Committee of Supply – Head Q (Ministry of Digital Development and Information)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. If Singapore is to harness AI as a strategic advantage, three enablers must move together – deep and broad workforce capabilities, widespread enterprise adoption, including SMEs and strong ethical governance. The Government has introduced multiple grants, including Chief Technology Officer (CTO)-as-a-Service. What measurable progress have we made in accelerating AI transformation? Where are the gaps?

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]

Unlocking AI's value requires more than just tools. It requires re-engineering business processes and redefining operating models. How are we helping enterprises integrate AI into core workflows and build AI-ready teams and deliver tangible productivity gains?

For SMEs, three constraints persist: cost of talent, lack of validated use cases and integration complexity. If AI adoption concentrates among only the large enterprises, productivity and wage gaps will widen for the SMEs. We must move from advisory support to shared capability infrastructure.

Hence, I propose three enhancements.

First, evolve our CTO-as-a-Service into AI capabilities as a service, where pooled AI engineers deployed across SME clusters can deploy solutions for hands-on implementation. Second, develop shared industry platforms to co-create plug-and-play AI models for common functionalities, such as quality control and logistics optimisation, to help reduce experimentation costs, especially for SMEs. Third, introduce outcome-linked co-funding tied to measurable productivity, export growth or energy efficiency outcomes. AI infrastructure should be treated like shared physical resources, enabling our SMEs to compete by agility and not by size.

Beyond enterprises, workforce development is also critical. What progress have we made in developing deep AI expertise through programmes, such as TeSA and in strengthening AI literacy across the broader workforce? How can AI widen opportunity for seniors, our fresh graduates and women returning to work? Can we create structured pathways for seniors to use AI tools meaningfully? And with entry level roles disrupted, how are we redesigning jobs and apprenticeship programmes so graduates gain both technical and business context skills?

Finally, as agentic AI systems become more autonomous, how do we ensure ethical and safe deployment?

There are clear areas where AI is ethically beneficial – assisting doctors in diagnostics, for example, or detecting financial fraud or optimising energy consumption or supporting seniors with daily living. But there are also boundaries that must not be crossed, such as autonomous lethal decision-making in defence, manipulative behavioural targeting, opaque credit scoring that entrenches biasness or AI agents making employment decisions without accountability.

The challenge is compounded when agentic systems operate with limited transparency, evolving goals or emergent behaviours that even developers may not fully predict. Who ultimately bears responsibility when harm occurs? The developer, the one who deploys it or the operator? What governance framework, audit requirements or red teaming standards and explainability thresholds will be mandated to ensure trust keeps pace with capability?

Mr Chairman, as we advance in AI and digital transformation, how do we ensure technology is truly a force for good?

First, how has the Government strengthened digital delivery of essential services, particularly for persons with special needs such as the visual impaired? Are our systems inclusive by design? Second, as our society ages, how can digital and AI solutions better support seniors while easing the burden on sandwiched generation families? Third, how do we ensure children from lower-income families gain access not just to devices but to AI skills and also opportunities? Finally, how do we strengthen trust in our digital space and better protect Singaporeans from scams and online harms?

Technology must not widen divides. It must uplift, protect and empower every Singaporean.

Cyber threats are no longer isolated incidents. They are persistent, adaptive and increasingly AI enabled. As AI systems become more autonomous, we must confront a new class of risks – AI agents that can plan, probe and act independently.

How is MDDI addressing threats where malicious actors deploy AI to automate reconnaissance, craft sophisticated phishing campaigns or exploit vulnerabilities at scale?

Singapore has experienced breaches before. The 2018 SingHealth cyberattack compromised the data of 1.5 million patients. More recently, it was reported that 255 firms linked to Singapore's critical infrastructures were allegedly targeted and ransomware incidents have disrupted healthcare clusters and third party vendors. Last year, a cyber incident affecting a critical information infrastructure (CII) operator reminded us that our CIIs, from energy to transport, remain a prime target.

Advanced persistent threats (APTs) are patient, well-resourced and may be state linked. They are not looking for disruption alone but strategic leverage. How then are we strengthening our national cybersecurity posture to defend again APTs? Are we investing sufficiently in threat intelligence fusion, real-time monitoring and cross sector incident response?

And on CII, regulations must keep pace with evolving threats. How will the Government enhance cybersecurity requirements for CII operators? Beyond compliance, what tools, shared platforms and AI-driven detection capabilities are being provided to help operators defend against sophisticated attacks?

Equally important, how are we strengthening the security posture, not just of CII owners, but also of their vendors and cybersecurity service providers, given supply chain vulnerabilities?

Finally, cybersecurity is ultimately about people. How are we expanding and deepening our cybersecurity workforce to defend against today's threats? Are we accelerating specialist training, midcareer conversion and advanced AI security integration skills? As AI becomes both a threat factor and a defence tool, how are we supporting organisations to adopt AI-driven cybersecurity solutions responsibly and effectively?

In a world of escalating digital conflict, resilience is not optional. Trust in our digital economy depends on our ability to defend it. We must ensure that as Singapore digitises at scale, our cybersecurity posture strengthens at equal speed.

Sir, on 9 February 2026, the Government revealed that Singapore's major telecommunications operators were targeted last year in a sophisticated cyber espionage campaign by the group UNC3886. Such intrusions are a stark reminder that the digital battle space has expanded into a theatre of strategic sabotage, APT actors, prepositioned malicious code to sit dormant for years, designed to be activated during a crisis to trigger power failures or disrupt transport and payment systems.

For Singapore, this poses a direct threat to our national survival as a coordinated disruption to civilian telecommunications, payment systems and transport networks would directly cripple the Singapore Armed Force's ability to mobilise and deploy troops at speed. While the containment of UNC3886 demonstrates our technical proficiency, we must leverage this capacity to signal clear consequences. The Government must work with international partners to communicate strategic red lines, explicitly stating that the prepositioning of malicious code in our critical infrastructure is an unacceptable provocation. We must leverage our attribution capabilities to call out such actors directly, while carefully weighing the diplomatic sensitivities of naming state-linked groups. We should move toward a posture of active deterrence through precise signalling and the threat of calibrated counter measures. By doing so, while remaining consistent with international law, we can avoid unintended escalation. Ultimately, we must effectively change the cost benefit calculus of any potential aggressor.

Sir, Singapore, sits outside global consensus. In January 2024, the cybersecurity agencies of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden jointly assessed Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). Their conclusion: QKD is not yet sufficiently mature and can only serve niche use cases. They said: "Migration to post quantum cryptography (PQC) has priority over the use of QKD".

PQC first is not just an American position. The PQC algorithms were built by European researchers. The back-up algorithm is entirely French. Eighty-two candidates from 25 countries went through eight years of open cryptanalysis. Germany published PQC migration guidance in 2020, four years before standards were finalised. Australia's deadline to cease classical public key cryptography is in 2030; Japan, 2035; 18 EU states signed a PQC commitment last November. QKD was not mentioned. PQC is software – it deploys on current infrastructure. Apple shipped PQC to 1.3 billion devices with an iOS update. Google enabled it for 3.4 billion Chrome users. Cloudflare has protected 20% of global web traffic since late 2023. No new fibre, no specialised hardware. A software update.

Without PQC, adversaries harvest today and decrypt tomorrow.

Singapore's position is the opposite. We are expanding the National Quantum Safe Network with dedicated QKD fibre, yet have no PQC migration deadline. Only Singapore and China are scaling QKD as national infrastructure rather than treating it as a niche research pilot. Our flagship quantum spin-off sells QKD back to the Government that funded it.

I ask why the balance between QKD and PQC appears opposite to every comparable nation. Many quantum researchers in Singapore are sceptical. They deserve accountability. Will the Minister disclose how the quantum safe budget breaks down between QKD and PQC, and when Singapore will set a PQC migration deadline?

Sir, the upcoming enactment of Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill increases support for victims of indecent online content. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been engaging with X over Grok's generation of non consensual intimate images that were distributed en masse on the X platform. IMDA said that X has taken measures to address the issue, including stopping Grok from producing such content. Even as we ensure that the operating environment for tech platforms is not overly restrictive, could the Government explain further the outcomes of its engagement with X? Were any punitive actions taken over the matter? After introducing the spicy mode feature, Grok rose to the top 25 apps in the free Singapore Apple App Store in January this year.

Secondly, I quoted in my intervention during last year's Committee of Supply (COS) that there were reports of students generating deep fake news of their classmates and sharing them in WhatsApp groups. We must thus tackle the real problem. The existing and increasing demand for sexualised images, which is exacerbated by accessibility.

Given that most victims are women and children, the increased accessibility puts further pressure on these groups. We must do much more to educate our youths on the usage of AI, especially if increased exposure to it, and as early as Primary 4. Given concerns about how children handle AI, how do the Ministry of Education (MOE) sexual education approach and AI framework cover the issue explicitly? And how does MOE negotiate students' emotional engagement with AI chatbots?

The relationship between these images and the development of young Singaporeans is especially relevant as platforms work to become more addictive. More concerns beyond our existing legislation may become pertinent, such as content that does not involve specific victims, but nonetheless have societal concerns, such as AI-generated child pornography.

Sir, a child doom scrolling past bedtime is not making a choice. They are responding to a system designed to make stopping almost impossible. The current age assurance assessment, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill and the code of practice for online safety represent a concerted effort to protect children online. Today, I want to ask whether it addresses a distinction not yet resolved. The difference between content harm and design harm.

Singapore already understands this. Regulation of the Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands casinos builds deliberate friction through entry levies, exclusion orders and visit limits. This recognises the need for behavioural design interruption, not just better information about the risks. On social media platforms, infinite scroll, autoplay videos and algorithmic feeds are attention-capture dark patterns designed to maximise engagement by exploiting reward-seeking and eroding self-regulation in children whose brains are still developing.

Last month, the European Commission made a preliminary finding that TikTok's addictive design itself is a legal violation. TikTok is designated under our own code of practice, and the commission found that its screen time tools and parental controls do not effectively address these risks. Silence from Singapore adds a reputational risk. An article in Nature Health last week stated that we must hold platforms accountable for their addictive design. These platforms exploit children's brains and erode children's capacity for self-regulation. The question is therefore whether we should allow platforms to deploy attention-capture dark patterns against children without legal consequences.

Could the Minister thus clarify three things? One, does the code of practice require designated services to submit a design risk assessment, covering recommendation systems, auto play and scroll architecture? And does IMDA have power to act on those assessments independently of content classification? If so, will we commit to a timeline for doing so?

Two, given the findings about TikTok's addictive design, has IMDA reviewed TikTok's compliance report with this in mind?

