President's Speech

In 2024, Singapore's per capita income reached $100,000. This is among the highest in the world and greater than most advanced industrialised economies. That we were able to attain the standard of living in the relatively brief span of 60 years since our Independence is a testament to just how far we have come in terms of income and wealth.

Yet in spite of these undeniably impressive achievements, many Singaporeans still express a sense of frustration at their lot, hold perceptions that their world-beating incomes remain inadequate and argue that they are struggling to make ends meet. What gives? We can choose to believe that Singaporeans are simply too sheltered, too pampered, too ungrateful to recognise the good thing that they have going on. But as policy-makers, we must surely take such feedback in good faith and seek to understand why so many households feel this way but somehow have been unable to adequately express why.

In the speech, I will expound on why I think many Singaporeans indeed feel this way. My explanation has to do with different notions of what it means to live, survive and thrive in a society where policy-making is still largely made on the basis of efficiency. This stands in contrast to other notions of justice that many hold dear, such as whether something is equitable or if it is fair.

Imagine, if you will, that if you had to cut the cake, if it helps, you can think of my daughter's favourite, like forest cake. For those of us that are unfamiliar with this make, it has parts that are composed of chocolate, cream and cherries. It is also rather delicious. Say, I am interested in splitting the cake between my daughter, who loves chocolate, but would not typically touch cherries or cream; and my wife, who prefers cherries and cream more, you could say that an efficient splitting of this cake involves carving out the chocolate bits for my kid and leaving the parts with cherries and cream for my better half. It is efficient because we gave each one what they value more, and as wisdom tells us, "happy wife, happy life". But it is clearly unequal.

This may not be a big deal. After all, both my wife and daughter are happier than they would otherwise be were you to propose a swap. There is not any envy.

If we were deciding public policy along these lines, one could make a compelling argument that this is a very fair division. However, if I was splitting the cake between my daughter and myself, things would be rather different. See, I happen to like chocolate, too. So, even if you gave me more cherries and cream, I would still find the split unfair. For me, then, it would be better to cut the cake exactly in half, say, so that we will have equal shares of chocolate that we both like. This equitable distribution would, perhaps, be another sound principle for public policy, but it would not strike my daughter as very fair.

Setting aside how in reality I will probably end up giving my share of the cake to my daughter anyway. This simple thought experiment illustrates how we cannot simply think about public policy in terms of just one idealised principle. The Government may value efficiency, for instance, but society may actually prefer one that is more equitable or perhaps one that they may perceive as fairer.

Let me offer some examples of how efficient public policy may inadvertently turn out to be unequal or unfair. I am an educator, so let me begin with schools.

Presently, the Ministry of Education (MOE) channels about $4.6 billion towards salaries for teachers and other education professionals, and another $3.8 billion in capital injections for educational institutions. Taken together, the spending on labour and capital for schools amounts to about three-fifths of the total education budget. Excluding appropriations for certain specialised programmes, such as the Independent Schools Programme, the Special Assistance Plan or Special Education Schools Programme, these are typically distributed according to the general principle of equality.

Each school receives resources proportional to their needs. To be clear, this does not mean that schools receive exactly equal budgets. If a school enrols more students or requires or offers additional programmes, such as language elective programmes, it will naturally receive funding that exceeds the baseline. Still, the approach is to slice the educational pie in a manner that treats every student essentially as equal.

Is this fair, however?

Allocating a proportional amount to each school fails to account for how, in reality, students in different schools have access to different amounts of resources. Our so-called neighbourhood schools are predominantly comprised of students from their nearby housing estates and are mostly middle-class. In contrast, many who attend a so-called brand name school hail from the wealthiest tier of households. Furthermore, schools in the latter category, by dint of their longer history and more successful alumni base, can easily raise additional funds through donation drives. The de facto resources that each student in Raffles or Anglo-Chinse School or Saint Nicholas is clearly more than that available to students in Compassvale or Outram or North Vista.

Here, what is equal does not seem fair. If we genuinely wish to have true equality, we would disproportionately support the weaker schools. This could be simply by sending relatively more funding their way or reducing what top schools receive. Or we could ensure that the best graduates in each teaching cohort spend significant time in such schools and tie their career advancement to how well they have raised the standards there.

A similar choice exists in transport policy. Singapore allocates its vehicle quarters using a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, which is expected to bring in $6.6 billion this year alone. I have spoken more about this in the Adjournment Motion, but for now I will return to my arguments on whether the principles behind the system are fair.

COE, like most options, purports to be neutral. So, rather than inferring whether one household or another might deserve a car, quarter auctions ask those interested in owning a car to bid for the right to own one. The COE system takes this a step further by seeking efficiency in this outcome for both buyers and sellers, while ensuring that it raises a comparable amount of revenue for the Government.

What is absent from this scenario, however, is whether this efficient allocation is fair in the sense that those who own cars are also those who need it the most.

It is tempting to say that there is no way to know for sure who are the ones that are most in need of private transportation. Hence, bidding allows market prices to determine who these might be. After all, those who need a car more are likely to reveal themselves by bidding more. This implicitly assumes that those who bid less do so because their needs are lesser. Simple introspection will reveal that this is a flawed understanding of human behaviour. After all, we will only bid as much as we can afford. Bidding less does not mean that we value something less or need something less. It just means that we do not have enough money. We may well bid more if budget were not a constraint.

By abrogating the allocation decision to the market, we therefore are not truly neutral. Rather, we are implicitly accepting how allocations based on market prices, efficient though they may be, are also fair. Again, a little introspection will reveal how incomplete this claim is.

Accepting the COE system effectively acquiesces to an unequal outcome, that those who have more resources are able to buy more cars. Yet we already recognise that some groups, the elderly, those with many children, the disabled, do have greater needs that are deserving of more support from society. Not only does this resonate more with our Asian values, they are also groups that already explicitly receive support in various Government policy programmes. Most of us can easily, therefore, buy the argument that the needs of these groups for a car are, all else equal, larger than that of a wealthy household purchasing a third car to use on weekends.

A fairer system would make private transportation more affordable to them. When it comes to the economy, the most common pair of trade-offs, something I teach my students in their "first principles of economics" class is that, often, one needs to balance efficiency with equity. I will illustrate with three cases.

First, consider our existing corporate tax regime. The common refrain we hear in response to calls for us to raise our taxation on companies is that this will discourage investment. Increasing the corporate tax rate would not only be inefficient, since higher investments would typically lead to higher growth. But it may even be counter-productive, since the diminished profit may mean that companies choose to relocate elsewhere, where taxes are lower.

Let us set aside the claim that investment need materially be affected by the prevailing tax rate, a matter on which I had spoken about before and concluded that the evidence suggests not much. There is still a separate issue of whether the tax burden on companies versus households is even equitable. It is not possible to perfectly compare the two. Few companies pay the headline corporate tax rate of 17% due to exemptions, loss carry and rebates. But on average, firms are effectively taxed, something to the order of 2% to 4%.

In contrast, personal income taxes are imposed at the margin and progressively increased according to one's tax bracket. Calculations suggest that, on average, however, households pay around a fifth of their income in taxes. Even allowing for errors in these estimates, the tax rate faced by businesses and households are evidently not equal. Admittedly, increases in the corporate tax rate could result in a loss of economic efficiency and performance, but it will be much more equitable since we are evening out the burden that capital bears relative to labour.

