointly designed, we can build on together. Johor is Malaysian, Riau is Indonesian. We cannot legislate integration. We must negotiate it, earn it and build it patiently. Geography first connected this region. Diplomacy has to reconnect it. I would therefore ask the Government to look seriously at three practical measures. First, open Changi check-in and baggage handling in Johor itself so a traveller can begin a Changi journey from Johor Bahru. Second, build cross-border transport into that system, coach, rail or ferry, integrated with our airlines from the moment a passenger sets off.”
“Each of them aimed at what this Motion affirms: long-term competitiveness through cooperation with our neighbours, the technologies of the frontier and the infrastructure the world can rely on so that good jobs stay anchored here. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first proposal is about our neighbourhood. The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, signed last year, opens a new chapter for both sides of the Causeway. It also restores something older. For centuries, Johor, Singapore and the Riau Islands worked as one trading system along the Straits of Malacca through which a third of world trade still flows. With colonial boundaries, our borders changed that. The Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone gives all three a chance to knit that older geography back together, not politically, but economically. Manufacturing will spread across the region. Our job is to make sure the ecosystem grows with it, on both sides of the Causeway and beyond. Aviation, shipping, logistics headquarters, customs, trade finance, maritime law, supply chain command. These functions need trust and trust is what we have spent 60 years building. Let me put this personally. My father worked at PSA for 40 years, directing containers on the ground, shift after shift, under the sun and in the rain. He was one of thousands of ordinary Singaporeans whose hands built the port that built modern Singapore. Today, at Tuas, some of his successors sit in air-conditioned control rooms and run 20 cranes at once, guided by AI, in a port that is increasingly running itself. Their work is safer, their pay is better, their skills are sharper. But the reason they exist is the same reason he did. Singapore has to be a place the world can rely on. That is what this Motion is really about.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare I work in a global investment firm with assets across land transport, aviation, shipping and logistics. I rise on this Motion as a Member of this House and also as the Chair of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs. I mention the second because for us, transport policy is inseparable from foreign policy and national security. To talk about our ports and airports is to talk about our place in this world. Some 700 years ago, the trading cities of the Hanseatic League built the most successful commercial network in Europe – not because their ports were the biggest, but because merchants knew what to expect. Contracts were honoured. Disputes were resolved. The harbour cities of Srivijaya and Melaka understood the same truth. The most valuable port is not the largest. It is the one people trust. That lesson is older than Singapore itself. It is why we still exist as a trading nation. This Motion celebrates our infrastructure. Tuas Port will handle 65 million containers a year. T5 will lift Changi towards 140 million passengers. But world-class infrastructure alone, however necessary, has never been sufficient. Supply chains today are shaped by geopolitics as much as by cost. For Singapore, decisions about transport are decisions about our economy, our diplomacy and our security. A new berth is worth only what the world thinks of the country behind it. Our task is not just to build, but to shape the environment around what we build so the jobs stay here. I have three proposals: one about our region, one about ourselves and one about the wider world.”
“It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate? Because that will be one of the clearest indicators of whether these reforms are making a meaningful difference to market activity. We must ensure that access leads to understanding. We must ensure that participation leads to liquidity. And we must ensure that ambition leads to outcomes. And on that basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“However, ambition alone will not deliver outcomes unless it is matched by execution in the realities of our market. This debate has made clear what that execution requires. On the GLB, we must ensure that design choices do not constrain the pipeline or weaken Singapore's position in global capital markets. On retail participation, we must ensure that earlier access is matched by investor capability. On market structure, we must address the demand side constraints that continue to limit liquidity. On implementation, we must resolve operational uncertainties and build a credible pipeline under realistic market conditions. These are not technical issues. They go to the heart of why this Bill matters. Singapore's position as a leading financial hub has never been accidental. It has been built through deliberate policy choices, strong institutions and our ability to connect global capital with regional opportunity. Our financial sector is not peripheral to our economy. It is a core driver of growth, a source of high value jobs and a gateway through which international capital flows into Southeast Asia. If we do not continue to strengthen our markets, capital will not stand still. It will move to where liquidity is deeper, where ecosystems are stronger and where execution is clearer. Ultimately, this is not only about introducing a new framework. It is about whether Singapore remains a place where global capital chooses to come, where regional companies choose to list and where Singaporeans themselves choose to participate. If we match ambition with execution and follow through with discipline in addressing these gaps, then this Bill can do more than improve our market structure.”
“Second, the Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) scheme's research grant scheme should be expanded to cover GLB companies from the point of listing. Early research coverage is essential to building investor confidence, especially for companies unfamiliar to Singapore investors. Third, the pipeline below the GLB threshold must be developed more deliberately. The S$6.5 billion Equity Market Development Programme and the S$1 billion Startup SG Equity top-up are important initiatives. But the path from a start up to a GLB eligible company takes years. I ask MAS and Enterprise Singapore to identify the cohort of companies that could realistically reach this stage within five to seven years and to publish a framework that allows this House to track progress. Tracking progress is important. I assume the Ministry already has a set of internal key performance indicators (KPIs) for this initiative. If so, I would encourage that these KPIs be made clear, measurable and where possible, transparent to this House, so that we can assess whether this Bill is delivering its intended outcomes over time. Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, timing matters. We are introducing these reforms at a moment of global market uncertainty. Geopolitical tensions and tariff risks are already affecting IPO pipelines. If the GLB is launched into weak market conditions, we risk building a well-designed framework with limited participation. A framework without issuers is not a market. I urge the MAS to consider contingency measures, including bridging capital through platforms, such as ADDX and other flexible funding solutions, so that near-IPO companies are not lost due to timing. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I began by noting that this Bill reflects ambition.”