Three, would the Ministry consider my call last week to use a Select Committee to better examine global efforts to protect children from the harms of social media, especially in the light of momentum building to outrightly ban social media for children? Both children and their parents deserve a framework that holds platforms accountable, not just for what they show, but how they are built. Digital environments do not shape themselves. They are designed. And design, when left unchecked, becomes policy by default.

Sir, history is not one dimensional. It constantly awaits further completion with access to more information. Knowledge about the past is important in shaping how we think and act in the present in tangible ways. Declassification is critical to this process. More credible and independently verifiable information is crucial when disinformation, misinformation, confusion and uncertainty arrive. Transparency is not just for transparency's sake.

Recent access to the Albatross Files underscores that separation with Malaysia was by mutual agreement. This makes it more possible to go beyond the historical narrative of trauma surrounding being kicked out in Singapore, as we look to advance ties with our closest neighbour.

Elsewhere, opening the Epstein files enabled some of the richest and most powerful people in the world being held to account for wrongdoing, and led to figures like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and Peter Mandelson to be arrested. Access and accountability are especially important when the concerned persons remain alive, regardless of whether an issue is particularly heinous or more mundane.

Minister Josephine Teo stated that when deciding on access to public archives, state agencies take into consideration, and I quote: "supporting research into our collective past while safeguarding sensitive information and complying with relevant confidentiality and other obligations".

We should add timelines, holding state agencies and political authority to public account and avoiding confusion as well as misrepresentation. We pledge to aspire towards democracy. In a democracy, state action needs to be defensible to the public it serves, and from which it derives funding. Publicly indefensible positions and actions should not be undertaken. Therefore, these decisions must be ready to stand to public scrutiny at any time. Knowledge of this possibility encourages greater prudence and responsibility.

Sir, as Budget 2026 advances Singapore's AI ambitions, we must confront that increasingly Singaporeans are exposed to AI-generated misinformation and AI-powered scams at unprecedented scale and speed. A 5 February article in Lianhe Zaobao documented a surge of sensational videos claiming that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is being forced out and that intense internal power struggles are unfolding.

These videos are entirely generated using AI within minutes, at a cost reportedly as low as US$1 or US$2 per 20-minute video. MDDI acknowledged that it has observed multiple online accounts publishing such fabricated claims about Singapore's domestic politics. An MDDI spokesman quoted by Zaobao stated that public education measures and resources have been rolled out and urged the public to rely on official sources and refrain from sharing unverified content.

I welcome this response, but I wonder if these measures are sufficient. Given the scale and sophistication of AI-generated misinformation, why was the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) not used against those behind these videos? Enforcement tools like POFMA alone also cannot inoculate society against misinformation. We need a population equipped to question, verify and critically assess what they see online.

What structured long-term programmes will the Ministry develop to strengthen media literacy and critical thinking, especially among vulnerable populations such as seniors? Will we expand community-based workshops, school curricula and public campaigns that teach citizens practical verification steps, such as checking original footage, examining sources, and consulting authoritative channels? Can we leverage AI itself to help filter and flag suspicious content at scale?

If AI lowers the cost of deception to $1 per video, then the cost of inaction may be far higher. How will our national AI strategy ensure that Singaporeans are empowered to discern fact from fiction in an increasingly polluted information ecosystem?

Sir, the recent declassification of the Albatross file has transformed out understanding of Separation. For decades, the official narrative surrounding Singapore's independence was that we were abruptly and unilaterally expelled from Malaysia by the Federal Government. That story has shaped how generations of Singaporeans understand our nation's founding.

Yet, the Albatross File departs from the prevailing narrative. The documents reveal that after the racial riots in July 1964, confidential talks had already commenced between the PAP and Malaysia's Alliance Party, regarding possible constitutional rearrangements within Malaysia. These discussions eventually led to separation.

This revelation does not diminish our history, it shows that history is often more complex than we think and enriches our understanding of history. But why did this historically significant recourse take so long to come to light? And how many other important records remain inaccessible?

The recent declassification of the Albatross File illustrates why a Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification is necessary. The Workers' Party (WP) has long called for a freedom of Information Act, most recently in our General Election 2025 manifesto. This call is grounded in a simple principle – we trust Singaporeans with the information necessary to hold the Government accountable.

Citizens should be empowered under a Freedom of Information Act to make requests for, and given access to, information from public agencies at the level of detail that is requested. Any data or records held by the Government that could inform public debate should also be automatically declassified and made available to the public after 25 years, subject of course to legitimate national security concerns.

Without a Freedom of Information Act and a framework for automatically declassifying record after 25 years, the Government would not be compelled to review and release information, and foundational truth risks remaining buried, indefinitely.

Facts and declassified documents can be cherry-picked to support a curated narrative. This is not what we want for Singapore. A Freedom of Information Act and automatic declassification would shift the burden of proof from citizens to the Government. The Government must justify why secrecy is needed, instead of citizens justifying curiosity. This empowers historians, journalists, civil society and ordinary Singaporeans to scrutinise decisions made in their name.

A mature nation does not fear its own archives. I believe that what the WP has proposed would strengthen our national identity rather than weaken it. We build a genuine national identity when it is grounded in facts, even when these facts are complex or uncomfortable. If we truly believe in accountable governance and informed citizenry, then it is time to enshrine the public's right to know, in law.

Mr Chairman, the Government has committed a large amount of money to support industries in their AI transformation. In this context, I am concerned about how today's fresh graduates are already being impacted, and the long-term compounding implications this has on our national talent pipeline.

In a survey of 250 local employers, 80% acknowledged that AI has already reduced their entry-level hiring. As Members from both sides of the House have spoken about this problem, I will not belabour the point further.

Today, I would like to provide a proposal which I hope the Government will consider. From the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to the Productivity Solutions Grant, in exchange for the Government's support, stronger guardrails need to be established to prevent this support from accelerating the displacement of entry-level ones. Broadly, I suggest two conditions to be added for all AI-related roles and subsidy schemes.

First, at the minimum, companies should be required to submit a structured declaration detailing how their AI transformation efforts are expected to impact HR decisions, particularly for entry-level roles. How many such roles will be eliminated or redesigned, and what career development support will be made available to affected employees? This declaration will serve two purposes – to prompt companies to consider shaping their transformation efforts to protect their own talent pipeline and provide the Government with important insights on how entry-level roles may be impacted qualitatively and quantitatively across industries.

Second, companies should be required to commit to a sustained level of entry-level roles and ensure structured development opportunities for entry level highest. To keep compliance manageable for SMEs, this second condition could be made mandatory only for companies above a particular threshold.

To operationalise this, the National AI Council could coordinate with relevant agencies and consult the industry. For example, MDDI could take the lead in verifying companies' compliance with the conditions. In turn, only companies who receive this verification may submit Enterprise Innovation Scheme claims related to AI expenditures.

Sir, I believe my suggestions are practicable and necessary to ensure that publicly-funded support for AI transformation does not come at the cost of our national talent pipeline in the long term. Similarly, conditions are already in place for some subsidy schemes. The Productivity Solutions Grant already requires companies to submit a description of the overall impact of their proposed solution and specify the expected productivity gains before the grant application is reviewed and approved.

To conclude, the entry level jobs of today shape the industry leaders of tomorrow. Let us ensure that our AI transformation amplifies, rather than erodes the career opportunities that our young graduates have worked hard to earn.

Chairman, Budget 2026 rightly places AI and automation at the centre of enterprise transformation. But if we want broad-based adoption, clarity and commercial realism matter as much as funding.

Many SMEs are not short of ambition, they are short of certainty. Uncertainty about what qualifies as AI or automation expenditure; how bundled digital costs are treated; how robotics hardware and software layers are classified; and what documentation withstands audit scrutiny?

When definitions are ambiguous, firms hesitate. In a tight cashflow environment, hesitation becomes inaction. Would MDDI work with MTI and other agencies to ensure that "AI and automation expenditure" is defined clearly in operational terms?

Without clarity, we risk two outcomes. First, AI-washing. Spending labelled as AI without measurable productivity impact. Second, under-adoption, with firms delaying genuine transformation due to compliance risk. Both weaken credibility.

Clarity alone, however, will not shift behaviour. For SMEs, the issue is risk asymmetry. Integration, deployment, robotics installation and workflow redesign costs are immediate. Productivity gains are gradual and uncertain.

If we want transformation beyond leading enterprises, the model must be simple – de-risk early, reward outcomes strongly. Would the Government consider strengthening upfront support to meaningfully reduce early-stage exposure, and then introduce performance-linked incentives where firms that demonstrate sustained productivity gains receive enhanced support, potentially up to 80% to 90% of qualifying transformation costs?

This would not subsidise spending. It would subsidise results – measurable improvements in output per worker, value-add per employee or cost efficiencies. Such a model aligns public spending with real productivity gains and gives SMEs the confidence to commit.

We must also be careful about how we frame AI nationally. Public discourse often centres on GenAI and digital tools. But in labour-intensive sectors – logistics, F&B, facilities management, manufacturing – robotics and advanced automation may deliver more immediate productivity gains. MDDI plays a critical role in shaping that narrative. Transformation is not just dashboards and chatbots. It is robotics, process redesign and job redesign.

Finally, coordination matters. AI-related schemes span multiple agencies. From an SME's perspective, the landscape can feel fragmented. Would MDDI consider strengthening a unified communication architecture, so enterprises see one coherent transformation pathway, rather than through multiple agencies?

In a structurally tight labour market, productivity is existential. Transformation must therefore be: clear in definition; coherent in communication; and commercially rational in incentive design. If we get this right – de-risk early and reward real outcomes decisively – we can achieve economy-wide transformation, not isolated pilot processes.

Mr Chairman, this AI transformation must be managed carefully because it brings anxiety to many.

From my conversations with youths, two concerns have been repeatedly raised. First, displacement by AI. Second, right-sized AI adoption.

On displacement, young professionals and youths preparing for their first jobs are concerned that their jobs will be displaced by AI. Youths I have spoken to have shared that they are worried that they cannot keep up with the pace at which AI is evolving. And as AI make some tasks redundant, their jobs may also be made redundant.

This applies to both youths looking to enter the workforce and those already in the workforce. Despite being digital natives, professionals and even technology professionals, they are nervous that it would be difficult to get ahead of the AI curve.

Many of those in the workforce are willing to upskill but they are time-poor. They need flexibility in training, employer support and buy-in and clear outcomes from each course that they take. Employers, in turn, ask for confidence and assurance that training translates into productivity.