Second, let us look at our Goods and Services Tax (GST). Like all sales taxes, the system is regressive, since the burden of the currently 9% tax is, on its face, greater for a lower-income household than a higher-income one. The Government has sought to make it more progressive by rebating part of the tax in the form of GST vouchers (GSTV). Despite this concession, the GST is likely to remain somewhat regressive, albeit less so than in the absence of vouchers altogether; and especially, if poorer households have a greater propensity to spend out of their incomes.

But let us say we believe that even greater progressivity is preferred, relative to the GST cum GSTV arrangement. Then, we may choose to rely, instead, on changes to the marginal tax rate on higher income brackets, because this would be yet more progressive and fairer. Or perhaps, we believe that every individual, rich or poor, should have an equal right to essentials, such as rice, oil and water. In this case, exemptions from a list of such staples becomes justifiable.

Thus, when seen from solely the lens of efficiency, a GST may seem like the only credible form of taxes on consumers. But once we can see the values like equality and fairness are just as important, other more inefficient forms of household taxes suddenly become palatable too.

Third, think about our carbon tax regime. Like any tax, it introduces inefficiencies. But as anyone who has taken even an introductory class in economics would be aware, this is only the case if we disregard additional costs external to these private actors, but whose consequences are born by everyone else due to climate change. For true equity, such externalities must be accounted for by those who generate carbon, which is why we have a carbon tax. But that is not all. Climate change also brings to bear whether we are doing enough to ensure inter-generational equity. That is because our children and their descendants cannot yet choose the sort of policies that will result in the world that they will eventually inherit, again with a situation where what is efficient is not automatically equitable.

Some may argue that there are more efficient ways to have countries bear the cost of their carbon footprint, through a quota system accompanied by a tradeable emissions permit. In theory, this is likely to be more efficient than even a carbon tax, since it will allow those who are best able to mitigate emissions to absorb the cost of doing so. But in practice, this means that richer countries will likely be able to purchase permits from poorer countries to allow them to emit more. Again, this is efficient.

But think about what this implies. It suggests that it is right for rich countries to effectively dump their pollution into poor ones, in the name of efficiency. This cannot be remotely fair. As this example show, what is efficient, what is equal, what is fair, differ not just in principle, but also in reality.

I could offer further instances of what is perceived as fair and just continues to elude many in Singapore, ranging from residual discrimination in the workplace due to age or sexual orientation to how our system of fines and penalties is felt more acutely by the lower-income than higher-income households; or to how the rich are able to access healthcare services more quickly than the poor. But why should we concern ourselves with such distinctions? Is it just theory?

The hard truth is that if we want public policy that society can embrace as fair, efficiency alone simply will not do. We also need to assure our citizens that everyone has an equal chance to succeed in life and that no one is left behind. Most will regard fair equality of opportunity as more appealing and attainable than the single-minded focus on equality of outcomes.

Of course, redistribution must still play a role. Despite recent progress, our income inequality remains higher than all but a handful of countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). And the gap in terms of wealth is even more yawning. Redistribution is also needed as a counterweight to blood luck, since success owes as much to good fortune as it does to pure merit.

Indeed, the two concepts are closely tied. Parents, outcomes, after all, are their children's opportunities. Equality of opportunity should be a means to advance our goals of social justice rather than an end per se. Moreover, if it is not already amply clear, ensuring equal opportunities is not solely about pushing for equal outcomes. This is not only because of the impossibility of sustaining blunt equality of this nature or the corrosive effect that such crude redistribution has on individual incentives to work. It is also because redistribution alone does not address the concentration of power in the economy or offer individuals agency, dignity, meaning and recognition that comes through work.

Hence, even with equal opportunities, we also need to remember that we are only as good as the least among us.

This means that terms like shared prosperity must be anchored in a very concrete way: that we cannot be satisfied with our economic success, our vaunted world-beating incomes, until the least advantage among us have a fair shot at living a life of dignity. This means that we should be horrified that there are uncles and aunties in our midst, approaching the ninth decade in their lives, who still feel compelled to work just to make ends meet. That there are those who that are disabled or terminally ill yet feel that they are being left behind by a Government that still prioritises self-reliance. That we accept as completely normal for a couple to share a Central Provident Fund (CPF) Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) payout of $930 a month, even though this falls below what we officially use as a threshold to evaluate poverty, at least according to ComCare.

In his address to Parliament, President Tharman stressed the importance of chasing, "Not just growth, but inclusive growth, where every Singaporean has the confidence that tomorrow will bring brighter opportunities and a better life."

And what would such inclusive growth look like? He later elaborated that we need to "ensure fairer outcomes" and that we must ensure that success is, "by how we support the vulnerable, and how we enable every Singaporean to live with dignity."

I agree with the President. In my speech, I have explained why, despite our material success, many still feel that the Government policies remain unfair, still view their opportunities as inequitable and still search for justice for the most vulnerable.

In this term of Parliament, I hope that we will continue to make progress in helping every Singaporean live dignified lives. It is what so many of the voters in Sengkang, whose confidence, indeed, returned us to this House, yearn for; and one that we, as their elected voices, will continue to fight for. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim characterises the COE system as neutral. I think when we had the Adjournment Motion debate, I do not remember us characterising the system as neutral. In fact, I said that the COE system should be seen as part of our overall transport system. In fact, COE revenues go to fund various Government needs, society's needs, in particular, public transport, which everyone can use, and it is to make public transport affordable and extensive.

So, it is strange to me that Assoc Prof Lim's notion of equity is to advocate so strongly for people who want to buy a car, to advocate for tilting the system in their favour with subsidies, and he does not support enough the interest of those who cannot own a car, who cannot drive or can only use public transport, which is the Government's priority.

I thank the Minister for the clarification. I should emphasise that when I mentioned the term "neutral", I did not mean fiscally neutral. Clearly, the system is not fiscally neutral, but rather, it is about whether the choice to allocate from one group to another, purely on the basis of the price mechanism, was treated as ethically neutral. I should also stress – and this was something I raised in my Adjournment Motion as well – that I did not downplay the importance of public transportation.

In fact, I explicitly said that I support the idea that in a land-constrained nation, like Singapore, public transportation should become a priority. Yet, I also pointed out that there is a small segment of individuals – I mentioned the disabled, those with additional children as well as those with elderly parents who may be ill – that perhaps would benefit from an ethical position by us, as a society, to recognise that their needs perhaps outweigh those of those purchasing the additional third or fourth car, just because they can afford it.

Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support and thank the President for his address.

Today is my first time speaking in Parliament and it reminds me of how I felt in 1985 when, as a national gymnast, I represented Singapore for the first time at the Southeast Asian Games. Although 40 years have passed, my feelings then and now remain the same. I have always linked my personal beliefs, sense of mission and the interests of the nation together. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the residents of Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC, especially those in Hong Kah North, for their trust and support.

Singapore has been a nation for 60 years and has experienced many difficulties and challenges. Our economic direction has been adjusted multiple times, yet our gross domestic product (GDP) has steadily grown year by year. This is mainly due to our stable and efficient government, sound systems, and the unity and hard work of our people.

Singapore is a country that relies heavily on foreign trade. In a complex international environment, it naturally faces many uncertain risks. But we know that Singapore's development is not only for economic growth, but also for social stability, the well-being of our people and the future of our next generation. Only by working hard together, supporting and encouraging one another amid uncertainty, can Singapore remain resilient.

Although our country is small, with a land area of about 735.7 square kilometers, we have made rapid progress in finance, technology, industry and manufacturing. Limited land has not hindered our goals but, instead, driven us to build a high-efficiency, high-value and balanced industrial structure.