“So, what accompanying measures will be introduced? Will MoneySENSE be expanded? Will investor education be strengthened? Will simplified prospectus summaries be made available? A preliminary prospectus in the hands of an unprepared investor is not empowerment. It is liability. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must be candid about what this Bill cannot do. The Bill is fundamentally a supply-side measure. It seeks to attract more issuers and introduces mechanisms, such as SDR, where the issuer of the underlying securities assumes responsibility for disclosure and liability. That is appropriate. But a chronic weakness of the SGX is a demand-side problem. Our retail investor base is smaller and more conservative. There is a long-standing preference for dividends, bonds and property over equities. No legislative amendment can manufacture trading appetite. Without sustained participation, liquidity will remain limited. Without liquidity, even strong listings may struggle to gain traction. We need a whole-of-life-cycle approach to capital markets. From early-stage funding to public listings. Across asset classes including credit, infrastructure and real estate. MAS has begun moving toward this ecosystem model. I urge the Minister to accelerate this effort and to ensure it is implemented in a coordinated way. Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I offer three specific suggestions to strengthen the implementation of this Bill. First, settlement and stabilisation mechanics for the GLB must be clarified. Current consultation materials do not prescribe how settlement, closing and price stabilisation will operate across Nasdaq and SGX. These are foundational issues. Uncertainty here will deter issuers.”
“Issuers are concerned about the risk of US class action litigation. This is a material deterrent. Without clarity on how Singapore-based issuers can navigate these risks, we may deter the very firms we seek to attract. This is particularly relevant in a dual listing framework where issuers are subject to multiple legal regimes. Greater clarity on how these cross-border liabilities are managed will be important for issuer confidence. Fourth, structural dependency. Under the framework, an issuer delisted from the overseas exchange must also be delisted from the Dual Listing Board. This creates a structural dependency on that foreign exchange. I do not question the good faith of any partner exchange. But I ask the Minister what safeguards exist for investors holding shares on SGX if such a partnership is disrupted and whether extending the framework to other exchanges provid a sufficient hedge? Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the expansion of retail investor access. The amendments to section 251 allow the issuers to present preliminary offering materials to any person before a prospectus is registered, subject to safeguards. This levels the playing field between retail and institutional investors and gives Singaporeans earlier access to investment opportunities. But let me add a caveat. Earlier access to information is a meaningful change. Yet, access alone does not guarantee better outcomes. If investors receive a preliminary prospectus without the corresponding ability to evaluate it, they are exposed to increased risk rather than be empowered to act. The safeguards in the Bill, including disclaimers and restrictions on application forms, are necessary, but they do not address this underlying gap in financial literacy.”
“First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the GLB. The new Part 13A allows MAS to modify and align regulatory requirements with overseas exchanges to support dual listings and streamline offer documentation. This is a meaningful step if Singapore is to compete for international listings. However, several structural concerns raised by market practitioners need to be addressed. First, the $2 billion market capitalisation threshold. I understand its rationale. But in practice, only a small number of Southeast Asian companies will meet this bar. According to market practitioners, about eight Southeast Asian tech firms would meet the threshold, with another two to three potentially close to achieving that. It is a narrow universe when set against the ambitions of the GLB. The companies large enough to qualify are precisely those that may choose to list directly on Nasdaq, without the need for a Singapore leg. I ask whether MAS will consider a tiered threshold, or a review mechanism as the market matures. Given that Part 13A allows MAS to partner with different overseas exchanges, it would also be helpful to understand which segments of issuers we are prioritising and how Singapore intends to position itself relative to other listing venues competing for the same pool of companies. Second, liquidity fragmentation. Institutional investors will trade where liquidity is deepest. In a dual listing structure, that is likely to be the primary overseas exchange. If Singapore trading volumes remain thin, issuers will question the purpose of maintaining a listing here. We need clarity on how Singapore intends to support meaningful trading activity on the SGX leg, beyond existing measures, such as retail allocation. Third, legal exposure.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm with publicly listed assets. I rise in support of this Bill, and I commend MAS and the Ministry of Finance for moving this Bill with urgency. The GLB represents Singapore's most ambitious structural intervention in its equity markets in a generation. That ambition is necessary, but ambition alone will not deliver outcomes. It must be matched by execution in the realities of our market. I note that the regulatory appetite for this move reflects a shift. A decade ago, MAS often maintained a broad scepticism toward special purpose acquisition companies and novel fund structures. Today, it is more prepared to engage with innovation in a calibrated way. That shift, while long overdue, is nevertheless welcome. But this House has a responsibility not only to support ambition, but to test it. I speak today not to oppose the Bill, but to provide constructive views so that it delivers genuine market vibrancy, rather than the appearance of it. Let me be direct. The fundamentals of our equity market remain fragile. SGX's securities daily average value stands at around $2.4 billion, or US$1.8 billion. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange records an average daily turnover of HK$304 billion, approximately US$39 billion. In terms of cash equity trading, the Hong Kong market is more than 20 times more liquid than our own. This disparity extends to capital raising. In the first quarter of 2026, Singapore's IPOs raised US$967.1 million. In that same period, Hong Kong's secondary listings alone raised US$8.5 billion. These are not peripheral comparisons. They are the baseline realities against which this Bill must be measured. I have several clarifications on the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time. Given that Singapore relies heavily on exports and use the exchange rate to manage inflation, could the Minister of State explain how such global currency shifts may affect the Government's ability to keep imported cost stable for Singaporeans, particularly in essentials, such as food, energy and daily necessities?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce? And does the Ministry intend to further calibrate Work Pass policies if Singaporeans, particularly mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), are facing disproportionately weaker hiring process?”