So, the question is not what to train, but how to make training work in practice. What are the Ministry's plans to equip the workforce with the relevant confidence and skills needed to leverage AI in their respective domain expertise? What are the Ministry's plans to ensure that workforce training can be closely tied to improved productivity and business outcomes? What are the Ministry's plans to encourage greater employer buy-in and support to facilitate employee training? I support the Government's plans to explore how it can broaden the TeSA programme to help all young Singaporean workers continue to stay relevant.

On right-sizing AI adoption, AI adoption will not be one-size-fits-all. Different firms in different sectors face different constraints. This is especially true for our SMEs. As we all know, SMEs employ the majority of our workforce, with nearly half in small and micro enterprises. We cannot afford to leave them behind. But many SMEs face real constraints: cashflow, uncertainty of returns, manpower and implementation capacity.

So, support must be right-sized and practical. Not just funding, but end-to-end support to help enterprises adopt, integrate, scale AI in their core processes, redesign legacy systems and tailor solutions to different business needs. These uneven application of AI adoption heighten uncertainty amongst youths as to job security and progression.

In particular, I ask: how will the Ministry reduce uncertainty for SMEs adopting AI? For example, will the Ministry facilitate the provision of shared solutions or proven use cases jointly developed with trade associations and Institutes of Higher Learning?

The newly announced Champions of AI programme will go some way to support the integration of AI into business processes. How will the Champions of AI programme sit alongside schemes like the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and the Productivity Solutions Grant, given that they are administered by different statutory boards under different Ministries?

I understand that MDDI is looking at supporting our libraries with renewed possibilities. I would like to request that the Ministry look at renewing our libraries with family at the top of its mind. Sir, I noticed I have run out of time.

Mr Chairman, AI-centric IT development is no longer theoretical. In Silicon Valley, leading AI firms and hyperscalers have moved beyond traditional software development. Frameworks now include intention-based engineering, vibe coding and agentic development. More top programmers are publicly saying they no longer code traditionally. AI-centric development is fundamentally different. It has integral to design, coding, testing and continuous improvement.

Singapore's IT services firms are the delivery layer between our national AI strategy and real-world outcomes. The bottleneck is not talent. Our tech workers are ready. It could be structural inertia within IT services firms and if they do not adopt these new paradigms quickly, our ambitions remain on paper.

Can MDDI work with the top AI firms and hyperscalers already based here to transfer such know-hows to our local firms? Should we leverage on these partnerships not just for enterprise development, but also to transform how our IT companies build software?

Can the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) also move quickly to embrace these approaches, while adhering to cybersecurity and regulatory requirements, and progressively require IT service companies involved in Government work to do the same? This is not without precedent. We mandated Building Information Modelling adoption in construction procurement, and it transformed that industry.

Finally, how can we ensure our tech workforce and students keep pace? And beyond the tech sector, how can we encourage both our multinational companies (MNCs) and SMEs to embrace AI in their own operations?

Mr Chairman, our Public Service Media companies – Mediacorp, Zaobao, CNA, Business Times – are not just Singapore's truth infrastructure. They are also our society's trust infrastructure. In an age of AI-generated disinformation, like what some of our Members talked about earlier, they stand between our people and in a manipulated information environment.

Yet, our Public Service Media face significant headwinds, declining circulation in a fragmented media space, a rapidly evolving advertising model and growing disinformation from overseas. Unlike commercial outlets, our Public Service Media also carries nation-building obligations, serving all communities fairly, building social cohesiveness and upholding our national interest. Even reputable international outlets like the Washington Post have to resort to dramatic cuts.

Can MDDI outline its vision for keeping our national media compelling, relevant and thriving? How does it do so to help them stay financially viable, so we can forestall similar painful restructuring here?

We should not underestimate what we already have. Zaobao is already one of the most respected Chinese-language outlet globally. CNA commands credibility far beyond our shores. And with the strategic investment, The Business Times could become the Financial Times of Southeast Asia. Our Public Service Media a key source of our soft power.

Our media must also stay relevant for all Singaporeans, starting with our students. Countries like Australia and the UK have ensured that public service content remains prominent and easily discoverable on connected television platforms. Can we do the same, so that the quality of local content is not buried by algorithms favouring overseas programming?

Our Public Service Media companies are our national assets. I hope MDDI can share how it plans to secure our future. I notice I have 18 more seconds, so I want to add in a final point. I noted we are asking MDDI to do a lot of cybersecurity, national Public Service Media on IT services and AI development. I know that there is limited budget. I know it is not easy task. So, thank you in advance.

Chairman, we are an open society, physically and virtually. Information pours in from every direction and discerning truth has never been harder. This problem is now amplified by AI.

Most recently, many of us would have read about the fake reports online claiming that Senior Minister Lee publicly disagreed with Prime Minister Wong. A resident of mine whom I met during a block visit in January believed the story so wholeheartedly that I found it hard to dissuade him. Incidents like this do not merely misinform. They corrode mutual trust, weaken social cohesion and create fertile ground for scams. AI worsens the threat because it can generate convincing content at scale, iterate rapidly and be used to probe and undermine our critical information infrastructure.

Our Public Service Media plays a central role in preserving factual public discourse and remains the go-to source of truth for important issues by our citizens. Therefore, I have a few questions.

First, how will the Government support and strengthen our Public Service Media so it can more effectively in countering fake news and misinformation in an increasingly noisy information environment? This means funding, talent development, editorial independence and technical capability to verify rapidly and at scale.

Second, what concrete steps will be taken to ensure Public Service Media content remains high quality and highly accessible, across languages, platforms and demographics, so that credible information reaches every community before falsehoods do?

Likewise, how will we ensure genuine and verified Singapore narratives reach international audiences, both to protect our reputation from falsehoods and to project our voice on matters of global significance?

Third, will the Government equip our Public Service Media and our public agencies with advanced tools, including responsibly governed AI to detect, attribute and counter disinformation? Put simply, can we use AI to fight AI, with safeguards to avoid overreach, bias or erosion of privacy?

Finally, beyond Public Service Media, what broader investments in public digital literacy, rapid-response verification labs and partnerships with platforms and civil society will the Government make to build societal resilience to AI‑driven misinformation?

In an age when technology amplifies both benefit and risk, we must ensure our public information architecture is robust, trusted and adaptive.

As Singapore embraces AI as a strategic necessity for our development, we must protect the long‑term interests of our people even as we harness its power. Much of the public conversation today veers toward doom‑laden predictions of AI "taking over" jobs and society. That narrative overlooks something fundamental. We can and must retain human agency. We can choose how AI is designed, governed and deployed.

That choice demands strong national leadership to chart practical governance pathways and sustained international cooperation to agree what ought not to be delegated to machines. Singapore has led with the Model AI Governance Framework of January 2019, a world first, and followed up with work on Generative and Agentic AI. These are important foundations.

But leadership must translate into concrete action. Interoperable standards and certification, robust procurement and audit requirements, independent oversight and investments in public literacy and workforce reskilling so that citizens can exercise meaningful agency. Internationally, we could forge norms that prevent regulatory arbitrage and ensure cross‑border accountability.

Hence, building on existing frameworks, what more will the Government do to strengthen Singapore's role in global AI governance, standards, certification, international coordination and capacity building, to preserve human agency while responsibly constraining AI agency?

Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. Let me start my response in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, in the blink of an eye, tomorrow will be Chap Goh Meh. Before Chinese New Year, I asked my mother if she wanted me to accompany her to buy new clothes, but the 83-year-old said, "No need! I have already found the clothes I like online and placed an order."

I was afraid that she might be scammed, so I asked her how she knew that the seller was reliable. She confidently replied, "I will only pay after I receive the goods and am satisfied with them."

On the day of our reunion dinner, she excitedly showed me her new clothes, and only then did I feel reassured.

Mr Chairman, digital technology has brought a lot of conveniences to our lives and created new opportunities for our businesses. However, it has also exposed us to unprecedented risks and dangers. Similarly, AI has both benefits and drawbacks. Several Members have also mentioned this.

Some Singaporeans worry that they cannot keep up with the pace of this AI era. I have also felt the same way before. However, as the Prime Minister said, we cannot stand still out of fear of AI.

As the saying goes, "Like a boat going against the current, you must move forward; otherwise, you will fall behind."

Other countries have developed their AI initiatives. If we do not act fast enough, plan broadly enough, or establish our foundations deeply enough, we will inevitably fall behind. The key is that our goals must be clear, and our measures effective.

In this AI era, how can we ensure that Singaporeans are not left behind and help SMEs maintain their competitive advantage? This is a core issue that we are closely monitoring.

Just like my mother – she is not a digital expert, but with appropriate help, she too can shop online safely.

We do not need to force ourselves to become AI masters, because not everyone can master AI to the same degree; the ways in which they benefit from it will also differ. More importantly, Singapore must remain confident so that we can move steadily ahead in this AI era.

In this year's COS debate, MDDI will propose various initiatives in this direction and ensure that Singaporeans can not only keep up but also benefit.

(In English): Mr Chairman, AI has taken centre stage at this year's Budget and COS debates. Members have shared optimism about opportunities and anxiety over impacts on our jobs, creativity and autonomy.

Mr Sharael Taha asked a strategic question about Singapore's unique positioning in AI. We are fortunate that international counterparts recognise our ability to respond holistically across industries, enterprises and the workforce through a range of enablers – from R&D and infrastructure to safety and governance.

On the global stage, Singapore is frequently at the table. Our progressive, thoughtful approach to AI makes us a credible partner and useful reference point. This has made it possible to aim higher.

Prime Minister Wong, Deputy Prime Minister Gan and MTI colleagues outlined plans to grow AI champions and pursue national AI Missions. Later, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MOE colleagues will discuss how we empower the present and future workforce to make the most of AI. I will focus on what this means for the broader base of our businesses.

In gist, we want to take full advantage of AI's ability to be democratised, or to put it more simply, for its benefits to spread widely because solutions once too expensive or complex are more accessible.

But if AI follows the same path as previous technology waves, only a small group of companies at the frontier will get ahead and pull away from the pack. The long tail of smaller and often less-resourced businesses take much longer. Yet collectively, they employ most of our workforce. When they fall behind, more than GDP is at risk. At stake are our entrepreneurs' hopes and dreams, workers' livelihoods and their communities' progress.

This is why MDDI is creating the National AI Impact Programme – to turn AI's possibilities into reality for the many, not the few.

Today, 15% of SMEs and about seven in 10 workers use AI in some way. We want to encourage those who have not started to take the first step and help those already using AI move beyond basic applications.

Over the next three years, the National AI Impact Programme aims to support 10,000 local enterprises to integrate AI into their business processes. This will create a sizable pool of early adopters. They can be multipliers in the community, sharing their experiences and knowledge through the intermediaries that Ms Denise Phua asked the Prime Minister about.