It is precisely because of this solid foundation that Singapore can remain a strong haven amid storms, giving us protection and confidence.

But the question we must ask is this: while the nation shelters us, can our communities and families also be shelters for each other? Can they offer warmth to everyone, regardless of age or background, so that all may feel, "Someone cares about me. Someone is willing to listen to me?"

Singapore is known as a "bright little red dot" not just because of its strong economy or good infrastructure, but also because of the unity and compassion of its people. Many Singaporeans volunteer, donate and help those in need through various groups and organisations.

This also reminds me of a psychological theory – the hierarchy of needs. It suggests that after meeting physiological and safety needs, people seek higher levels of social connection, esteem and self-actualization. In Singapore, there are over 2,000 registered charities, reflecting the warmth and care within our society.

In today's rapidly developing era of AI, technology is not only changing business models but also affecting relationships between people. We must ask ourselves: how can we build a loving society in a fast-paced, efficiency-driven environment?

We all know that small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are an irreplaceable force in Singapore's economy and society. They make up 99% of all local businesses and provide around 70% of local jobs. Many of them are family-run businesses passed down through generations. They do not just create jobs they preserve our culture and spirit.

In recent years, more young people have chosen to give up stable jobs in order to preserve their families' food culture. Take Lin Huiyi, 27 years old, who was once a bodyguard to both our former and current Presidents. Not wanting the flavours of her hometown to be lost, she now runs a Cantonese porridge stall with her parents. She not only preserves traditional tastes but also uses social media to attract younger people, introduces new management styles, and builds a team culture. Despite challenges, her passion and perseverance are admirable. She reminds us that when dreams are rooted in culture and community, they deserve our support, recognition and attention. Enterprises like hers are not just part of our economy they are continuations of our heritage. In terms of policy, how can we offer greater assurance so that these entrepreneurs can work and live with peace of mind, rooted in tradition and community?

However, many SMEs face challenges, such as manpower shortages, rising costs, digital transformation, international competition and succession issues. Behind the seemingly cold data is a group of hardworking entrepreneurs who support countless families. We must value and protect their efforts so they can continue contributing to the nation and preserving this culture and spirit.

Therefore, when we formulate policies, we must not only listen to their voices but also provide concrete assistance. This support is not only for economic growth, but also a social investment. For example: help seniors learn new technologies, especially applications of artificial intelligence; provide industry mentorship programs to guide enterprise modernization; strengthen and simplify financing and market access support; through the Economic Development Board (EDB) and Enterprise Singapore, connect international companies with local SMEs to create more collaborations and opportunities; continue using policy tools to encourage companies to explore overseas markets; encourage cross-community and cross-sector collaboration to build enterprise networks within local communities; and give young people opportunities to engage with successful entrepreneurs, learn from their experiences and values, and carry on their spirit.

Recently, I have used my spare time to engage with entrepreneurs to discuss the trends of AI, as well as the challenges and opportunities it brings. I encourage them to participate in AI-related events, learn new skills and prepare for the future.

These entrepreneurs come from different generations and run all kinds of SMEs. In our conversations, they not only learn from one another, but all agree that AI will become increasingly important. They also hope for more community platforms like this to continue learning, practicing and progressing together.

Family is the core of society and the first place where children learn empathy, responsibility, and values. To build a resilient society, we must first support every family.

In our communities, we often hear from parents, they work hard while taking care of their children, all in hopes of providing a better life for their families. Encouragingly, more employers in Singapore are recognising this, and many companies have begun offering more flexible work arrangements to help employees balance work and family.

I believe we can take further action: encourage more companies to provide flexible work arrangements so parents can spend more time with their children; strengthen family counseling and parenting support services, so those in need can get professional help; and encourage businesses and community organisations to jointly promote "family-friendly programs", treating support for families as a shared responsibility.

What we are promoting is not just community activities or family policies, but more importantly, a culture of mutual care and concern. A truly strong country is not one without problems, but one where people are willing to help each other and solve problems together in times of difficulty.

Therefore, we must place emphasis on building "heartware", not just hardware. What we need to strengthen is trust, empathy and a spirit of community care. This includes mental health and also whether our seniors feel secure, whether our young people are confident about the future, whether our families are supported, and whether our workers, including platform workers, are respected and able to work with dignity.

I want to especially mention platform workers. Every day, they work hard delivering food and transporting our loved ones. Their jobs may seem ordinary, but they support the daily lives of many. Platform work also reflects the nature of today's economy: fast-paced, diverse and flexible.

With the Government actively pushing for reform, the Platform Workers Act has officially come into effect, marking an important step in protecting their rights. To go further, the Government, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and several major platform companies have joined hands to form a Tripartite Workgroup, showing a strong collective commitment to improving the platform work environment. This is very encouraging.

However, as the platform economy continues to grow, our policies must also evolve to ensure these workers are not left behind by society. True progress depends on whether we can build bridges of trust and understanding between generations, between communities, and between people's dreams and opportunities.

Mr Speaker, Singapore's development has never been easy. National harmony and progress are not to be taken for granted.

In these 60 years, I will not say we started entirely from zero, but we have gone through many processes from nothing to something. Our pioneers laid every brick and built step by step to establish a stable, prosperous and respected country. This would not have been possible without the hard work of our people.

Our nation, our businesses, our families and our people are closely connected. As the saying goes, "When the lips are gone, the teeth feel the cold."

This means that if one falls, the others will be affected too. When the nation is stable, businesses thrive; when businesses thrive, families are stable; when families are stable, people can live and work in peace and contribute to the nation. These four elements are the most important pillars of our society.

We are building not just a functioning country, but a home where everyone can live in peace, with mutual trust. The nation is our shelter; we must also make our communities shelters for everyone, and make every family its own shelter. Only then can we be more confident, knowing that no matter what happens, we will always have a safe, orderly, warm, and caring community and family to rely on.

Today's Singapore is safe, clean and green. Tomorrow's Singapore should also be warm, joyful and fulfilling. Challenges will continue to exist, but as long as we trust and support each other, Singapore will remain a ship that sails steadily even through stormy seas. [Applause.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The President noted how each generation has built on the legacy of those before, embracing change and persevering through crises. He spoke of the need for unity as we navigate turbulent waters. I could not agree more.

I would add that true unity does not mean uniformity. It means recognising and embracing that diverse viewpoints strengthen rather than weaken governance.

The complex challenges that Singapore faces in an uncertain world do not come with easy solutions. When we welcome different perspectives in policy discussions, when we create space for constructive debate, when we listen to voices that may challenge conventional wisdom, we make better decisions for all Singaporeans.

The President spoke about how families are stretched in caring for both young and old, and the Government will strengthen support for caregivers. I agree that we can and should do more to support our caregivers.

Yet our policies do not always fully reflect this understanding. Take preschool subsidies for instance, which remain tied to maternal employment status. If a mother works at least 56 hours a month, her child is entitled to higher subsidies. This conveys an indirect message: that mothers who choose to become full-time caregivers will get less support. We should equalise preschool subsidies for all children – regardless of their mother's employment status.

Additionally, introducing paid caregiving leave would be another meaningful step to reduce the burden of employees, so they have time to care for elderly parents, older children or children with additional needs.

We should value unpaid care work as much as paid employment. Families should get equal support regardless of their choice of care arrangements. This is how we truly cultivate a "we first" society.