“If regulation becomes too complex, it risks disproportionately favouring larger players with greater compliance resources. I also note that IMDA may approve documents prepared by third parties as Codes of Practice. Can the Minister clarify how IMDA will ensure that such externally developed standards remain robust, transparent and aligned with public interest, particularly where industry interests are involved? Regulation should be a ladder for growth, not a hurdle to entry. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a necessary evolution of our regulatory framework. In an age of global media consolidation, we must have the tools to ensure that our market remains fair, competitive and resilient. But residents will not judge this Bill by its legal provisions. They will judge it by outcomes. Will media remain affordable? Will jobs remain stable? Will opportunities remain open to new and diverse voices? While this Bill focuses on market structure and not content, we should recognise that in the media sector, structure and trust are closely related. As we strengthen regulatory powers, it is important that confidence in editorial independence and the diversity of voices continues to be maintained. Residents do not consume regulation. They experience outcomes in their bills, in their jobs and in their opportunities. If we strengthen control over the market without delivering clear improvements in affordability, jobs and opportunities, we risk building a system that is more regulated, but not necessarily better for Singaporeans. Let us ensure that as we reshape our media industry, we deliver not just stronger rules, but better outcomes for families, for workers and for the next generation of creators. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“These independent creators are vital to innovation, diversity and the vibrancy of our media ecosystem. While the Bill is rightly targeted at regulated entities and anti-competitive conduct, I seek clarification on whether there may be indirect compliance implications for smaller players who interact with these entities. The Bill introduces detailed definitions of control and associate under sections 59 and 60B. These are structured around equity interests and defined relationships. However, given that they include arrangements and coordinated actions, can the Minister clarify how IMDA will ensure that ordinary commercial collaborations, especially among smaller players, are not inadvertently captured? I also note that the definition of regulated persons has been expanded to close potential gaps, including for entities structured through trusts or other arrangements. Can the Minister clarify how this expanded scope will be applied in practice, particularly to avoid unintended capture beyond key media entities? Further, under sections 65B and 71A, IMDA is empowered to require information from any person for investigative purposes. While necessary for enforcement, can the Minister assure that these powers will be exercised proportionately, particularly where smaller businesses or individuals are involved? I am also concerned about barriers to entry. If compliance requirements become complex or uncertain, smaller players may feel compelled to incur legal costs simply to ensure they remain compliant. While the Bill reduces burden for certain pro-forma transactions, it also expands investigative and compliance powers. Can the Minister clarify how, on balance, this results in a net reduction of regulatory burden, particularly for smaller and emerging players?”
“A competitive market must also be an affordable market. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, worker protection. Our media industry is powered by people: journalists, producers, technicians and increasingly, freelancers. While I acknowledge that employment protections fall under the Employment Act and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) guidelines, the interventions in this Bill can have real and immediate consequences for workers. Under section 69A, a separation order may require the transfer of business to another entity. Such restructuring can create uncertainty for employees. Can the Minister clarify how IMDA will work with MOM and unions to ensure that workers affected by such changes are adequately supported and that transitions are managed fairly? Further, under section 65A, IMDA may direct the disposal of business units. Has the Government assessed the potential employment impact of such interventions? Will considerations of workforce stability form part of the broader public interest assessment? Beyond immediate restructuring, I would also like to understand the longer-term effects. In an environment where structural interventions are possible, firms may adopt a more cautious approach to long-term workforce commitments. While formal employment protections apply, the practical response may still be a preference for leaner organisational structures and more flexible staffing models. Will increased competition in this sector lead to better jobs, or more fragmented and less secure employment? A more competitive market must also be a more secure job market. A healthy market must also be one that provides stability and dignity for workers. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the impact on local small media players and freelancers.”
“Next, I note and support the effort under section 65 to reduce regulatory burden by exempting certain immaterial transactions from prior approval. However, for major acquisitions, approvals remain necessary. This is a significant shift as approval is now required regardless of whether the acquiring party is a media entity or not. Can the Minister elaborate on how IMDA will assess such acquisitions, particularly where new entrants may bring innovation and capital but are not traditional media players? Can the Minister also clarify how IMDA will ensure that approval processes remain timely and predictable so that we do not inadvertently deter investments that could lower costs through innovation and scale? Further, under section 65A, IMDA has powers to require the disposal of shares or the relinquishment of control. These are significant interventions that may carry legal and operational costs. Can the Minister assure this House that such powers will be exercised judiciously and that any resulting costs will not ultimately be passed on to consumers? Finally, under section 69A, the Minister may order the structural separation of a regulated entity. While this can promote competition, it may also reduce economies of scale and increase duplication of costs. I note that this power is vested in the Minister rather than IMDA, given the significant impact of such decisions. Can the Minister elaborate on how this higher threshold of decision-making will be exercised and what considerations will guide such interventions? How does the Ministry evaluate the trade-off between fostering competition and preserving efficiency so that affordability for households is not compromised? If competition improves on paper but prices do not fall, residents will not feel the benefit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm that owns assets in the media industry. We debate this Bill at a critical juncture in the global digital landscape, where infrastructure, platforms and data are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. For a small, open nation, like Singapore, our media landscape is not just an industry. It is a strategic asset. It is where our national stories are told, where perspectives are shaped and where trust is built. A market dominated by a single player is not merely an economic risk. It is a vulnerability to our social resilience. I support this Bill. It is a necessary step to strengthen competition, align our media framework with the telecommunications sector and equip IMDA with the tools to act when markets do not function well. But the power to intervene is also the power to reshape an industry. To ensure these powers deliver real benefits to Singaporeans without unintended consequences, I seek clarifications in three areas: affordability, worker protection and opportunities for smaller players. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, affordability. Heartland families today are navigating rising cost-of-living pressures. If media markets are not truly competitive, the consumer ultimately pays through bundling, limited choice and rising subscription costs. Competition policy must not just rearrange ownership. It must reduce prices that families actually feel. The Bill strengthens IMDA's powers over market conduct and structure. Under section 61A, IMDA may issue directions to ensure fair and efficient market conduct. But how will these interventions translate into tangible price relief for the average family?”
“Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice. Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building. It cannot be one that says, "Stop having humans". It must be one that says, "Invest in people". Whether our workers advance is a choice we must make together, deliberately and decisively. Thank you, and I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“A factory invested heavily in new machines. They were faster, smarter and more efficient. But productivity fell, not because the technology failed, but because the people were left behind. On another line, the company did something different. Instead of replacing workers, they retrained them. Machine operators became data readers. Technicians became problem solvers. What changed was not the equipment. It was the capability and confidence of the people using it. Soon, breakdowns fell. Ideas came from the shop floor. Workers who once feared change began to lead it. The same machines. The same factory. But a very different future. That is the lesson. Technology may set the pace. But people determine the direction. And in an AI transition, fluency, not just adoption, determines whether that direction is inclusive. That brings us to the Motion before us. An AI transition with no jobless growth is not just about creating jobs. It is about ensuring that workers advance with technology, not fall behind it. It is about translating productivity into progression. It is about turning innovation into shared outcomes. If adoption builds capability, then fluency must build advantage. If work is redesigned, then skills must be deepened. If growth is created, then it must be broadly shared. But this will not happen on its own. It requires coordination. It requires leadership. It requires trust. And this is where Singapore has a unique advantage. Our model of tripartism, where Government, employers and workers move together, gives us the ability not just to react to change, but to shape it. This is our secret weapon. When firms invest, workers must be equipped. When jobs are redesigned, workers must be involved. When disruption occurs, support must be credible.”
“We often point to existing measures like SkillsFuture and career conversion programmes. But here is a hard truth – if these measures are sufficient, why are our workers still so deeply anxious? The answer is that AI disruption moves at an unprecedented speed and workers worry our safety nets cannot catch them fast enough. I ask the Government: how are we rigorously tracking the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures, particularly the financial runway for displaced workers, to guarantee that they remain truly responsive? For the workers who remain, basic AI capability will no longer be a distinct advantage. It will be the price of staying in the game. The task is to help workers transition from being mere AI users to becoming AI conductors, workers who know how to curate, steer and verify AI outputs. This brings me to a critical concern regarding our workforce pipeline. If AI automates drafting, summarising and first-pass analysis, what happens to our entry-level jobs? If young graduates cannot get a real first job and the mentorship they need, they will never gain the foundational experience earlier cohorts relied on to grow and we risk losing our future workforce. I ask the Government: how are we working with employers and industry leaders to protect and redesign entry-level pathways so that our youth can develop the professional judgment required to become the AI conductors of tomorrow? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to where I began. In the Temasek ecosystem, we see companies investing in AI, piloting new tools and pushing forward with transformation. But the decisive constraint is not the technology. It is whether the workforce is ready. I shared this story with chief technology officers across our Temasek companies.”
“However, we must acknowledge that many businesses struggling with high operating costs in this challenging economy do not have the luxury of time. I ask the Ministry: how can we better support companies to absorb these short-term lags, ensuring that the cost of time required to retrain workers does not become an excuse for lay-offs? Mr Speaker, Sir, as employers lead this transition, there is one structural shift we must recognise clearly – before job redesign can happen, we must have workflow redesign. We ask workers to change, but we leave the system unchanged. AI cuts across functions and domains, reimagining how processes connect and how value is created. That reshaping of the entire process must come before individual roles themselves are redesigned. However, here lies a significant gap in our current policy approach. Today, much of our national support is heavily focused on individual job redesign. We ask workers to adapt to new job scopes, but legacy company processes are left unchanged. As a result, AI is often layered onto outdated workflows with silos and fragmented data. Productivity stalls and frustration rises. Workers resist change not because they are stubborn but because it is deeply frustrating to use advanced AI tools within broken workflows. So, I ask the Government and our tripartite partners: can we expand our support schemes to explicitly look into workflow redesign? How can we provide enterprises with the expertise and funding to reimagine their cross-functional processes first? If we fix the workflow, workers will naturally see the value of the technology, turning inertia into eagerness to adapt. Mr Speaker, Sir, even with the best workflows, disruption will occur. Some workers will be displaced and some roles will change faster than expected.”
“Because the real challenge is not introducing AI into firms, it is integrating workers into that transformation. This brings us to the central challenge of this transition: AI is not just a technology multiplier; it is a leadership multiplier. Leaders must have real conviction in the transformational potential of AI and lead by example in using it, guiding its application and bringing their workforce along. AI can write, design and optimise. But it cannot exercise judgement, build trust or carry people through uncertainty. That responsibility remains human. Mr Speaker, Sir, employers have a critical responsibility, but without the right leadership, the easiest way to adopt AI is to simply cut headcount. We are already seeing this tension play out globally. We have seen Amazon announcing 16,000 job cuts in early 2026 while leaning further into AI for corporate efficiency. When AI is introduced mainly as a headcount strategy, it breeds fear. When introduced as a capability strategy, it builds trust. Stories of this fear have long played out in our workplace, even among AI-enabled workers. When generative AI first started trending, some workers proactively explored AI on their own to improve their efficiency at work, but kept it a secret. They worry that if they reveal the source of their newfound productivity, they will eventually be made redundant or be loaded with more work without extra compensation. When trust is absent and gains are not shared, workers hide their capabilities rather than sharing them. True transformation requires leaders to adopt a long-term perspective. Firms must expect short-term productivity lags as workers transition to new ways of working and they must create space for experimentation.”
“It is not enough to observe whether firms adopt AI. We must demand accountability for what happens after adoption. The question is simple. Are workers better off after transformation than before it? We must ask: are jobs and workflows being redesigned? Are gains being shared? If AI raises output but weakens livelihoods, that is not transformation. It is exclusion. We must ensure public funds do not subsidise this. Hence, I ask the Government: can we establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes? If public grants are funding a company’s pivot, should it not be explicitly tied to a national, human-centric scorecard? A scorecard that tracks the number of net new roles created, the scale of workflow redesign, wage improvements, staff retention and upskilling. If we are serious about no jobless growth, our adoption metrics must move beyond counting jobs to measuring careers. From our work in AI fluency in Temasek, we know companies are urgently asking for guidance in leadership capability, job redesign, measurement of outcomes, trust and governance. Companies cannot navigate this alone. This is where our Labour Movement, NTUC, e2i and the unions come into play. We must empower them to provide this guidance, ensuring that union leaders and management sit at the same table, mapping out the enterprises' technology roadmap and the workers' retraining schedules simultaneously. If companies need guidance on job redesign and shared outcomes, our tripartite partners must be right there on the ground with them. The recently announced Tripartite Jobs Council is a timely step, but it must actively bridge the gap between firm-level transformation and worker-level outcomes.”