Small businesses stand to gain the most. Take Durian Memories for example, a single store seller in Ang Mo Kio. They did not have the luxury of dedicating a team member to handle customer enquiries. Unsurprisingly, they lost sales when hungry durian lovers were not attended to.

But Durian Memories tackled this challenge by implementing an AI-enabled customer relationship management system with a chatbot that automatically answers customer queries. As a result, peak sales went up by 30%.

There are now many AI tools that improve business operations in simple, effective ways. They make up 30% of the digital solutions on IMDA's SMEs Go Digital platform today. We will expand the range of AI-enabled solutions with grant support to meet different business needs. More SMEs can then access these pre-approved, cost-effective and market-proven tools to integrate AI readily and affordably.

Like Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhaimin, we want these solutions to be transformative yet human-centred. At the same time, Mr Mark Lee worries about AI washing. We will put safeguards in place for grants and incentives whilst trying at the same time to not make the rules too onerous.

Some enterprises are ready to do more with AI. Take Mocha Chai Laboratories for example. They are a talented team of multimedia creators who improve film visuals and sound. Unknown to most of us, sound effects are still added manually to films, often taking four to eight weeks. After joining IMDA's Digital Leaders Programme and building up their tech capabilities, Mocha Chai created a new GenAI tool that analyses video footage and automatically generates matching sound effects, reducing weeks of work to just a day.

This innovation allowed the company to not only save costs but create a potential new income stream. It has opened up opportunities for both the business and their employees.

We want more success stories like Mocha Chai. But as pointed out by Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Sharael Taha, more sophisticated uses of AI require multiple factors to succeed. Often, the technology is ready, but people are not. This is why we are enhancing the Digital Leaders Programme and launching a new Digital Leaders Accelerator Bootcamp to build skills and confidence in change management and not just tech capabilities.

We also thank Mr Andre Low, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Fadli Fawzi as well as Mr Sharael Taha for recognising the need to plan ahead, as the Government has done, to manage the energy impact of widespread AI use.

We do this in several ways. We are judicious in how we expand digital infrastructure. When allocating new data centres, we assess how well they use low-carbon energy sources. We are introducing new sustainability requirements to improve the energy efficiency of older data centres. And through the National AI Research and Development plan, we will support public research in resource-efficient AI to better understand our options.

As more businesses adopt AI, there is also opportunity to uplift the workforce and help them stay relevant, whether at the entry level or at later stages of their careers. Beyond the Prime Minister's commitments and MOM’s plans, I want to assure Members like Mr Abdul Muhaimin, Ms Cassandra Lee and Dr Choo Pei Ling that MDDI is focused squarely on this.

We know that PMEs and knowledge workers feel the pressure more acutely. But many have found ways to be more effective with AI’s help. Take Geraldine Lau, an audit professional who has been with KPMG for 27 years. For each audit, Geraldine pores through reams of documents to assess risk. With employer-provided training, she created an AI agent that automatically consolidates key information from company announcements for audit reviews.

The AI agent organises information more quickly than Geraldine can, but her domain knowledge is key to ensuring it looks in the right places. With hours of manual work saved, she can now focus on deeper risk assessments and applying her human abilities – wisdom, calibration and professional judgement – to more complex work.

Geraldine and many PMEs are showing that AI know-how, domain expertise and human touch are a powerful combination. Not all of us can be AI engineers. But we can be “bilingual” in AI in our own areas of expertise and to solve problems in our domains.

For a start, the Government will support 100,000 workers to become AI bilingual. They will be pathfinders for meaningful AI upskilling, for others to emulate. Our initial focus will be on professions that are highly exposed to AI and serve multiple industries. IMDA will work with relevant agencies and professional bodies to expand its TeSA programme, to develop AI bilingual workers in key domains. We will start with the accountancy and legal professions, and extend our reach to other fields such as HR.

As Mr Henry Kwek noted, AI is also transforming the tech sector – many people can now write code and build prototypes with the help of AI. We will therefore enhance the TeSA offerings to help tech workers move up the value chain, from writing code, to orchestrating end-to-end systems powered by AI agents.

With AI evolving quickly, our governance must also keep pace. We agree with Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Choo Pei Ling on risk-based, practical AI governance. Like Mr Christopher de Souza, we believe AI should not replace the discerning human mind.

Our new Model Governance Framework for Agentic AI will help organisations manage systems that can act with greater independence, while ensuring human oversight. We are the first government worldwide to introduce such guidelines. For high-risk, high-impact systems like frontier models, we will progressively strengthen safeguards.

However, what we do locally is not enough, a point noted by Ms Tin Pei Ling. The most advanced AI models are developed in only a handful of countries, but their cooperation on AI safety is not deep.

In recent years, Singapore has hosted major AI conferences to promote international cooperation. Last year, we organised the Singapore Conference on AI: International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety. The exchange brought together world-class thinkers across research, government and civil society, resulting in the Singapore Consensus on global AI safety research priorities.

Recently, at the India AI Impact Summit, I shared that Singapore will host the second edition of the International Scientific Exchange to update the Singapore Consensus. Despite the challenges, we will continue contributing meaningfully to the international discourse on AI safety.

Next, on cybersecurity. Members are understandably concerned about whether our critical infrastructure is sufficiently protected against malicious threat actors, especially state-sponsored ones. I would like to reassure Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Gerald Giam that the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) works closely with domestic and international partners to detect and contain cyber threats.

On the diplomatic front, Singapore recently concluded our chairmanship of the Second UN Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of info-comm technologies.

Realistically, state-sponsored threat actors are par for the course. It is nonetheless important to forge international consensus on what constitutes responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. We must, however, not expect these efforts to be a substitute for stronger cyber defense capabilities. In this regard, CSA will focus on three key areas.

First, we will review our cybersecurity standards and requirements for CII owners. Second, we will provide CII owners with advanced tools, so that they are equipped to deal with advanced threats and. Third, we will work with partners to build up capabilities in our cybersecurity workforce. Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How will say more about these efforts.

Another risk we face is the spread of disinformation and misinformation, fueled by technologies like AI. As a diverse society, we are particularly vulnerable to online falsehoods that erode trust in our society and institutions. Fortunately, we have been strengthening our libraries and archives. They help to nurture a discerning population by cultivating reading habits and information literacy. Minister of State Rahayu will share more later.

Our Public Service Media entities too, are important in maintaining trust in our infospace. I thank Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Tin Pei Ling for recognising this. Our Public Service Media entities reach over 90% of Singaporeans. They remain highly trusted by the public, more so than reputable international and online media outlets.

Consequently, our Public Service Media entities have become indispensable in countering misinformation. MDDI will therefore continue working closely with our Public Service Media entities to maintain their reach and strengthen their fact-checking capabilities. For example, CNA will set up a digital verification team. Government agencies have also collaborated with The Straits Times on the AskST series to address misinformation.

Mr Henry Kwek asked about efforts to help Public Service Media remain relevant, discoverable and financially viable as audience attention and advertising shift towards digital platforms.

Besides delivering timely and credible news, our Public Service Media entities produce content that strengthens our sense of identity as one people. They also play a role in cultivating news literacy among our young, through regular student publications and school competitions.

Given the critical role of our Public Service Media, MDDI will support efforts to keep public service media content visible and easily discoverable. We are studying approaches in other countries and will consult the industry to ensure that initiatives are implemented reasonably and effectively. The Government will continue investing in our Public Service Media entities, helping them develop new capabilities as the media landscape evolves.

Sir, to conclude, the investments we make today will determine whether we lead or lag tomorrow. By accelerating AI adoption, strengthening technology governance, and building discernment among our people, we are positioning Singaporeans to seize the opportunities and make progress together.

Sir, we have made major moves in the last decade to shore up our cybersecurity such as setting up CSA and introducing the Cybersecurity Act to protect our critical information infrastructure.

But there is no room for complacency. I agree with Mr Vikram Nair’s cut to the Ministry of Home Affairs that threat actors, especially APTs, will only get more sophisticated. Mr Sharael Taha asked about the Government’s plan to protect our CII.

Cybersecurity is a collective effort. CII owners must take responsibility of the systems they own and operate. The Government will also do our part.

At this COS, I will speak about MDDI’s plans to first, update the cybersecurity standards and obligations; second, level up our CII owners; and third, strengthen capabilities in our cybersecurity workforce.

Today, our CII owners are held to higher standards and stringent obligations are imposed on their critical systems or CII systems. This was a calibrated approach to balance national security needs and business costs. We have observed that threat actors are also targeting non-CII systems because they may be less secured and can be entry points into CII systems.

CSA is therefore reviewing the scope of the current cybersecurity standards and obligations, and may include non-CII systems, such as networks that are interconnected with the CII systems. We are mindful not to impose unnecessary costs on CII owners, and will continue to take a risk-based, calibrated and pragmatic approach.

Sector Leads may introduce additional sector-specific obligations that are adapted for their sector. For example, IMDA will be enhancing its cybersecurity regulations for the telecommunications operators, given the recent waves of attacks. IMDA intends to provide guidance for areas such as managing virtualisation of infrastructure and credential management.

We expect CII owners to comply with these requirements. CII owners currently engage third parties to conduct audits and regular penetration testings to verify their robustness of their defences. These reports are then submitted to CSA for review.

In addition to relying on such third party reports, CSA wants to ensure that the security controls implemented by CII owners are not only tested and validated during audits but continuously strengthened. One way to do so will be to partner CII owners to do on-site reviews. CSA is currently discussing with the Sector Leads on the implementation plan. We will reach out to the identified CII owners when ready.

Sir, regulations and compliance can only go so far. We need our sectors and our CII owners to do their part to defend their systems, consistently every day.

Over the last year, I have visited the CII sectors, taking time to speak with the sector leads and the key CII owners. We have had closed door, candid discussions. Our Sector Leads and CII owners understand that the threat landscape has evolved and appreciate what is at stake. However, they shared with me that most CII owners are private companies whose business is in the delivery of essential services. They are not specialists in cybersecurity. Yet, they are up against the best-in-class, state-backed cyber threat actors. One of the Chief Information Security Officers told me that it is like he is bringing a knife to a gun fight. I empathise with his point of view.

As I said, cybersecurity is a collective effort. We are on the same team. Therefore, the Government will lean in to help CII owners to strengthen their defences and better respond to incidents.

Typically, national security is the exclusive domain of governments, such as developing cutting-edge technological systems and training skilled operators to deal with various threat scenarios. We have decided to avail some of the Government’s expertise to the private sector, to level the playing field between the defenders and the attackers. We will help our CII owners “level up” and hold their own in a fight against APTs.

First is intel. We will selectively share classified threat intelligence with our CII owners so that they are better able to spot and respond swiftly to threats that are attacking their systems.