(In English): Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in English. The President noted how each generation has built on the legacy of those before, embracing change and persevering through crisis. He spoke of the need for unity as we navigate turbulent waters. I could not agree more. I would add that true unity does not mean uniformity. It means recognising and embracing that diverse viewpoints strengthen rather than weaken governance. The complex challenges that Singapore faces in an uncertain world do not come with easy solutions. When we welcome different perspectives in policy discussions, when we create space for constructive debate, when we listen to voices that may challenge conventional wisdom, we make better decisions for all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, the President spoke of the importance of a strong economy in generating the resources needed to secure Singapore's future and improve lives, of inclusive growth and a society where every citizen shares in our country's prosperity. Yet, even as economic indicators tell us about our productivity and competitiveness, they say little about our well-being, relationships, sense of purpose and belonging. We can and should go further – towards a society where prosperity encompasses not just economic well-being, but also emotional, social and spiritual flourishing.

The President spoke about preparing our youth for a future that will be different, helping them secure good jobs and giving them a stronger voice in shaping Singapore. Indeed, our children are growing up in a world that is changing at unprecedented speed. How can they be ready to take on jobs that do not exist, overcome challenges that we cannot imagine and seize opportunities that we have not conceived?

I believe many Members in this House who had spoken about how quickly AI is transforming the workplace, especially for entry level positions, will agree that these questions have become all the more urgent.

Preparing our youth for the above requires more than just enhancing curricula or revising the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scoring system. It demands an educational environment that celebrates different forms of intelligence, have many definitions of success, and which values collaboration alongside competition. And perhaps most importantly, in today's world, it demands an emphasis on the cultivation of uniquely human traits and values that enable meaningful work where machines are limited. Yes, we now speak often about the importance of soft skills. Yet assessment drives behaviour. The reality is that success in all of our milestone exams – the PSLE, the "N" and "O" level exams in their current and future form, the "A" levels – remain overwhelmingly defined by individual academic performance measured largely through written papers.

We value adaptability in uncertain times, yet our assessment ecosystem mostly rewards those who can perform consistently within familiar formats and timeframes. We value resilience, yet we rarely assess our students for their perseverance through failure. This holistic approach to education becomes even more critical when we consider the well-being challenges that our children already face today.

Earlier this year, a CNA Talking Point survey of more than 1,000 secondary school students revealed that 14% of the respondents reported being bullied in 2024, a figure significantly higher than MOE official reports of six bullying incidents per thousand students in the same year. This discrepancy suggests that we may not be seeing the full picture of what our children are experiencing in schools today.

I commend MOE for embarking on a Comprehensive Action Review on Bullying, but addressing this challenge requires us to go beyond strengthening protocols and safeguards. We must get to the roots of why children hurt other children, both online and offline. Studies show that bullying has a lasting negative impact on mental health and behavioural development, effects that can persist well into adulthood for both those who are bullied and those who bully. They also reveal that children who bully are often children with poor well-being, those who feel unseen or unheard. All of these tell us something about the profound transformation that our education system needs. How do we nurture resilience in our young so they can better deal with stress, adversity and setbacks in an uncertain world? How do we help more parents recognise signs of distress before they manifest as harmful behaviour? How do we create cultures of empathy and support in and outside of schools, so our children are prepared for meaningful lives as contributing members of society?

Mr Speaker, I am encouraged by the President's acknowledgement that families are stretched in caring for both young and old. The emphasis on recognising the value in every job resonates strongly with a challenge that I hope we can address more directly. The undervaluation of unpaid care work that forms the backbone of society. This recognition is all the more vital as Singapore becomes a super aged society next year. Many more Singaporeans will find themselves in a sandwich generation of caring for ageing parents while raising children and/or setting aside their careers. We can and should do more to support caregivers. When a parent stays home to care for a child, when an adult child takes leave to care for an ageing parent, when grandparents provide childcare, these are work. Work that creates immense value for families and society, even though it is not typically captured by economic indicators.

Yet our policies do not always fully reflect this understanding. Take preschool subsidies, for instance. Even as we endeavour to give every Singaporean child the best start in life by enabling access to quality preschool education, subsidies for infant and childcare remain tied to maternal employment status. Higher subsidies are available to families when mothers work at least 56 hours a month. This creates a troubling message that paid work is inherently more valuable than unpaid care work. We should equalise preschool subsidies for all children, regardless of their mother's employment status. Every child deserves the best start in life, and every family deserves support in accessing it, whether the mother works in an office or runs a household, while providing care for other family members.

Paid caregiving leave would be another meaningful step forward. Working parents of young children are eligible for two to six days of paid childcare leave a year. But many Singaporeans who work and care for elderly parents or have older children with additional needs must tap on their annual leave when urgent caregiving needs arise, leave meant for their own rest and recuperation. I am encouraged that Members on both sides of this House share this concern.

Caregivers should not have to choose between caring for their loved ones and taking care of themselves. When we force such choices, we undermine both the caregivers' well-being and the quality of care they can provide. To truly become a "we before me" society, we must do more to recognise and support those who dedicate their lives to caring for others, whether temporarily or permanently. We should value unpaid care work as much as paid employment. Families should get equal support regardless of their choice of care arrangements.

Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly share in the President's aspirations for Singapore to be a place where every citizen leads joyful, fulfilling lives as they age. But more importantly, we should aspire to be a country where every citizen ages successfully with dignity. 2024 MOM figures show that more seniors are staying in the workforce compared to a decade ago. More than a third of our seniors, aged 70 to 74, 35% to be accurate, are still working. For those over 75, the figure stands at nearly 14%. Many of our elderly work in our coffee shops, hawker centres and shopping malls as cleaners, servers, security guards, and in other physical roles.

Work can indeed be a source of dignity, purpose and social connection, and we should absolutely support those who choose to. However, we must also honestly examine the full spectrum of motivations behind why many of our seniors continue to work well into their seventies. For some, work represents fulfilment and community. For others, it may be primarily driven by economic necessity. These are not mutually exclusive, but we must ask, do all our working seniors have genuine choice?

As we celebrate increased lifespans, we must acknowledge that living longer costs more. Healthcare expenses naturally increase with age. Many seniors, including those that I meet in Tampines, face not just the rising cost of living, but also the recurring costs of managing chronic conditions, paying for mobility aids and specialised care. For some, these costs may not be fully covered by their retirement savings or the various subsidies available. As families and households get smaller, more of our seniors also have the additional challenge of navigating ageing without the social support networks that past generations have had.

Ageing with dignity means having genuine choices about if and how much to work, and meaningful options for social connection and purpose. It means ensuring that those who do work do so because work contributes to their well-being, and not because it is essential for their survival. As Singapore ages, I hope we will have deeper conversations about what adequate retirement really means, because beyond the economics of ageing lies a fundamental human need for connection, purpose and community.

Some may view the above suggestions as costly in an era where we must be physically prudent. I respectfully suggest that these are not costs, but investments. When we support families, we invest in our demographic future. When we prioritise our children's well-being and nurture their resilience over test scores, we invest in a generation that is capable of thriving in uncertainty. When we care for our caregivers, we invest in the social fabric that holds our society together. When we ensure that our elderly can age in place with dignity, we invest in the values that define us as a people. The returns on these investments may not show up directly or immediately in economic figures or productivity metrics, but they will show up in the form of stronger families, more cohesive communities and a society that truly puts we before me.