“Where skill supply lags, opportunity does not disappear. It simply moves elsewhere. The AI transition we are debating is structural, global and accelerating. Tasks that took weeks now take hours, and soon minutes or seconds. Change no longer moves in a linear way, it moves exponentially. In this context, adoption is no longer optional. In Singapore, while large firms wrestle with legacy systems and heavy compliance, and SMEs face severe constraints in capital and bandwidth, the implication is the same for both: enterprises that do not adopt AI will struggle to remain competitive. But if AI adoption is necessary, disruption is inevitable. We must be clear about the risks to workers if this transition is not managed carefully. On one hand, as AI lowers the cost of many tasks, demand for those tasks can expand rather than contract. Economists refer to this as the "Jevons employment effect", where efficiency leads not to less work, but to more work in new forms. We have seen this before. ATMs reduced routine tasks but expanded banking. Word processors increased output and shifted work to higher-value roles. AI will likely follow the same pattern. But the practical reality often produces a K-shaped outcome. Experienced, AI-enabled workers capture disproportionate gains, while those without such capabilities, especially entry-level workers, risk falling behind. So, the question is not whether AI creates growth. It is who that growth accrues to. The real risk is not that AI replaces jobs. It is that it replaces opportunity at scale. A worker may remain employed but face slower progression and a quiet erosion of experience. Our task is not to deny disruption. Our task is to govern it. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are to govern this disruption effectively, the debate must shift.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare I work in a global investment firm working on ecosystem workforce strategies. In recent weeks, a plane has been circling San Francisco with a banner that reads, "Stop Hiring Humans." The same message appears on billboards and bus shelters across the city, alongside slogans such as "The Era of AI Employees Is Here." The campaign is the work of Artisan, an AI startup. This is not just a marketing stunt. It reflects a fear that the future of work may exclude people rather than empower them. I rise in support of this Motion because that must not be Singapore’s approach. AI must not be a signal to workers that they are dispensable. In my work in Temasek, I have seen how technology disrupts industries, and I want to lay out my key thesis upfront. To achieve growth without casualties, enterprise AI adoption cannot just be about buying technology. It must follow a deliberate thread: we must first build AI fluency; use that fluency to drive workflow and job redesign; and ensure that this redesign leads to tangible, shared outcomes for our workers. Let me begin with an important observation. In the Temasek ecosystem, many companies are already investing in AI. Tools are being deployed and pilots are multiplying. But the real constraint we are seeing is not technology, compute, or capital. It is workforce readiness. We are not short of technology. We are short of transformation. In our AI Fluency workshops with over 20 Temasek portfolio companies, we see clearly that fragmented AI literacy remains a primary bottleneck. We are working closely with Chief Human Resource Officers and Chief Technology Officers to bridge the gap between adoption and actual value creation. Fundamentally, this is a skills-matching problem.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall. So, will MOH consider imposing clearer limits or review triggers on premium increases? My second supplementary question is for older Singaporeans. They face the steepest premium increases and have the least flexibility to change or switch plans. So, will MOH consider introducing additional safeguards, specifically for seniors, and how does the Ministry prevent them from being priced out of coverage that they have relied on for years?”
“Skills will age more quickly, industries will shift faster and workers will have to adapt continuously. So, the question before us is not just how we help someone find a job. The question is whether we are building a system that helps Singaporeans stay employable and employed over a lifetime. As Vice Chair of the Health GPC, I often reflect on how we approach healthcare. We do not wait for people to fall sick before we act. We screen early, we intervene upstream and we support individuals over time. We should take the same approach to careers. SWDA should not just be reactive. It should be proactive. It should help Singaporeans monitor their career health, anticipate change and act early. And if I may summarise the key points I have raised in my speech. First, clarity of purpose in this merger. Second, earlier and more proactive interventions. Third, a truly seamless resident experience. Fourth, accountability for training quality and outcomes. And fifth, clarity in implementation and partnerships. Ultimately, all of these come down to one test. When a person steps forward, when he invests his time in training, when he does everything right, does that training lead to a job and does that job last? Not enrolment, but employment. Not completion, but continuation. Because without that, the system risks measuring effort, not outcomes. If SWDA can track that, measure it and act on it, then residents, like Mr K, will not have to come back again asking for help. They will move forward. And this system will not just deliver programmes. It will deliver outcomes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“To strengthen this pillar, I suggest first, having outcome-based reporting by programme type; second, disclosure of placement and wage outcomes; and third, funding tied to sustained employment, not just completion. Because for residents, like Mr K, training is not the goal. A job is the goal. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on implementation. This is about who delivers the system. Sections 69 and 70 protect staff transfers. That ensures continuity at the point of merger. But what happens after? Once integration begins in earnest, what is the plan for restructuring? Will there be duplication? Will roles be restructured? How will officers be redeployed? We must provide clarity to those who will implement this system. We must also clarify the role of ecosystem partners, especially NTUC and e2i. They are central to outreach and delivery. But the Bill does not define their role in the new structure. Will they be delivery partners, referral partners or advisory partners? Will there be a formal tripartite framework? Will standards be consistent across all partners? And critically, will residents have a single complaints and appeals pathway? Because integration at the top must not lead to fragmentation below. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to Mr K. He did everything we asked of him. But effort did not lead to a desirable outcome. That is the gap this Bill must close. Because we are not just preparing Singaporeans for the jobs of today. We are also preparing them for the jobs of tomorrow in a future shaped by technology and AI. The Prime Minister reminded us in Budget 2026 and also at May Day that AI will transform the way we work, the way businesses operate and the way jobs are created.”