Second is tools. We will equip CII owners with proprietary threat detection systems to strengthen their abilities to detect malicious activities in their networks, especially those of state-sponsored APTs. These proprietary tools complement commercial threat detection systems used by our CII owners today. We have started deploying these tools in selected CII owners and will progressively deploy them across the rest. CII owners may need to incur cost to integrate these tools into their systems. We will consider funding support, if needed.

Even with these measures in place, we must be prepared that some threats will go undetected. This is why defenders must remain vigilant and constantly enhance their capabilities.

This brings me to my next point on innovation. Threat actors are also not standing still. As pointed out by Mr Sharael Taha, autonomous AI agents are emerging threats. We must similarly harness technology to defend our critical systems. CSA will partner with CII owners to test the use of technologies, such as AI, to help enhance their efficiency and effectiveness of their cybersecurity operations. We will share more details in due course.

The defenders will also need to be competent in using these tools effectively. Therefore, CSA will work with training providers to design and curate courses that equip cybersecurity professionals with specialised knowledge and skills on how to deal with APT threats.

The responsibility of securing our CII systems cannot just rest on the shoulders of our frontline cyber defenders. This is not just a technical matter. The Board and management of CII owners must also do their part. It is a leadership responsibility. We will equip them with the relevant knowledge.

Since 2021, CSA has partnered the Singapore Management University to conduct the Cybersecurity Strategic Leadership Programme for C-suite leaders. The programme has trained 74 senior leaders thus far, such as Ms Dewi Anggraini from SMRT, Mr Andre Shori from Schneider Electric and Mr Kang Seng Wei from DBS. In view of the participants' positive feedback, CSA will conduct more runs of the Leadership Programme over the next few years. We intend to welcome the next batch of cybersecurity leaders by the second half of this year.

Let me now turn to how we are protecting our citizens. Just last year, Members may have seen articles stating that attackers gained unauthorised access to thousands of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, including routers, around the world. Singapore has not been spared. Last year, attackers infected over 2,700 devices, such as baby monitors and routers. When such personal devices are hacked, citizens' privacy can be compromised and their daily activities being disrupted. These devices can also be used unknowingly to launch attacks against others.

The Government will do more to protect our citizens against these malicious actors. First, we will do more to ensure that the digital products that are sold in Singapore have baseline security safeguards in place. This will make these products harder to be compromised.

Today, we require home routers to meet minimum cybersecurity requirements. This is because they are the gateways to networks and transmit sensitive information. They are currently required to meet Cyber Labelling Scheme, or CLS Level 1. CLS is like the energy efficiency tick label you see on household appliances, but instead of showing energy use, it tells you how cybersecure the device is.

CLS ranges from Level 1 to Level 4, with Level 1 being the most basic standard. We have seen threat actors using more advanced techniques to exploit home routers. CSA and IMDA therefore intend to raise the minimum cybersecurity requirements for all routers sold in Singapore to the equivalent of CLS Level 2.

Besides routers, IP cameras are another common target for cyber threat actors. Threat actors exploit these cameras to spy on individuals. Exploited images are even uploaded onto pornographic websites or used to blackmail individuals. To better protect citizens, CSA will explore requiring IP cameras to meet CLS Level 2, similar to home routers.

CSA will continue to monitor and review if more digital devices should be required to meet minimum cybersecurity standards.

Second, for organisations which handle sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, we are considering to introduce more stringent cybersecurity and data protection obligations. The Government will take the lead in this. GovTech will require Government vendors that manage critical systems and sensitive government data to meet Cyber Trust Mark requirements.

CSA will also require the following three groups of entities who are operating, assessing or handling sensitive systems and data to meet Cyber Trust Mark Requirements. These are the CII owners, auditors conducting cybersecurity audits on CII systems and CSA's licensed Cybersecurity Service Providers providing penetration testing and managed security operations centre services.

Consultations with relevant stakeholders are ongoing and these measures will be implemented progressively over the next two years.

We are also looking ahead to prepare for tomorrow's threats. Mr Kenneth Tiong sought to clarify Singapore's approach to quantum-safe migration. We have been monitoring this technological trend closely. We also take the position that PQC will be the mainstream solution for quantum-safe migration. It is widely tested and internationally accepted. Singapore will take reference from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard as the baseline. As Mr Tiong pointed out, this is the position taken by many other countries.

QKD is a complementary technology. It is more for niche application, like securing high assurance communications. Singapore takes a risk-oriented approach when it comes to quantum-safe migration. The Government is reviewing the practical steps we can take for quantum-safe migration, including adoption of PQC and the appropriate role of QKD, if needed.

We have started investing in capabilities to support businesses in quantum-safe migration. In October 2025, CSA released a Quantum-Safe Handbook and Quantum Readiness Index to raise awareness of the associated risks. We are working with industry experts to better support organisations in their efforts, including through training. We are also deploying two quantum-safe networks nationwide through the National Quantum Safe Network Plus (NQSN+) initiative. This provides additional options for businesses to integrate quantum-safe solutions, such as PQC and QKD, into their networks and systems.

By supporting the provision of NQSN+ infrastructure and services, we aim to reduce the technical and financial barriers for organisations looking to implement quantum-safe solutions. Quantum-related technology is an evolving field. We are closely monitoring developments and will release guidance on this in due course.

We are prepared to adopt different technological solutions if they prove to be effective and able to meet our needs.

Sir, our digital infrastructure underpins our economy and daily life of citizens. MDDI is committed to improve the resilience and security of our digital infrastructure.

Mr Chairman, in today's world, many businesses provide seamless, effective and reliable digital services. Singaporeans expect the same from the Government.

While we have made good progress, we can do better. We must acknowledge that citizens still encounter services that are slower than they should be, forms that ask for information we already have or systems that do not speak easily to one another. My speech is about what must change.

Let me borrow an analogy from a familiar childhood toy – LEGO sets. There are a few things that we can learn from LEGO sets.

First, they are based on a strong understanding of their customers and how preferences change over time. Children grow. Attention spans evolve. LEGO designs have adapted accordingly.

Second, modularity. Every brick is designed to connect seamlessly with one another. Builders do not need to reinvent the basic structure each time. They reuse, recombine and build upwards.

Third, customers can choose how simple or complex a model to build. For some, a simple LEGO DUPLO or LEGO City set is sufficient. And for others who want complexity, LEGO Technic or LEGO Education SPIKE sets offer advanced mechanical components. These are optional but easily added on.

The analogy may sound simple, but the engineering discipline behind it is not. What do these lessons look like for us, in the Public Service?

We must understand our citizens continuously, not episodically. Singaporeans' expectations evolve. Their life journeys change. A service that felt intuitive ten years ago may feel slow or fragmented today. We must design modular systems and digital components that work across agencies. When systems connect seamlessly, citizens experience Government as a whole. And we must be able to provide services that meet complex needs. Our advanced shared tools, such as AI platforms and coding assistants, support us in building specialised components at scale. Not every problem has complex needs. But when complexity is needed, the capability must already be there. Secure, integrated and ready.

To do all of this well, some of our habits must change. Sometimes, digital transformation becomes a collection of projects. New apps and new pilots. Transformation is not about the number of digital projects launched. It is whether citizens find it simpler, faster and clearer to deal with the Government.

This requires discipline in problem definition. It also requires discipline in experimentation. In the Public Service, caution is natural. But doing nothing, while expectations move ahead of us, is a risk. We must learn to manage that risk, not eliminate experimentation.

Through initiatives, like Open Government Products' (OGP's) Hack for Public Good, our officers work closely with users to understand and address real pain points. A team observed that medical social workers spent long hours writing case notes after emotionally difficult conversations. Their first instinct was to build an automated transcription and summary tool. But the tool did not fully address the users' needs. Our social workers wanted greater control over how case notes were structured, so that important information can be retrieved easily. When the generated notes were not organised clearly, they rewrote them.

The team refined the tool into Scribe, an AI-powered tool that transcribes conversations and generates summaries according to the topics and writing style chosen by the user. Scribe is now used in over 100 social service agencies and all public healthcare institutions. On average, 36 minutes are saved on documentation per conversation. That time is not just a data point. It is time returned to care.

If LEGO connectors were redesigned every year, no one could build anything coherent. In Government, incompatible systems have the same effect. Previously, agencies often built separate systems for different needs, believing that every need was unique. While well-intentioned, this led to duplication and integration challenges. Citizens feel the fragmentation when information cannot be shared across systems.

So, our approach must be modular. We must provide and use common digital components, like secure logins and payment processing, built on shared standards for security and resilience. Agencies should not rebuild what already exists. They should reuse, recombine and focus on what makes their missions unique.

When the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) stepped up vaping enforcement last year, they needed a new system for their operations. HSA built on shared tools from GovTech and OGP, such as Ownself Gather, a case management system, and Plumber, which allows officers to automate manual tasks, like tracking repeat offences. By doing this, their enhanced Vaping Information System was live in just three weeks. A system built from scratch, would have taken months.

When we build faster, we enforce faster and citizens are better protected.

Some services need simple, reliable components and we must resist the temptation to over-engineer. But sometimes, we do need advanced tools that can help us build better services and do so more quickly.

Mr Henry Kwek asked how GovTech is embracing AI-centric IT development and encouraging its vendors to adopt such practices. We are providing common tools, such as commercial AI coding assistants that support Government developers and vendors with tasks like code completion. We also have AI tools for GovTech officers to build and deploy functional prototypes without writing code. For both the Public Service and our contracted vendors, these tools are governed by standards for secure development, safe AI use and data protection. GovTech is also piloting agentic AI coding tools internally and plans to expand these capabilities across Government.

Our shared tools also help agencies build more inclusive and user‑centric services. As Mr Sharael Taha highlighted, essential Government services should be accessible by everyone, including persons with disabilities.

One of our most valuable shared tools is called Oobee. It proactively detects accessibility issues on Government websites and suggests fixes, like including descriptive text that can be read aloud by Assistive Technology for our visually impaired users. Oobee has scanned over 1,600 websites since 2023. It has shown us how even with good intentions, we may have blind spots.

The success of our services rests on a strong foundation of trust. Singaporeans use our digital services because they trust that these are secure and that they are dealing with legitimate Government officials. Government official impersonation scams are a serious threat because they attack that trust directly.

Mr Sharael Taha asked about our efforts to protect citizens from scams. We have already taken steps, for example, by unifying SMS messages from Government under the "gov.sg" sender ID. For citizens to easily identify and trust calls from the Government, OGP and IMDA are developing systems for agencies to make calls with numbers that start with a common prefix. Later on, we will display a recognisable caller name.