Mr Speaker, the President painted a compelling picture of our next chapter. One that is guided by trust, firm in resolve yet open to change, confident yet humble, diverse yet united. This is the Singapore I want to help build. Yet this chapter can only materialise if there is trust. Trust cannot be taken for granted, nor can it be held and maintained by the Government alone. It must be cultivated at every level of society, within families, between neighbours and across generations. Building trust means having difficult conversations about the gaps between our aspirations and realities. It means having the courage to admit that what got us to SG60 may not get us to SG100. Building trust means having difficult conversations about the gaps between our dreams and aspirations.

Trust grows when we engage each other constructively and in good faith. It deepens when we acknowledge that no single entity has a monopoly on wisdom and talent. It endures when we demonstrate that listening leads to action. Success follows when we trust each other and work together towards a shared goal, a shared goal of building a Singapore that embraces different definitions of success. A Singapore that understands that true national strength comes from both economic competitiveness and social resilience. A Singapore that is not just a successful nation but a society worth living in.

Mr Speaker, I hope my generation's chapter will be about building a Singapore that not only secures our place in the world and successfully transforms our economy, but which also nurtures the heart of our nation, our people, our relationships, our capacity for care and compassion. This is how we will successfully navigate an uncertain future and build a better Singapore, not just for ourselves, but for generations to come.

I look forward to working with all Members of this House to make our shared aspirations a reality. I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his address. It is an honour for me, as a new Member to participate in this debate.

When my son was a toddler, he walked up to the television and he scrolled across the screen as though it were a giant iPad. That simple moment captures the paradox of progress. As technology propels us forward, it also reshapes our psychology, our families and our society. The question before us is not whether we progress, but how we progress without losing our values and humanity.

Our children today are born into a world of touchscreens and instant connectivity. They are more tech-savvy than us. They are growing up with Google Gemini, ChatGPT, generative AI and technologies not yet imagined. But, the ease of technology, however useful, always comes with trade-offs – especially for families.

In Tampines East, many young parents tell me they struggle with these trade-offs. With long days spent juggling work, children and ageing parents, they are exhausted. And so, devices often become quick fixes. On the surface, we see children pacified with screens. But in truth, parents are simply trying to survive the day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, technology not only changes how we live, more fundamentally, it shapes our psychology. And it is here that we must confront the deeper paradoxes of technology.

We saw the rise of the "Me Generation" with the arrival of Facebook in 2004. It amplified our natural tendencies for social comparison. Here lies the first paradox: on the one hand, social media has given us unprecedented ways to stay connected with many; on the other hand, it has left many feeling more isolated than ever. As face-to-face interactions decline, social skills weaken. And online, negativity thrives. Trolling, cyberbullying and toxic exchanges fuel stress, anxiety and depression among our youths. Worse still, harmful behaviours are not only displayed, but rewarded. When such conduct gains likes, shares and attention, it creates a dangerous kind of social proof, signaling to our young that bad behaviour is normal behaviour.

We also see instant gratification becoming the norm. Short-form videos and reels serve up endless distraction, curated by algorithms that create echo chambers. Many of these clips present extreme or simplistic views, yet our young spend hours "doomscrolling", caught in loops of distraction that they themselves call brain rot. And this is the second paradox: while diversity of thought is at our fingertips, what we consume often narrows rather than broadens our perspectives.

The consequences are significant. We are seeing shorter attention spans, weaker critical thinking and reduced emotion regulation. This in turn erodes social cohesion, resilience and grit – all qualities that have defined Singapore's success. And then there is the third paradox of convenience. Technology promises to save us time – groceries at a tap, emails answered on the go. Yet, these same devices have also become relentless sources of stress. Because we can work from anywhere, we end up working everywhere. The flood of emails, WhatsApp messages and notifications deplete our mental reserves.

We see a similar trade-off in healthcare. A recent study showed that doctors who leaned too heavily on AI to detect pre-cancerous growths, soon became less adept without it. This is deskilling – the quiet loss of ability when machines do too much of the work. And it mirrors daily life: the more we let technology think for us, the weaker our focus, the weaker our resilience and the weaker our grit. The lesson is clear, even as we adopt new tools, we must remember that these technologies are fundamentally just tools and we must closely guard our human strengths: judgement, intuition and compassion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our response to technology cannot be just about setting rules or guidelines. It must also be about shaping mindsets. Prime Minister has spoken about the "we" generation. President Tharman has called for a "we first" mindset – one that places the collective good above self interest. I believe this is the mindset Singapore needs as we enter our next phase of progress. A mindset is a lens through which we see the world. It shapes how we interpret events and how we respond to them. And mindsets are not born, they are shaped, by what families emphasise, what schools teach and what society chooses to reward.

So, how do we nurture such a "we first" mindset? I believe we must start with kindness.

Kindness may sound simple. But it is the foundation of empathy, resilience and perspective-taking; the very soft skills our young will need to survive in the AI era. And kindness must be lived in every sphere of life – at home, in school, in the community and in the workplace.

In schools, this means teaching empathy alongside knowledge and equipping our young with stress and emotion management skills that must be practised continuously throughout their school years to be truly honed. Experiential learning – whether through community service projects or outdoor challenges, give children first-hand experience of responsibility and interdependence, and works best when reinforced with encouragement.

These approaches should be built systematically into our school curriculum at every level, so that empathy and emotional resilience are not left to chance. And to make them work, we must strengthen support with more counsellors and psychologists to guide programmes and walk alongside our young as they navigate mental and emotional challenges.

In families, it means modelling kindness at home, not only to strangers, but to one another. Too often, we forget to be kind to those closest to us. Children may not always listen to what we say, but they notice what we do, including our unkind behaviours and the way we use devices. Even though I worry about my kids' screen time, one day my daughter asked me, "Why are you always on your phone?" And that hit me – I realised that she was also modeling my behaviour.

But kindness does not stop at home; it must extend into our communities. And in communities, it means designing systems that make care second nature. In Tampines East, I have seen residents care for one another in many ways. Youths teaching seniors digital skills, volunteers delivering meals to neighbours and families looking out for elderly folks living alone. These small acts of care may seem ordinary, but together they sustain the kampung spirit that defines Singapore.

At the national level, we must also renew the Singapore Kindness Movement. Campaigns are useful, but lived experiences matter more. Kindness must reach into digital spaces – from gaming platforms that reward cooperation, to workplace tools that encourage us to appreciate a colleague.

We should nudge, not lecture. When systems are designed so that kindness is the default – like calm rooms in shopping malls that give children with special needs and their caregivers a safe space to reset, or barrier-free ramps in our estates that make access automatic for seniors and parents; kindness becomes second nature. And by celebrating small, everyday acts of care, we show that it is not distant or heroic, but something each of us can practise daily.

Finally, in business, kindness must also find its place. Businesses, too, can be a force for good. Corporate social responsibility has grown and companies today are rightly held accountable by consumers. Yet business pressures can sometimes relegate kindness to the background. We should instead support organisations that embed kindness into their DNA, whether through inclusive hiring, supporting employees who show empathy, or giving staff time and resources to serve the community. The role of Government is not to purchase kindness, but to enable it: to make it easier to care, not to pay people to care.

In many parts of the world, divisions of race, religion and class are hardening. Singapore has been fortunate to avoid this, but we cannot be complacent. Numbers like the Gini coefficient show that inequality here is moderated after taxes and transfers. Yet numbers alone do not capture the lived experience of inequality.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nurturing a "we first" mindset also means ensuring fairness, because kindness at the individual level must be matched by fairness at the structural level. A child from a lower-income family may be just as capable, but if tuition and enrichment is out of reach, he starts the race several steps behind. A worker may be diligent and talented, but if hiring unconsciously favours those who "look the part", it is not merit that decides, but stereotype.