“Section 66 allows for codes and guidelines. But these do not have legislative effect. If these codes are non-legislative, how will Parliament know what standards are actually being enforced in practice? To make the system real for residents, I suggest that we need: first, a formal "no wrong door" protocol. Second, published service standards for response and case continuity. And third, transparency on digital versus assisted access. Because residents, like Mr K, do not see agencies. They experience whether someone stays with them throughout the journey or whether they are passed along. Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, on quality and funding. This is about what we fund and what we measure. Mr K did everything right. He attended courses. He sought help. But the system did not deliver the outcome he needed. That is the gap we must confront. Clause 52 addresses false advertising. But there is a deeper issue. Possible misleading quality. Courses that are technically compliant but may not improve employability. A course that is completed but does not improve employability is not a success. It is a displacement deferred. Hence, will SWDA track whether training actually leads to jobs? Will providers be assessed based on placement rates, wage outcomes and retention? Will low-performing programmes be removed? What mechanisms will SWDA put in place to ensure that training curricula of its funded courses are tightly aligned with industry demand and not lagging behind it? Will there be stronger accountability for training providers whose programmes do not lead to actual job placements? We must also avoid a system where providers focus only on easy cases. Those who need the most support must not be left behind.”
“Will it be wage decline, sector disruption or repeated job transitions? Will outreach be proactive or still largely reactive? And if decisions are data driven, what resources does a resident have, if the system misclassifies risk? When we speak of success, how will it be measured? Is it participation in programmes, or is it how quickly someone returns to work, at what age and what wage, and for how long they remain employed? More fundamentally, should we move decisively towards a place-and-train model, where employment is secured upfront and training follows rather than asking residents to train first without a clear job pathway? To strengthen this pillar, I suggest: first, clear triggers for proactive intervention. Second, public reporting on time to placement and retention outcomes. And third, defined governance and appeal mechanisms for data and AI-driven decisions. Because for residents like Mr K, help that comes too late does not change the outcome. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, on service delivery. This is about how residents experience the system. The Bill defines functions and powers, but it does not define service guarantees. Section 5(1)(c) speaks of coordination. But coordination must translate into a real experience. Will residents be case managed end-to-end, or will they still move across multiple touchpoints? How will MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture be streamlined under SWDA to provide a truly integrated, one-stop platform for individuals? If these platforms remain separate, we risk preserving fragmentation in the user journey, even as we merge agencies at the top. If the intention is seamless service, why is there no explicit "no wrong door" commitment? This matters especially for older workers and residents who require high-touch support.”
“The question is what has fundamentally changed. If SSG and WSG have largely achieved their intended objectives, then what specific coordination gaps or overlaps remain today? What could not be done under two agencies that now requires a single statutory board with a consolidated and expanded mandate under section 5? This is a question of design clarity. If the problem is fragmentation between agencies, then consolidation is logical. But if the problem lies in execution on the ground, then merging agencies alone may not solve anything. Section 5 confers a broad mandate, including additional functions assigned by the Minister. At the same time, clause 6 gives the agency wide-ranging operational powers, from funding to partnerships. This reinforces the need for clarity on how such broad discretion will translate into better outcomes for residents. We must, therefore, be clear. Are we streamlining the system or are we concentrating complexity within a single institution? Because structure is only a means. The real test is whether this design will improve outcomes for residents like Mr K. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on timing. This is about when the system intervenes. For displaced PMEs and older workers, timing determines outcome. Support that comes from redundancy often comes too late. This Bill gives the agency the power to act. But it does not impose a duty to act early. Clause 5(3) makes clear that these functions do not create an enforceable duty. Section 5(1)(g) allows the collection and analysis of labour market data. But such data has already been collected across agencies. The question is not data collection, but whether data now leads to earlier and more decisive intervention. So, what triggers early action?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at my Meet-the-People Session, I regularly meet residents who come to me looking for jobs. Some are fresh jobseekers, anxious about their first step into the workforce. Many are older workers and mid-career PMEs, trying to find their footing again after displacement. One resident, Mr K, came to see me. He had attended many SkillsFuture courses. He went to e2i for help. He met a job coach, worked on his curriculum vitae, took advice, followed through on what was recommended. But he still could not land a job. When he came back again, it was not because he had not tried. It was because, in his own words, the problem was not effort but his age. And it was the gap between what he had hoped for and what the market was willing to offer. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr K's story is not unique. I am sure many Members have similar stories to tell. And this is precisely why this Bill matters. I rise in support of the intention behind the new SWDA to bring skills, careers and workforce support together into a more coherent and coordinated system. As this is an enabling Bill, Parliament's responsibility is not only to examine the powers that are being created, but to ask a deeper question. What outcomes will these powers guarantee for our people? My residents, especially older workers, displaced PMEs and fresh graduates do not merely need a larger agency. They need earlier help, clearer pathways, fairer decisions and measurable results. It is in this spirit that I seek clarifications in five areas. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the strategic rationale of the merger. We began with one agency more than a decade ago under the WDA, moved to two with SSG and WSG and now returning to one. So, the fundamental question is not whether integration sounds right.”