Many scammers also use local SIM cards for illicit purposes. To address this, IMDA, in consultation with the Singapore Police Force, recently implemented a limit of 10 postpaid SIM cards per person across all telcos. The Government will also apply analytics to SIM card registration data, within strict legal safeguards, to proactively detect and disrupt potential scam activities. These measures focus on identifying suspicious registration patterns.

Think about what it takes to go from building a beginner LEGO set, maybe a simple car, a few dozen pieces, designed for a young child, to a full LEGO Education SPIKE robot. It is not just more bricks. It is a different level of skill, confidence and ambition. The builder must grow with the challenge. Our public officers must grow with the challenge.

Many of our loyal and hardworking public officers have spent years building skills for their work. With the tools around them changing fast, this can feel exciting for some. For others, it feels unsettling, as if the expertise they have worked hard to develop might be overtaken before they can fully use it.

Our job is not just to offer comfort, but to build capability. To give them the confidence to use a new tool and think: I can work with this. I can ask the right questions. And I can tell whether the output is good or not.

We have already started digital training for our Cabinet Ministers and Senior Public Service Leaders, as Minister Chan Chun Sing mentioned earlier. Leaders set the conditions. When they understand the digital landscape, they can guide change confidently and ask their teams the right questions. For our broader Public Service, the goal is to ensure that no public officer feels powerless in a digital world.

MDDI will establish the Institute of Digital Government together with the Civil Service College. The Institute will equip our public officers with Digital, Data, Design and AI skills. We will focus not just on technology but on designing solutions that are citizen-centred and secure.

We also need to address the outdated systems that no longer support our needs. These are systems built early in our digitalisation journey, using technology that was prevalent at the time. Today, these systems are inflexible, expensive and difficult to integrate. They slow down policy change and hinder our ability to share information for seamless services. We have started on this. Rebuilding our systems will take time, but we are committed to this effort, because this is foundational to our digital transformation. Every modernisation effort gives us a chance to rebuild and create faster, connected systems that can better support service delivery.

I have described what we must do, to improve our Government digital services. We must understand our citizens continuously, build in a modular way and develop capabilities for complexity. We will upgrade the skills of our public officers and rebuild many of our outdated systems over time.

If we do this well, our citizens will feel the difference. Their experience with Government will feel simpler, clearer and more human, especially at moments when citizens have little bandwidth to deal with Government.

Take parents of newborns, for example. In those precious early days, what you want most is time with your baby, not multiple forms to fill. We have therefore integrated services around this life moment. Through LifeSG, parents can complete services like birth registration, apply for Baby Bonus and Shared Parental Leave, with far less paperwork. The aim is simple: fewer steps, fewer repeats, more time for families.

With AI, we can go one step further, from services that respond, to services that guide.

Take the SupportGoWhere portal, which consolidates Government schemes across 31 agencies. Imagine trying to look for support from nearly 300 options, across different life stages and needs. Our seniors and their caregivers told us that they felt overwhelmed: too much information, too many pathways. And where do they even begin? So, we redesigned the experience. The Senior Support Recommender will ask them several questions and then uses AI to recommend them the most relevant schemes. We are still refining it, but this is the direction that we want to go: a government that helps citizens find the information that they need, instead of making them hunt for it.

Delivering better services also means that our precious human Public Service officers can focus their time and their resources on supporting those who truly are not able to use technology. They can be served by our officers in a more timely manner.

Better services must also be faster, because delays are not just administrative in nature. They do affect real lives. This matters, in healthcare.

As our population ages, demand for healthcare professionals will rise. Lengthy manual registration processes to bring in nurses can become a bottleneck that delays care. And that is why we are simplifying our processes and rebuilding the Professional Registration System to streamline and automate routine checks for our healthcare professionals. We have reduced processing time for foreign nurse registrations from up to six months to 30 days. For patients and families waiting for care, this can mean earlier treatment, earlier support and less anxiety.

These examples are not exceptions to be admired. They must become more of the norm. All of us working in Government must ask ourselves: if we are responsible for a policy, is it being delivered in the simplest way possible? If we are designing a service, ask: would I accept this experience for my own family?

Our transformation will not happen overnight, but that is the standard that we will hold ourselves to.

Mr Chairman, building digital capability is not just about chasing technology. It is about raising our standard of service. Increasingly, Singaporeans compare us to the best digital experiences in their daily lives, not just to governments elsewhere. That is the standard and it is our responsibility to meet it.

Mr Chairman, while technology has made our lives easier and offers the promise of a better future, we must ensure our digital society remains safe and vibrant.

The Government will continue to play a strong role in protecting those who are most vulnerable to online harms. At the same time, we must also empower citizens to build the skillsets and confidence to navigate and learn in today's digital world, especially with the advent of AI. I will outline MDDI's efforts in these areas.

Let me start with online harms. Many of us have heard stories, or perhaps even know someone who is a victim of online harms. Some victims have experienced online stalking, while others have had their intimate photos abused. Often, victims and their families deal with tremendous distress and helplessness.

This is why the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, passed in Parliament last November, is so crucial.

As part of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, we will establish a new agency, the Online Safety Commission (OSC). The OSC will be set up by the first half of this year. It will begin by supporting victims of five highly prevalent and severe online harms: online harassment; intimate image abuse; image-based child abuse; doxxing; and online stalking. Upon assessment of a victim's report, the OSC can issue directions to disable access to harmful online content or restrict the perpetrator's online account.

Even as we set up the OSC to provide an additional avenue of support, I know that many parents are naturally worried about their children's daily digital activities. Children are amongst the most active digital users, and many parents are stretched as they juggle monitoring their children's digital usage with other commitments. In MDDI's Digital Parenting Study in 2025, over half of respondents wanted more Government support, including stronger legislation, to help them manage their children's digital activities.

Ms He Ting Ru asked about efforts to better protect children from the harms and risks associated with social media.

We have taken progressive regulatory measures to address the concerns of parents and the community. Over the past three years, we introduced two Codes of Practice for Online Safety. The Codes require designated social media services and app stores to minimise Singapore users', especially children's exposure to harmful content. The Codes also require designated social media services and designated app stores to submit annual online safety reports to IMDA. IMDA is presently assessing the annual online safety reports submitted by the designates social media services in 2025. IMDA's overall report will be published alongside designated social media services reports when ready.

Today, we already do age assurance in the physical world, like how supermarkets or convenience stores check the ID of customers before selling age restricted products, such as alcohol or tobacco. From the end of this month, designated app stores will have to implement age assurance measures to prevent users who are under 18 from accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps.

As new risks continue to emerge, online safety remains a constant challenge around the world. Some overseas jurisdictions have announced or implemented social media bans. Singapore also wants to strengthen protection for our children online and we want to do it right and take a holistic approach.

As MDDI continues to study the impact of social media bans, we plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services. This would better ensure that online services are age-appropriate for users, including children. Consultations with the designated social media services are ongoing, and more details will be announced later this year.

The Government remains vigilant regarding online harms outside of app stores and social media services. Some parents have expressed concerns about harms that online video games bring, including exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying and screen addiction. We recognise these concerns and are studying whether safeguards on online video games are needed.

We are also mindful of other types of online services that may pose a threat to online safety. As Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, one example is the misuse of AI to generate indecent content, such as sexual content and violent content, in real time and at scale. Chatbots that are embedded in social media services present unique risks as users, including children, can access them more easily.

Ms He also raised a recent worrying trend of users using prompts on X's chatbot, Grok, to replace the clothes of adults and children with revealing attire, such as bikinis. IMDA is engaging X on the issue. We note that X has taken some measures to address the matter globally. We will continue to monitor the issue closely and will work with X to enhance online safety for Singapore users on its platform. We will not hesitate to take designated social media services to task if they have failed to comply with the SMS code. We are also studying whether safeguards for AI chatbots are needed to better protect users from the harms caused by their misuse.

While parents can look forward to stronger guardrails to protect our children from online harms, parents also play an important role in inculcating healthy digital habits in children. Parenting in the digital age is undoubtedly challenging. We frequently hear stories of children being glued to their devices during family dinners, or parents feeling shut out from their children's digital spaces. Some have even described parenting today as swimming against a relentless digital tide, while struggling to stay afloat amidst competing priorities. These concerns are real, and we want parents to know that they are not alone.

To address these concerns, MDDI has rolled out resources for parents and is strengthening efforts to make them more accessible in the community. Parents can access tips on how to guide their children's digital interactions on IMDA’s Digital for Life portal. These are tailored to different digital milestones in the parenting journey, such as a child's first device use, first social media use and first online game.

Families with young children will also be supported by digital parenting workshops and webinars. These sessions are designed to meet different needs. Some support parents of younger children, while others engage families with youths who may encounter more challenging online situations. We will continue to do more to support digital parenting and welcome suggestions on how we can improve our programmes.

Preparing for the digital world requires us to not only be safe online users, but also purposeful and discerning learners. We need to prepare our students and educators for an AI-enabled future, as Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Lee Hui Ying highlighted. Educators play a critical role in the development of essential skills for our students.

Minister of State Jasmin Lau spoke earlier on enhancing public sector digital capabilities. We are also doing more to grow educators' knowledge and understanding about technology. Last year, MDDI and MOE launched the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship, and 58 fellows attended the inaugural run. I am glad that the feedback has been positive. Many participants shared that the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship has sharpened their abilities to guide students to become thoughtful and responsible users of technology.

Mr Ezal bin Sani, a Lead Teacher for History in Jurong Secondary School, was one of the Smart Nation Educator Fellowship fellows. For a Secondary 1 History inquiry-based project on Singapore's migrant Chinese communities, Ezal’s students conducted AI-powered interviews with historical "coolies" and used ElevenLabs or Google NotebookLM to create their own AI podcasts. Initiatives like this demonstrate how powerful educational technology can be in our classrooms, with students critically assessing the information gleaned from AI tools to enhance their learning process.

This year, we are refining the fellowship to focus on the power and possibilities of AI. Through workshops and industry visits, educators will better appreciate how AI is relevant in the workplace. This can in turn support students' development of AI skills and competencies. We will update programmes in our schools to meet emerging needs, just as we have done before. As the Prime Minister shared, AI literacy is fundamental digital competency that will become even more important going forward.

Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Darryl David asked about the Government's plans to make digital skills and tools available to every child, regardless of background. We will continue to ensure that AI literacy programmes remain accessible in our schools.

IMDA is working with MOE to update the Code for Fun programme in our primary and secondary schools to integrate AI skills as core baseline capabilities for all students. We will make this available to all schools in 2027. Primary school students will learn the basics of AI, such as creating digital storybooks. Secondary school students will learn to use AI to create solutions for real-world problems. As students experiment and learn with AI, they will also learn about the risks, limitations and responsible use.