And when such institutional barriers combine with self-doubt or prejudice, they can quietly block opportunity. A student who keeps hearing "people like you cannot make it" may begin to believe it. An older worker who feels he will never be given a fair chance because of his age may stop trying. This is why we must continue to identify and dismantle barriers, both visible and invisible, so that Singapore remains a true meritocracy. A society where opportunities are not predetermined by background, but created through ability, effort and fair chance. Because only then can progress feel meaningful, not just for the successful few, but for every Singaporean who works hard and contributes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, progress is not just about technology or economics. It is also about psychology. It is about ensuring that even as we advance, we do not lose sight of who we are.

As we mark SG60 and look ahead to SG100 and beyond, let us remember the lessons of history. Civilisations that endured were not only those that adapted to change, but those that did so while holding fast to their values. And what are our values? The value of being human. The value of being Singaporean. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this fast-changing world, we must not forget the most fundamental values of being human. To be human is to have compassion. To be Singaporean is to share the spirit of being in the same boat, moving forward shoulder to shoulder. True progress is progress we make together.

We all know how hard it is to bridge race, religion and class, and to strive together as one. But our forefathers did it and our generation will surely do it too. As long as we support one another and hold firm to our resolve, the marathon ahead is ours to win.

(In English): It is our unity, our resilience and our spirit of looking out for one another that will carry us forward. As we race to the top, let us make sure we do not leave anyone behind. Because the true test of progress is not how high we climb, but how many we bring along with us. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

Sir, I went to Red Swastika School for my primary education. It is a Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school. Almost all my schoolmates were Chinese. However, I did have one Malay classmate in Primary 1, his name was Hamzah. I remember him to be rather cheeky, but other than that, I saw him as one of us classmates and did not think much more then.

Many years later, I went to Cardiff University in the United Kingdom (UK) and I was the only non-British student in my programme. It was not easy for me in the beginning. It was clear I was different. I felt awkward being myself. However, several classmates started conversations with me, they took an interest in who I was, where I came from and invited me for gatherings, and over time, we became good friends. In fact, three of them flew to Singapore for my wedding. Two of them were part of my "brothers" gang and they braved the gatecrashing with me, undergoing "酸甜苦辣", or joys and sorrows.

And I would have actually flown to Cardiff for one of their weddings earlier this month, but it coincided with the official Opening of Parliament. But I think Dewi and Sophie will appreciate this quick mention in my speech.

Having gone through my experience in Cardiff, there are times when I think back to Hamzah. How had he felt being a minority in school? It could not have been easy. We may have treated him as one of us, but had we embraced him for who he was? Did he feel he could be himself?

Sir, we pride ourselves as a multicultural society, but it is much more than a concept or a statistic that there are people of different cultures here in Singapore. It requires a lot of effort and heart to understand and then to embrace our differences, so that everyone feels appreciated being who we are – "same same but different". This is why it will always be a work-in-progress.

It may not be apparent to many, I believe that we are facing a grave threat to our multicultural endeavour. Global forces are pushing us away from understanding and embracing our differences. I worry when I see what is happening in Gaza. We do not want our people to let external developments affect our social cohesion. But it is hard not to have strong emotions when we see grave atrocities. There are other areas, the political contestation between the United States (US) and China, the cultural wars between the conservatives and the liberals.

These all evoke emotions amongst segments within our population and they often come with an inclination to choose sides. And then, I worry whenever I scroll Instagram. The algorithm will keep on feeding us videos which confirm, double confirm, triple confirm our own worldview, and then it whips us into a frenzy with this strong sense of injustice against every other worldview that appears to lay siege against ours. It is, frankly, the most influential echo chamber ever invented.

And I worry when I meet residents who do not know their neighbours are or have not spoken to them in several years. And I ask, how effective is the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) if neighbours are not speaking to one another, much less building relationships? I worry when our youths tell me that they seldom hang out in public spaces like the community centres and basketball courts now, unlike maybe for my generation. How effective are these spaces as well, if they do not foster engagement?

Yet, amidst the storm, these are also the best of times where our multiculturalism can shine as Singapore's superpower, because bridge-builders can bring light to a fragmented and dark world. All of us who grow up in a multicultural environment and can build connections across cultures are strongly positioned to seize and grow opportunities in this global future. Companies worldwide will want talent who can build trust and thrive in multicultural teams. AI cannot replace this.

So, Singapore's multiculturalism is no longer just a social imperative. It is an economic one as well. But we will need to re-evaluate our levers and be bold to make changes so that they can be more effective.

And let me share a few quick suggestions. First, instead of focusing only on our common values, which certainly continues to be important, we need to make much more effort to understand our differences. The more we are inundated with views similar to our own, the more we must seek out alternative, even opposing viewpoints, resolve ourselves to hearing them out and understand where they come from. Because with deeper understanding of each other, we can eventually still agree to disagree, but we will do so holding hands and not coming to blows.

Second, let us take a hard look at our policies that seek to foster multiculturalism and consider if they are achieving their objectives. For example, instead of setting limits on the proportions of each race in each block, could EIP be more effective, if we were to give priority to applicants of different ethnic backgrounds who pair up and apply to be neighbours together? Now I know that this will require further studies, but my larger point, really, is that it cannot just be the numbers that we seek. It must be the quality of the relationships forged, that we aspire towards.

Third, we need to reimagine our public spaces. These spaces must be the heart of our communities – where we come together to partake in common interests, but also where we come to embrace our differences. We do not have to be limited to conventional spaces, such as the community centres or the basketball courts, if that is not what interests our youths. We can invite ground-up proposals for other state buildings or land that aim to strengthen our multicultural community, facilitate these with funding support. We can also open up a much wider drawing canvas for our residents to design their neighbourhoods. I hope these initiatives will excite our youths to come forward and have a larger stake in community building. And I aim to do so in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in the five months since I entered politics, my happiest times have been participating in community activities with my Tiong Bahru residents from Tanjong Pagar. Through singing, exercising and dancing, I have been able to better understand my residents, especially the elderly. They are active in a community, which is beneficial for both physical and mental health, so I strongly advocate for this.

I notice that quite a number of community activities are conducted in Chinese. This is because many elderly Chinese residents only understand Mandarin or dialects. I can understand this. However, I am most pleased to see that many of our non-Chinese residents also participate in these activities. They even sing "The Moon Represents My Heart" (月亮代表我的心) and "Ai Piah Cia Eh Yia" (爱拼才会赢), or "Fight to Win". This is very commendable.

I constantly remind our Chinese residents one thing, when non-Chinese residents participate so enthusiastically in community activities despite not knowing Chinese, it demonstrates their commitment and contribution to our multicultural and multiracial society. It is a good example for all of us. We must never take this for granted.

Therefore, at these occasions, I make it a point to speak in English as well. When singing, I would also encourage them to sing English and Malay songs. I hope that our activities will be welcomed by all our citizens. After all, Singapore is founded on a multicultural society.

Today, many Singaporeans are inevitably influenced by geopolitics and the outside world, leading to divisions between groups holding different ideologies. Furthermore, people spend long times on social media, reducing face-to-face communication, easily forming echo chambers, reduce interaction between those holding different viewpoints, which naturally leads social divisions.

Therefore, our goal is to bring everyone together through implementing policies and making good use of our public facilities and community activities, so that we can deepen the understanding between and feelings for each other.