“When the border becomes easier to cross, spending becomes easier to shift. This is why we must look beyond convenience. We must ask how this will affect our heartland businesses. We must ask how small and medium enterprises (SMEs) will compete. We must ask how local demand will evolve. A faster border must not become a slower erosion of our heartland economy. Connectivity creates opportunity but it also creates competition. So, the question is not whether we should build this link. The question is whether we are ready for what it will bring, ready to ensure accountability remains clear, ready to ensure protections remain strong and ready to ensure our local economy remains resilient. Because in uncertain times, convenience alone is not enough. Confidence is what matters. And if we get this right, we will not only build a more efficient crossing. We will build a system that is fair, trusted and resilient. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“What are the time limits? Finally, once the immediate emergency is over, we must address legal accountability. If someone is harmed or an offence occurs on a train in transit, both countries hold concurrent jurisdiction. How will victims and their families know which country takes the lead in the investigation? In a crisis, ambiguity is not neutral. It is a risk. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I raise one final point on enforcement. If a serious offence, such as drug trafficking, occurs within the Malaysian designated area in Singapore, which law applies? If an offence occurs in the Singapore designated area in Malaysia, when does Singapore law take effect? For offences committed in transit, how will section 39 be applied? Designated areas must not become legal grey zones when enforcement becomes uncertain. Clarity is essential to deterrence. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I return to the journey I spoke about at the beginning. The worker waiting before dawn. The parent planning the day around the crossing. The small business owner managing uncertainty. This Bill will change that journey. I support that change. I support making movement faster and more predictable. But I have also raised important clarifications on accountability, dignity, crisis response and the application of the law. Because this Bill does not operate in isolation. When travel becomes easier, behaviour changes. When the border becomes faster, decisions become faster. And when cost pressures rise, people respond. We are already in a period of global uncertainty. Rising costs are affecting households. Businesses are under pressure. In this environment, making Johor effectively next door will accelerate how Singaporeans respond to these pressures.”
“Malaysian officers may detain individuals and use reasonable force. To be clear, they cannot make arrests in Singapore. They must transfer custody to Singapore officers as soon as reasonably practicable. This is an important safeguard. This also applies reciprocally. The issue is not whether powers exist. The issue is whether safeguards are consistently applied. Under section 16, questioning can take place without a Singapore officer present. For vulnerable individuals, this may be intimidating. What protections are in place? Can a resident request a Singapore officer? Clause 15 requires detainees to be handed over without undue delay. But what does this mean operationally? Will the Ministry provide clear, public-facing guidelines so that travellers understand both their rights and the limits of these powers? Trust is built not just on what powers exist, but on how clearly they are explained and how fairly they are exercised. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, incident response and safety. In a cross-border incident, seconds matter. Clause 28 allows officers to operate across borders. But in the first critical minutes, who is in charge? Is there a single incident commander? In a crisis, clarity is not procedural. It is lifesaving. Clause 32 allows incident management officers to bear arms, subject to legal limits. Can the Minister clarify the rules governing the use of firearms and how accountability will be ensured if force is used? How will criminal jurisdiction under section 39 interact with immunity provisions under section 43? When force is used, there must be no doubt about the answers and under which law. On clause 10, deemed recognition allows additional officers during serious incidents. How are these officers identified? What safeguards are in place?”
“I acknowledge that, in law, an officer acting outside the proper discharge of duty may not be protected by immunity. But for residents, the question is whether there is a clear and workable path to seek redress. This concern extends to international visitors. If something goes wrong on our soil, people must know where to turn to and who will answer. Will the Government consider a dedicated liaison mechanism to assist Singaporeans and visitors in navigating these cross-border issues? I also return to reciprocity. Our officers will operate in Malaysia under similar arrangements. What support will they receive if they face disputes or accusations while carrying out their duties? Clause 44 allows the Minister to act if reciprocity fails. However, that is reactive. How will we monitor conditions proactively? I also seek clarification on the practical limits of these arrangements. While Malaysian officers exercise powers within designated areas, can the Government clarify how Singapore law applies if they step outside these areas in a personal capacity? Similarly, if offences, such as bribery or misconduct, occur within the Malaysia designated area in Singapore, can Singapore authorities investigate and take action where conduct falls outside official duties? On Singapore soil, accountability cannot stop at the boundary line of a designated area. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, the privacy and dignity of travellers. The Explanatory Statement suggests that strip and body searches require consent. Yet, the Second Schedule allows such searches in certain situations. Can the Government clarify the thresholds clearly, particularly when non-consensual searches may be carried out based on reasonable suspicion? Security must be firm, but it must also be understood.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for hundreds of thousands of people in Singapore, the journey across the Causeway is not simply for leisure. It is a routine. It is a lifeline. It is part of how families manage their time, how workers earn their livelihoods and how businesses stay connected. I have seen this journey. I have spoken to residents who make it. I have heard the stories of parents, workers and small business owners who depend on it. The Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS Link promises to transform this experience. It promises to turn what is today sometimes a long commute into a seamless transit. It promises to turn uncertainty into predictability. I support this Bill because for the RTS Link to succeed, the border clearance process must be as efficient as the journey itself. But a border made seamless for convenience must never become invisible for accountability. I have four areas of clarification. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, accountability and sovereignty in practice. Under section 35, certain data is governed by Malaysian law. Under section 36, some materials are immune from Singapore's legal processes. Under section 43, Malaysian officers are granted immunity for acts done in the discharge of their duties. So, I ask: how is an ordinary resident able to distinguish between a legitimate official act and an abuse of power that results in harm? And if that line is crossed, who determines that? Where such powers are exercised, accountability must be real and accessible. If a Singaporean suffers harm or has their data mishandled, what is their practical recourse? Will they be expected to navigate a foreign legal system? For residents, this is not about legal theory. It is about whether help is real, accessible and within reach when something goes wrong.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Some parents have met me at my Meet-the-People Session about disputes with schools, about how the teacher handles bullying cases when a kid is bullied. When there are disagreements between schools and parents on the severity of a bullying case, will MOE consider establishing a clearly defined independent, escalation pathway? And my second supplementary question is, with the introduction of an easier reporting channel likely increasing volume, could the Ministry explain whether it is confident that serious cases will not be crowded out by less severe reports?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. My supplementary question is on talent. Given that cyber threats, especially AI-driven ones, are really borderless and driven by highly sophisticated global actors, could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether Singapore faces constraint in attracting and retaining top-tier global cybersecurity and AI talent needed to safeguard our systems? How confident is the Government that we have sufficient depth of experience and expertise to protect critical infrastructure and maintain public trust, rather than falling behind more advanced threat actors?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I just have a very short supplementary question, which is, what additional support, besides CCP and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme, is available for mid-career workers who may be persistently over-qualified in their roles, especially those who have undergone reskilling, but still remain mismatched. Some suggestions would include things like hand-holding, coaching and even case management for this group of workers. I do see a lot of them at my Meet-the-People Session.”