For lower-income families, IMDA's DigitalAccess@Home scheme will continue to support them with subsidised broadband and computing devices.

I thank Mr Fadli Fawzi, Ms Jessica Tan, and Mr Sharael Taha for their interest in public education initiatives to strengthen citizens' digital literacy and resilience, including for our seniors and persons with disabilities. Today, citizens can look to IMDA's Digital Skills for Life resources to pick up skills to navigate digital spaces. This includes how to use Generative AI confidently and safely, as well as how to identify AI risks, such as misinformation, scams and deepfakes.

Our libraries also provide important touchpoints for digital learning. The National Library Board's (NLB's) S.U.R.E programme, which stands for Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate, encourages Singaporeans to evaluate the credibility and reliability of information. NLB will roll out new resource packages and outreach programmes under SURE to build information literacy skills. NLB will also offer roving experiential showcases across public libraries and other public spaces. Members of the public can experience the uses and benefits of AI, and how to use GenAI safely and responsibly.

We will continue to provide targeted support for vulnerable groups. At SG Digital Community Hubs across Singapore, seniors can learn how to use digital services for daily tasks, such as booking medical appointments and mobile banking. I would like to reassure Ms Sylvia Lim that the Government will continue to adopt a "digital first, but not digital only" approach. Citizens, particularly seniors, who need in-person support will still be able to receive assistance at Government agencies' physical service touchpoints and at ServiceSG Centres.

We will also continue to collaborate with Digital for Life partners to help persons with disabilities participate meaningfully in our digital world. For instance, Guide Dogs Singapore developed a toolkit to help members of the visually impaired community learn to use low vision accessibility features on the smartphone, such as the VoiceOver function.

Through these efforts, we are building an inclusive Singapore where every citizen can benefit from our digital future. Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, mastering new skills can feel daunting sometimes, but the learning experience becomes more rewarding with support from our peers and the community. Digital technologies, including AI, have become important ingredients in our daily lives and for the jobs of tomorrow. Thus, it is important that all of us are equipped to not only have digital skills, but to use them confidently and thoughtfully. Everyone is at a different stage of their digital journey. Some are just starting to explore and experiment, while others are focused on enhancing their technical skills and putting them into practice.

To work towards making our vision of an AI-Confident Malay/Muslim community a reality, M³ has launched Langkah Digital, led by Yayasan MENDAKI. As I announced last month, Langkah Digital is designed around three key elements – Kenal, Guna, Yakin. Kenal (Knowing) helps people learn more about safe digital exploration; Guna (Use) encourages integrating technology in daily life; and Yakin (Confident) nurtures lifelong digital learning so that the community can continue to adapt independently. This step-by-step approach allows us to engage different segments of our community and provide support that matches the level of their digital journey.

Staying true to our "gotong-royong" spirit, MENDAKI will bring together the whole community, including the M³ family, Malay/Muslim organisations, the MENDAKI Professional Networks, as well as partners from the public and private sectors. A good example is Mr Luqman-nul Hakim, who works as an AI engineer and has stepped forward to support Langkah Digital.

Luqman has led sessions on AI at Al Khair Mosque for over 30 participants and facilitated an AI workshop for more than 60 participants. These programmes help cater to individuals with different abilities and interests in our community. Some introduce AI tools such as ChatGPT, while others focus on more advanced skills such as prompt engineering.

Digital champions, such as Luqman are the driving force behind Langkah Digital. They not only help to bring different groups together but also foster meaningful dialogue and collaboration around technology.

Although I just launched the programme last month, I am heartened that we have rolled out 12 AI-related workshops and events in the community so far, reaching over 400 participants. I hope that Langkah Digital will empower even more members in our community.

(In English): Mr Chairman, as technology keeps evolving, it is not enough for us to hone our technical skills. To harness AI wisely, we need to ask the right questions and be discerning about the answers we get. Therefore, our children need to develop capabilities to read and process information effectively from young.

I am spotlighting reading because it is a skill that is increasingly at risk in a world where information is delivered at break-neck speeds, often in short-form and visual formats. Reading is essential for learning new skills. It improves our attention span, develops critical thinking skills, and builds creativity and empathy. All these are essential qualities for us to use technology for the benefit of ourselves and others. Promoting reading is therefore important in addressing the concerns raised by Members about social and intellectual degradation that might come with AI.

Ms Cassandra Lee asked how NLB is refreshing the libraries' role with families in mind. We can start with encouraging parents to cultivate good reading habits in their children from a young age. This also provides our children with a screen-free alternative in our device-heavy era.

This is why NLB will continue to partner with MOE to strengthen the library programme for schools. This includes an upcoming School Librarians of the Future Summit and webinars to empower student librarians as reading advocates and champions for information literacy. Student librarians can also broaden their learning, through volunteering, student attachments and learning journeys. NLB will do more to foster strong reading habits and plans will be shared in due course.

Our libraries also play a vital role in preserving and sharing our Singapore Stories. These stories form the bedrock of our community and ensure that our collective experiences are not lost to time.

To mark Singapore's 60 years of Independence, NLB and MDDI launched a book and exhibition on The Albatross File, which documents the events, personalities and debates surrounding Singapore's journey to Independence. I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for commending the teams involved. The exhibition has resonated strongly with the public. Since December, over 130,000 have visited; 96% said they left with a deeper understanding of the path Singapore took.

To Mr Fadli Fawzi's observation that the exhibition departs from what he was taught in school, there has always been differing points of view on Singapore's separation from Malaysia. This is unsurprising, given the nature of historical accounts.

For example, British, Australian and New Zealand archives released from the early 1990s reflected the perspectives of their diplomats and governments. In 1998, full versions of the perspectives of Singapore's officials appeared. Prof Albert Lau's "A Moment of Anguish" remains the most definitive account of the separation. The first volume of founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's memoir also featured a gripping account.

As stated in the editorial notes of The Albatross File: Inside Separation, nothing material to the understanding of the separation was held back. The documents published were reproduced in full, without redaction. Members of the public, including Members of Parliament, can approach the National Archives of Singapore to look at all this declassified material and form their own nuanced views.

Mr Fadli also raised the proposal for a Freedom of Information Act to automatically declassify records and release them publicly after 25 years.

The experience of some countries with similar legislation shows that most, if not all, will still have carve-outs. In fact, implementing an Freedom of Information Act could lead unintentionally to more opacity. Mr Tony Blair's 2010 memoirs record his views on the UK's Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted while he was Prime Minister. He said, after leaving office, that "The Freedom of Information Act…is a dangerous Act [because] governments need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues in confidence. Without the confidentiality, people are inhibited and the consideration of options is limited in a way that isn't conducive to good decision making. In every system that goes down this path, what happens is that people watch what they put in writing and talk without committing to paper. It's a thoroughly bad way of analysing complex issues."

In other words, a Freedom of Information Act can hinder rather than facilitate governance because issues deemed too sensitive are simply not documented. Therefore, our starting point should be prioritising transparency that leads to good governance and an informed citizenry instead of transparency for its own sake.

We already have a mechanism for members of the public to request access to Government records for reference or research, which historians and researchers have used to nominate documents for review. The Government has made more records available to the public over time and will continue to do so.

Singapore stories not only enhance our understanding of history but enable us to reimagine our future. The SG60 Heart&Soul Experience, which was visited by two million visitors in the second half of last year, allowed Singaporeans to express their hopes and dreams for Singapore. I am glad to hear that it was well received, with most visitors giving it a rating of five out of five.

The Experience was also an example of utilising digital innovations, such as AI and immersive storytelling, to present a multisensory experience. By pairing the experience with NLB's resources, visitors had the opportunity to learn more about using AI in their daily life.

To conclude, Mr Chairman, as digital technologies become increasingly complex and sophisticated, their potential to transform our society and lives, whether for better or worse, has never been greater.

As the Malay peribahasa or proverb reminds us, "Berat sama dipikul, ringan sama dijinjing." We share responsibilities and work together to overcome challenges, be it big or small. Harnessing technology for good as well as mitigating the negative impacts of technologies require more than just technical knowledge. Ultimately, we need a whole-of-society effort that brings together the experiences and perspectives of the Government, industry, academia, civil society and citizens.

Let us work together to chart a bright and promising digital future for generations to come. [Applause.]

Thank you, Chairman. I thank the Minister and the political office holders for their comprehensive response. I have a few supplementary questions.

I believe the Minister did not get an opportunity to address my cut on the role of NAIC. What precisely is its role? Will it have execution authority or oversee cross-Ministry implementation or remain advisory? And how will the NAIC integrate economic strategy under MTI with digital governance under MDDI to ensure a coordinated delivery?

Also, on NAIS 2.0, what progress has been made and what did we learn from implementing NAIS 2.0 that will shape our current plans?

My last supplementary question is on trust and regulatory credibility. Minister Josephine Teo shared that Singapore is known for our trust and regulatory credibility. How can we operationalise this trust? Will we consider establishing a formal trusted AI certification regime for high-risk AI systems deployed in finance, healthcare and aviation? Maybe that could be our differentiator and competitive advantage.

Chairman, that is quite a few questions. I will try my best.

Perhaps to address Mr Sharael Taha's question on what we have learned from the implementation of NAIS 2.0, the Prime Minister launched NAIS 2.0 in December 2023. So, it is just a little over two years since we formally started the process. If I were to say up to now, what we are learning from it? Maybe two or three key observations.

The first, perhaps to refer to the earlier handout that MTI distributed – this is on Kampong AI – as an example. I recall that around 2023, we had visited a corner of San Francisco that was known as Cerebral Valley. It was very captivating for us because the hacker houses had such an energy about them. Papers that were being published by universities in the morning, in the evening, they already have a talk and people would come in and say, this is how I am going to use it. Then, a week later, a prototype would have already been built and venture capitalists were invited for show and tell. You could see that this generated a kind of buzz that was very enviable.

We asked ourselves: can we do that? We really did not know how comprehensive our ecosystem was at the time, that would centre its attention on AI-related activities. So, we said, let us start with Lorong AI.

It was not called Lorong AI at the start. We just decided that we just have to bring the community together. We did not have our Cerebral Valley then. We just had to see whether it could take off. It turned out to move a lot faster and grow a lot bigger than we expected. I think last year, Lorong AI hosted something like 150 events with about 4,000 people. Because of that, we have the confidence to do Kampong AI.

But what is the reflection and what is the lesson learned there? It is that you can start small but dream big. You do not always have to have a Big Bang approach. That is the first observation.

The second observation I would say is that in terms of how we have implemented ideas, actually, gaps are good opportunities. Let me explain a little bit.