(In English): Sir, let me return to where I started. The Singapore I want to build is one where every little child grows up, knowing and feeling that they can be who they are, in every setting and season of life. The Singapore I want to build is an orchestra of different musical instruments: we look different, we sound different, we have different ranges, but when we work together in harmony, we create the most magical and timeless symphonies. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his address. This is the first speech in this Chamber, and it means everything to me, not just because it marks the start of my Parliamentary journey, but also because it reflects the trust that Singaporeans, in particular, my Canberra constituents, to speak honestly, with heart and with purpose.

The President, in his address, reminded us that Singapore can only stand tall if we act as one people, by putting "we" before "me". This unity, built not despite our diversity but through it, has always been our strength. Our future depends on nurturing a society where we look out for one another, where success is measured not just by what we achieve, but by what we do together for the common good.

Personally, it is not enough to look at where someone starts. What matters just as much is the courage they show when life knocks them down and how we support them in getting back up.

Today, I want to speak about something deeply personal: second chances. I want to talk about what it means to fall behind and how we, as a society, can help people stand tall again. I also want to touch on two things we often avoid discussing: financial literacy and planning for death – wills and Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs). Because all three are deeply connected. They are about control, dignity and hope.

Let us start with second chances. I am not just talking about ex-offenders. I am talking about any Singaporean who has made a wrong turn: bad financial decisions, toxic relationships, addictions, even just giving up on themselves too early.

I have been championing for second chances since 2011 and have seen first-hand the repercussions to the families of those incarcerated, with addictions, and who made wrong financial decisions. It often takes years for the families to recover if they recover at all. One wrong choice can lead to a lifetime of despair. It should not be that way.

We have made good progress in some areas, for example, our prison’s recidivism rate has been steadily dropping. Our two-year recidivism rate is low by international standards and fell to 21.3% for the 2022 release cohort. Over the longer term, five-year recidivism has continued to decline – to 36.6% for the 2019 cohort, from 41.7% for 2015. We should keep going.

But second chances are not only about statistics or systems. They are also about whether people feel life itself is worth holding onto.

I met a young resident not long ago at my meet-the-people session (MPS). She came with her mother, and I noticed the scars of self-harm still healing on her arms. Her bank account had been misused by someone else, and the bank froze it. She was caught in a spiral – unable to access her own money, losing hope. We worked with the local police post and even wrote to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to try to resolve it. Last month, her father wrote to me and shared that his daughter was admitted into Institute of Mental Health (IMH).

This is what it looks like when someone feels there is no way back. It is not just about mental health in the clinical sense. It is about society giving people reasons to believe tomorrow can still be better. When they do not see that, they give up. And the cost of silence, is lives.

This is serious when we look at the numbers: In 2024, there were 314 suicide deaths in Singapore, with suicide remaining the leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 29 for the sixth consecutive year. The national suicide rate stood at 5.91 per 100,000 residents.

In recent years, it has been heartening to see communities coming together, various organisations that champion different causes coming together to help those in need. But we must first acknowledge that more can be done and more must be done. That we must teach a person to fish and not just provide them fish.

Second chances only work if someone is willing to give a first “yes”– the landlord who does not judge your past, the human resources (HR) officer who looks at your potential, the auntie at the void deck who asks, “You okay or not?” instead of crossing the road in avoidance.

We need more of those moments. That means relooking into our hiring culture, our housing rules and our public communications. Can we move from a society that punishes mistakes endlessly to one that corrects, supports and uplifts?

Mr Speaker, I want to talk next about financial literacy because in Singapore, it is often the first step to a bad decision…and rarely the first thing we teach.

I have met too many Singaporeans, especially in their 40s and 50s, who have fallen into debt because they did not understand the system. Not because they were reckless. But because no one ever taught them how credit works, what “compounding” means, or what it means or what to ask before signing a loan.

Here is the reality: unpaid credit-card balances that incur interest – what MAS calls “rollover balances” – hit a record $8.3 billion in Q4 2024. That is not financial play; that is pressure.

Earlier this year, I met a resident during a house visit and he explained that his sister had taken multiple loans with both licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. This led to his family being harassed, afraid and needing help. It eroded their relationship leading to a breakup of the family.

Cases like these are not rare. In the first half of 2024 alone, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS) received about 1,150 requests for help from debt-distressed individuals, a surge of 18% compared to the second half of 2023. That is nearly 2,300 people in a single year needing help, each a signal that money struggles are growing, not shrinking. Back in 2019, CCS handled about 3,250 new cases. That number dropped during COVID but is now climbing back again. The trend is clear: financial health is not just a private matter; it is a public concern.

We need to stop thinking of financial literacy as a “good-to-have.” It is a life skill as essential as reading or writing. We should be teaching this in primary schools, in National Service (NS), in SkillsFuture classes. Not just budgeting but how to read contracts, avoid scams, manage risks.

And for those already in debt, we must offer a real way out. Simplifying the restructuring process. Provide case managers who walk with people. And most of all, remove the shame. You cannot rebuild a life when you are buried under guilt.

But financial resilience is not only about individuals. It is also about whether our businesses and workers can adapt in a changing economy.

Across Singapore, I have met business owners and workers who share similar worries: rising costs, digitalisation and the challenge of keeping up with rapid change. Transformation cannot just be about large firms or multinationals. It must also include our kopitiam stalls, our SMEs, our local family-run businesses that anchor the communities.

Our Government’s support for digitalisation, training and productivity is crucial, but I believe more can be done to simplify access. For many small businesses, it is not about a lack of will but a lack of time and bandwidth to navigate grants and schemes. We need to bring transformation support down to the ground through community centres, town councils and grassroots networks so that businesses know help is not far away.

At the same time, transformation must go hand-in-hand with protecting and uplifting our local workers. When industries change, it is workers who feel the disruption most keenly. Older workers especially fear being replaced or left behind. We must strengthen retraining pathways, wage support and on-the-job learning opportunities, so that transformation is not something done to workers, but with them.

If we can help our local businesses thrive and ensure our workers grow alongside them, then transformation will not divide us – it will uplift us together.

The next taboo I want to talk about is death. More specifically, wills and LPAs. I know, Mr Speaker, these are not exciting topics. But when we avoid them, families suffer.

As of September 2024, only 233,000 Singaporeans aged 50 and above have made an LPA, a fraction of who stand to benefit from it. That is despite a campaign pushing for 240,000 by end-2025. Yet, more than one in 10 Singaporeans do not know what an LPA is and nearly 20% are not aware of advance care planning. This is not ignorance: it is risk.

I was at an MPS where I saw this resident whose husband had just passed away a year ago and as there was no will and no LPA before he lost mental capacity, it led to complex legal challenges and emotional distress.

These things are preventable. But many still do not know what an LPA is. Some think it is only for the old, others worry it is about “giving up power.” But it is the opposite. LPAs when made are simple and cheap: Form 1 is fee-waived for citizens until March 2026. Yet many still do not know. An LPA protects your voice when you can no longer speak for yourself.

And wills, especially for lower-income families, are equally crucial. For some lower-income families, a partially paid or older HDB flat may be their life’s only tangible asset. If that transfer is contested or mishandled, it could break a family apart. Canberra Community Club (CC) has had a series of will and LPA workshops, and I know more can be done to raise awareness.

Mr Speaker, at the heart of all this – second chances, money missteps, end-of-life planning – is one word: dignity. And dignity means giving people agency over their story. Even when they have made mistakes. Even when they have failed.