“They are about whether care is competent, so families can trust those treating their pets. They are about whether care is transparent, so families can make informed decisions. They are about whether care is accountable, so families know the system will be fair when something goes wrong. This Bill moves us forward. It strengthens standards. It builds a framework. It raises professionalism. But a framework alone does not create confidence. Confidence is built when access is real, when responsibility is clear, when information is transparent and when accountability is trusted. Because trust is not created by regulation alone. It is created when systems work for people, when processes are clear and when outcomes are fair. So, let us take this opportunity to do more than regulate. Let us ensure that no family hesitates because of cost and that no resident is left uncertain about who is responsible. Let us also ensure that no one feels shut out when seeking accountability and let us build a system that residents can rely on, not just in principle, but in practice. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“But how does this structure ensure perceived independence in the eyes of the public? In particular, why do appeals from the Complaints Assessment Committee need to be heard by the Minister? Is there scope for these to be adjudicated by an independent tribunal instead? Fifth, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must ensure inclusivity for vets for easy compliance, while maintaining high standards. I seek clarification on the registration framework. What are the fees required for vets to obtain and maintain their registration? How frequently must practising certificates be renewed and what criteria will be used to assess renewal? Will the Council continually review the list of accredited qualifications and recognised schools to ensure standards remain current and internationally benchmarked? Further, how will older vets transition into this new system? If processes are primarily digital, what support will be provided to ensure senior practitioners are not left behind? Also, how would representation within the Veterinary Council reflect the diversity of the profession? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me return to Ms C. For her, caring for her dog was never just about fun. It was about love, responsibility and trust. Her deep love for her pets is not uncommon. In Singapore, pet owners have parted with life savings to save their pets, hired help or sacrificed travel and career opportunities to care for ill and ageing pets, as they would for their family members. So, the question before us is no longer just about animals or pets. It is about how we care for those we consider family. And if that is the case, then the questions raised in my speech are not abstract. They are about whether care is affordable, so families can say yes without fear.”
“Will it include specialist branches, practising certificate status and active conditions or restrictions? Pet owners should not need specialist knowledge just to understand who is qualified to do what, right now. Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when things go wrong, residents must have confidence that they can seek redress. The Bill establishes a structured disciplinary process with safeguards like layperson involvement and conflict-of-interest rules. But from a grieving resident's perspective, the process may still feel intimidating. I have four areas of concern. First, the entry barrier. A disciplinary case must be supported by a statutory declaration. For an ordinary resident, this is not a mere administrative step. It is the start of a formal legal process. Will there be clear guidance and simpler templates so genuine grievances are not deterred? Second, the timeline of justice. While the Bill sets a three-year limitation period, what are the indicative service timelines for triage, inquiry and final decision? Relatedly, what are the expected processing times for Complaints Assessment Committees and Disciplinary Committees, and are there clear service standards? Furthermore, given that individuals may still pursue civil claims through the Courts, what role does this disciplinary framework play in practice and what would encourage the public to use this process instead of going directly to Court? Third, transparency of investigations. Will there be a firm commitment to publish disciplinary workflows and final outcomes, so complainants are not left feeling shut out? Fourth, appeals and independence. Appeals against certain Council decisions go to the Minister, who also appoints and may remove Council members. I do not doubt the integrity of our institutions.”
“If a veterinary nurse is permitted to administer anaesthesia under supervision, what competency assurance exists right now, before their regulatory framework is in place? Can the Ministry clarify when these additional provisions relating to paraprofessionals, will be introduced? Will the Ministry commit to publishing the supervision guidelines before the main operational provisions of this Bill commence? Will the Council provide a clear, public list of high-risk acts requiring tighter, direct vet involvement? Finally, do residents have the right to know exactly who is clinically responsible at each stage of their pet's treatment? When the risks and corresponding costs are high, clarity cannot be left to interpretation. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, residents need clear and accessible information to make informed choices. The Bill introduces a structured registration system of full, restricted and specialist categories. This is a positive step. However, the information currently made available to the public is limited to name, place of practice, qualifications and registration date. This is not enough. As Vice Chair of the Health Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), I have seen how transparency builds trust. In human medicine, the Singapore Medical Council provides a clear benchmark. The public can check a doctor's registration type, specialist branch, practising certificate status and active conditions or restrictions. If we treat our pets like family and vets like professionals, residents deserve a similar level of clarity. A public register should be a tool for informed choice, not just a list of degrees. Hence, will the Veterinary Council's public register be aligned with the Singapore Medical Council's standards?”
“Will the Council also publish fee benchmarks so that people know the sort of ranges to expect and for other vets to benchmark themselves, like in the medical sector? Third, will the Ministry actively monitor whether the implementation of this Bill correlates with rising consumer costs? Fourth, will the Ministry work with the industry to help manage the underlying drivers of these costs, such as commercial rent and medicine procurement? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a well-regulated sector is not enough if residents cannot afford to say yes to critical treatment. Access does not begin at the clinic door. Access begins at the bill. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, residents want a competent team to treat their pet. When a family hands over their pet for a major procedure, they face a sobering reality. There is always a risk that the animal may never wake up. Because the stakes are high, they want assurance. The Bill defines the practice of veterinary medicine broadly but allows certain acts to be performed by non-vets under supervision. Importantly, high-risk procedures, such as the administration of anaesthesia are not excluded. Yet, the regulatory framework for veterinary nurses and paraprofessionals is not yet in place. This creates a regulatory gap. The Council is tasked with setting standards and requiring continuing professional education for vets, but the paraprofessionals assisting them remain in legislative limbo. I have several questions. What does "under veterinary supervision" mean in practice for high-risk procedures? Is this supervision direct, on-site and immediate or merely general supervision or consultation should any issues arise from another room?”