After we did Lorong AI, we were also building up AI Centres of Excellence. If we did not have a good momentum with the AI Centres of Excellence, it will be hard to now try to push ahead with Champions of AI. We do not have a base to begin with.

And one of those particular Centres of Excellence was in manufacturing. When we looked at the activities being carried out at that Centre of Excellence, we realised that there are common problems that a sectorial Centre of Excellence could do. And then, it enabled us to think that perhaps in some sectors, there was a certain readiness for end-to-end transformation.

So, the national AI Missions, in a way, grew out of that effort too. Then, we asked ourselves, we now have activities in industry, we now have activities in Government, which Minister of State Jasmin Lau spoke about – AI activities. In research, things were also happening in a very positive way.

Microsoft has been in Singapore for years, but it was only last year that they set up a research entity here. Then Google DeepMind decided to open an office here.

What that tells us is that research activities are picking up pace, because AI top talents are attracted by bold ambition and a willingness to tackle the big questions, the problems that confound many people. So, we need to have that.

The gaps, being opportunities specifically apply in the talent space. We had started thinking broadly in terms of AI Creators. That would be the people in Microsoft Research, Google DeepMind. For example, in Google DeepMind, within the Singapore team, they are contributing to the development of the newest Gemini models.

So, we had thought about AI Creators, we had thought about AI Practitioners – machine learning engineers, data scientists – and we had thought about users – the broad base. As we were implementing the Centres of Excellence, we also realised that in between, you need people who both understand AI, not necessarily at the deepest level, but they have good domain expertise. There is this idea that you need "bilingual" talent – people who know enough of AI, know enough of their domain and they can marry the knowledge together.

Even in terms of how we think about the AI talent spectrum, what originally was a gap now turns out to be an opportunity for us to do something about it. That would be the second reflection.

The third relates specifically to your question about the role of NAIC.

There is a well-known saying. We use it very much to talk about social solidarity. It is an African saying. It goes, "If you want to go fast, you go alone. If you want to go far, you go together."

It turns out that it applies to AI development too. If we only confine ourselves to the effort that can be applied within the verticals – MDDI, you do this; MTI, you do this; I think we will remain effective in our own ways, but we will not get to synergise. Lorong AI can become Kampong AI because there is JTC. If JTC has not been seized with this idea, then this growth could not have quite come about.

So, the NAIC is precisely to do these things. Bring the whole together. Make the whole bigger than the sum of its parts.

Today, agencies already cooperate. It tends to be one-to-one, but what we need is many-to-many cooperation and we need the mechanism to sort things out – where to prioritise, where to apply more resources, where the exploration is heading into a dead end, what kinds of policy changes that you might need.

So, the NAIC is not just an advisory role. Our Prime Minister has many things on his plate. He advises us on a whole range of things, but to chair the National AI Council is a very strong indication that we are keen on making AI transformation real for all Singaporeans and not just something that just continues to exist as a vision. We have to turn this into reality. That is what it is intended to be.

Very quickly, Mr Chairman, I think there was also a question about trust and regulatory credibility, and whether we will set up institutions to do that.

We have, in fact, taken steps. For example, quite apart from introducing model governance frameworks, we have set up a digital trust centre that is our designated AI Safety Institute. We also have the Centre of Advanced Technologies for Online Safety. These are institutions that have grown within academic organisations, but we will look for opportunities to collaborate with industry, with academia, to see how we can institutionalise this capability and turn it into an advantage for Singapore.

Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Minister for talking about the AI Impact programme and democratising AI. I think it is very important, so I do want to ask a little bit of clarification around that, more from an individual and citizen standpoint. How does this pan out and how can the ordinary citizen look forward to in terms of, what do they do with regards to the National AI Impact Programme and how do they access that?

The other question I had was, related to this as well, in terms of digital literacy specific to AI. I did touch upon the point about life stages and whether in terms of the digital literacy, as we are looking at it for citizens, even for workers, how do we ensure that this is looked at from a life stage standpoint, rather than from an age or just a profile standpoint?

And another question around responsible AI was that, given that it is widely used now and, in a lot of cases, for some very critical areas in terms of decision making, how do we ensure and how will the Government look at ensuring that biases are not kind of perpetuated? And the last point on inclusivity, given that AI is going to be very much part of our lives and it is not something we can ignore, how are we going to look at the multiple languages and supporting those in terms of people who are not so proficient in English?

Mr Chairman, in terms of how citizens are going to access the National AI Impact Programme, it again will not be solely through the channels that MDDI and IMDA oversee. For one, we will work very closely with trade associations and chambers as well as professional bodies for outreach. There is very strong interest from these intermediaries to get the word out and we welcome their interest.

We already have existing programmes that serve as a useful base so, for example, the enterprise solutions will very largely be offered through the Productivity Solutions Grant scheme. The Productivity Solutions Grant is well known to many of our enterprises. The intermediaries are also familiar with it. I mentioned in my earlier speech that about 30% of the solutions are now AI-enabled. That will likely grow because of the interest and also because of the availability of the tools.

If we look at enterprises that already use some digital tools, the Member can imagine that the vendor goes to the enterprise and say, "If you add this AI tool on top of it, actually, you can do more things than you were able to previously." So, this is one way to propagate on a base that is already quite ready. It is already quite well equipped.

For individuals, I mentioned that we will start, initially, with the accountancy and legal professions and then look to extend towards fields like human resources (HR). HR, for example, easily has 50,000 members, 50,000 practitioners. So, through their own mechanisms, individuals can also be reached. So, those are the different ways in which we will propagate the access to the National AI Impact Programme.

We welcome suggestions. If anyone comes to us and say, "This is what you can do." We are very keen to understand how. I believe that our institutes of higher learning are also very much involved because they interact with the private sector and they have a lot of students who are interested to prototype solutions in order to implement them, so we will look at those as well.

The Member's question about responsible AI biases, how to make sure they are not perpetuated. The way we approach the potential risks and harms of AI is a multi-prong one. In some instances, we already have safeguards that perhaps need to be sharpened. So, for example, pornography that could be enabled by AI, child sexual exploitation material. These are already prohibited under the Penal Code. We can update the Penal Code to make it clear. We can also think of instances, like the Workplace Fairness Act. If there is a demonstration of bias in the recruitment process, then that piece of legislation can be relied upon, because it does not depend on how the unfairness, the discrimination was produced, so we can deal with it that way.

But there will be instances where existing legislation, existing laws, existing measures are not enough. So, for example, we introduced the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising), or ELIONA, legislation. This was specifically to deal with AI-generated content that are applied to candidates in an election context, so we will continue to maintain this sort of nimble approach. Use existing laws, sharpen the laws, if and when necessary, but also do not hesitate to introduce new measures when they are needed and when it is clear what can be done about them.

So, those are the things that we will do. Inclusivity, I fully agree with you, multiple inclusivity. I fully agree with you, multiple languages — perhaps I will ask Senior Minister of State Tan to reply because he has been working on this.

Sir, to elaborate on Minister Josephine's point about inclusivity, specifically around languages.

As we know, Singapore is a multilingual society and different communities take a lot of pride in their languages, especially mother tongues. One part of the work is that MDDI looks at, specifically the "I" part of MDDI, is around information. There is a committee where we bring in academics, representatives from the media, the schools, around translation. That is the National Translation Committee, which I help to oversee.

One project that we are working on, as a very good example of how we are thinking about practical tools for AI, is about translation. And translation is not just by using any tool, any large language models (LLMs), because you need local context, local nuances, for example, not everybody understands what "chope the table" is.

So, how do you translate some of these local terms, especially local specific-context terms into different mother tongue languages? The National Translation Committee has been working with GovTech and Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) on a number of LLMs and to fine tune a model for a local context. One of the objectives is to, hopefully, have a model which we can use by the later part of this year, to allow greater inclusivity and accessibility for those not speaking English to access our public-facing websites and other materials. And to support Public Service agencies translate many of the material, which is in English, into different mother tongue languages – Malay, Mandarin, Tamil – much more easily.

And how can we do so across the board, at-scale, across the Public Service? So, we are developing an AI tool for that and we hope to share more details in the later part of the year, but this is just one specific example how we are using AI technology. Not just "copying and pasting" what other countries are doing, but fine-tuning, adapting, customising for our local context, and do so in a way that creates value and adds that element of inclusivity for all Singaporeans. We hope to share more details later and hope to get the support of all Members.

Chairman, I would like to ask MDDI on what MDDI can do to set and communicate the right expectations for our people citizenry, given the fact that we are vastly transforming the way we interact with the citizens. I applaud the MDDI for the ambition and the determination to transform the way we do e-services. Basically, in a nutshell, we are asking the Government to do more with less; do faster; do differently, not just transacting with Government, but also giving people advice, like SupportGoWhere. So, it is quite a big way of transformation of how we do things, in terms of Government service.

And we are also, instead of developing services through coding, we are asking our civil service to orchestrate AI agents to code. So, it is fairly different. With new ways of doing, there is always a risk of things not working out initially. So, how are we going to set the right expectations? Like I think Minister of State Lau has mentioned that Singaporeans have high expectation of e-services.

Maybe we could look at how Google does it, when they deliver services to all of us, they have Google Beta, Google Preview, using this to communicate to people that some services —

Minister of State Jasmin Lau can supplement, but maybe very quickly, on citizen expectations. We do not see it in a bad way. The Member and I use digital services all the time. And for us as citizens to want the Government to do better, in terms of digital Government services delivery, is a very natural thing. And so, we want to hold ourselves to higher standards.

But the Member's point, I think is a very useful one to keep in mind, which is that the expectations around failures, the expectations around what we may need to do to introduce more security that could come at the expense of some convenience that we have been used to, that is something that we need to socialise more people to.

In cybersecurity, we always say that there is a trade-off. When things are able to move in a very fast way, you worry about whether the security features have been properly built-in, and there may be times that we need to prioritise the security more than the convenience. So, the same for some of the services that we may have to offer, we do not know for a fact that we need that sort of thing and we will try, not to purposely, to deliberately, introduce inconvenience. But if and when we need to, we have to explain to people and do so properly. I do not know whether Minister of State Jasmin Lau wants to add on.

I thank Mr Henry Kwek for asking the clarification, because it gives us a chance to explain to the rest of Singaporeans how we try to optimise. I mentioned faster and better services just now, but it is very important that we do not view digital transformation as just one or two metrics. Our systems must be fast, but also secure. Efficient, but also resilient. Ambitious, but also trusted. And so, we cannot afford to optimise one dimension over another. It is very educational, and I hope more Singaporeans can understand that we must optimise across all dimensions – speed, security, cost and trust.