In Singapore, we are trained from young to fear failure. And so, when it comes, we hide. We disappear. We stay quiet. We are embarrassed to reach out for help. But I believe we must make space for the comeback. That means companies hiring not just based on clean records but also on character growth. It means schools giving students time to catch up. It means neighbourhoods, where asking for help is not seen as weakness.

I have been blessed to know of company owners who do not look at overcomers as cheap labour, or just another recruitment channel, or to exploit them, but to invest in them, to give them opportunities to grow, to groom them, to help them develop and equip them to overcome challenges that lie ahead. That is the culture I want to see more of. Because sometimes, it just takes one "yes" to save someone from a lifetime of "no."

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the President spoke about the importance of putting "we" before "me" – of building a "we first" society where our success is measured not only by what we achieve alone, but by what we do together for the common good. But I think this is not just about bouncing back when times are hard. It is about building a country where people help each other rise again. I want Singapore to be known not just for its discipline, but its compassion. Not just for its efficiency, but for its empathy.

Let us be a society where someone who messed up once is not forever defined by it. Where dignity is not earned only by success but granted simply because you are human. Let us be the kind of country where every Singaporean knows this: even if you fall, you are not forgotten. Even if you are lost, there is a way home.

Mr Speaker, I support the Motion of Thanks. And I thank the House and Singaporeans for giving me the chance to speak and to serve. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Motion. I am grateful, but also a little anxious. Anxious – not in a way that paralyses, but in a way that reminds me of the gravity of this moment and the privilege that I have to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

So, I will try my best, in this speech, to turn my anxious energy into something useful – words that carry hope and assurance, and words that do not put you to sleep.

The Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee asked me earlier this year if I read books. I said I do. I read Paw Patrol bedtime stories. And they said I should read more widely. So, I tried. I read parts of the book "A Different Kind of Power" by Jacinda Ardern, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand. She is known for her conviction about fairness, opportunity and empathy. She spoke openly about how her anxiety reminded her of the weight of leadership. She inspires me.

She also said that she knew her maiden speech might one day "haunt" her, because words in politics and parliament linger; they are remembered, they are scrutinised and they are tested against our actions.

Standing here today, I know, that what I say in the next 20 minutes – yes, do not worry, not more than that – will not simply vanish when I sit down. They will follow me. They will be replayed online. They will be mentioned in debates years from now. And they may come back to haunt me.

Perhaps, that is not a bad thing. And perhaps, that is what gives weight to this moment – to know, that we are accountable not only for the commitments we make, but also for the spirit and the values in which we make them.

I also read parts of the book, “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. It describes how digital technologies – smartphones, social media, endless connectivity – are reshaping childhoods, with consequences for mental well-being. As someone entrusted with responsibilities for both education and digital development, I had no excuse not to read it.

But is it only one generation that is anxious? Every generation of Singaporeans has been anxious, though in different ways and through different seasons.

Our Pioneer Generation felt existential anxiety: would Singapore survive? Would there be enough food, water, security? The Merdeka Generation – my parents’ generation – carried another form of anxiety: how to build stable families, how to create industries from scratch. And they worried through recessions and restructuring: could they keep their jobs, would their children have better lives than them?

And then there is my generation, parents of young children today. We face a new layer of anxiety. We live in one of the safest, most successful nations in the world and yet, we worry endlessly. Are our children resilient enough? Are they spending too much time online? Are they learning the right values? Can they thrive in a world that changes faster than the one we grew up in? Are we, as parents, too gentle? Are we too harsh? Are we parenting correctly? And what if we get it all wrong?

Our young people, too, carry their own burdens of anxiety. Many of them tell us that they feel anxious all the time – about examinations, about social acceptance, about the future of jobs and about whether they measure up in a world of constant comparisons. The irony is that they live in a world and a time of endless opportunities and yet, they carry the weight of immense expectations, from society, from their families and often from themselves. This anxiety is real and it is not a weakness. It is a signal that they care deeply that they are searching for meaning and that they need assurance and safe spaces to turn their restlessness into purpose.

Anxiety, then, is not the condition of one generation, but an inescapable part of being a human. The real question is not whether we feel it, but what we do with it.

Now, a little something for the Science students. Brownian motion describes particles that move around randomly with no clear path; plenty of movement, but no direction. When my netball teammates and I were younger, when we had energy and stamina, we often ran around the court like headless chickens. Our coach, Prof Yap from the National University Hospital (NUH), who actually just returned from Egypt, she would say to us, “Brownian motion is useless. Every move, every dodge, every change of direction we make must be intentional.”

If left unchecked, anxiety can be like Brownian motion – restless vibration, much movement but no progress. But conversely, anxiety, if transformed into action, can become energy for creativity and for growth.

This, is the task before us as leaders. We must lead with quiet confidence, tap into the collective experience and wisdom of our people, be clear-eyed about the policies we want to change, the mindsets that we want to change and the causes to rally our people towards. This way, we can channel the anxieties of Singaporeans into purposeful action. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We Chinese have an idiom, "be prepared for danger in times of peace", which means that even in good times, we must think about future challenges.

Anxiety is actually a reminder. It reminds us that we care about the future, our families and our nation's prospects. Our forefathers were once anxious too. They worried whether Singapore could survive, whether it could provide enough food and water for the next generation. Our parents' generation was also anxious. They worried about economic recession, their children's employment and future prospects.

Today, our generation feels equally anxious. Although Singapore is already a safe and prosperous country, we still worry: are our children resilient? Have they learnt the right values? Can they grow up in this complex world?

Anxiety is not a weakness, but a driving force. The key is not whether we have anxiety, but how we face it.

We can let anxiety behave like Brownian motion – vibrating randomly and aimlessly; or we can transform it into a driving force for action, making us to be more resilient, creative and confident. Only in this way can we transform worry into strength, transform unease into hope and lay a more solid foundation for Singapore's tomorrow.

(In English): I will now share my thoughts on my two portfolios: Education first, followed by Digital Development and Information.

As a mother of two preschoolers, my days are filled with joy and worry. Each morning, Papa and I hold our little boys' hands, and we walk them into their schools. We kiss them goodbye and we watch them take their small steps into the world, a world that feels faster, harsher and more complex than the one I grew up in.

And at night, after they are asleep, I often find myself asking, "Am I doing enough for them? Am I doing too much for them? Am I present enough as a working parent, and am I patient enough as an exhausted parent? Will they be kind? Will they be brave? Will they be bullied, or will they bully others?"

These questions are not unique to me. They are questions every parent would ask themselves in quiet moments. And I want to say here, as a parent and as a policy-maker, I see you. I hear you and I carry the same questions.

Education, at its heart, is not simply about grades. It is about confidence, character and resilience. Part of nurturing character is tackling the difficult issue of bullying. Bullying, whether in the classrooms or online, corrodes the very values we hold dear as Singaporeans – respect, responsibility and care for one another. It also feeds the anxiety among our children, leaving scars that can follow them well into adulthood. So, I take very seriously, my role, in the review of anti-bullying efforts because it will help build a kinder Singapore.

The best way to defeat bullying is to make kindness our norm. The real revolution is not against bullying but for kindness. Let us not just tell our children to be kind to each other. Let us, as adults, be kind and respectful to each other, so that our children in Singapore, watch, learn and mimic the kindest generations of adults.

I will work with parents, youths, educators and community groups to reframe the way we approach our challenges. Our work will not be just about preventing bullying but making kindness our norm and finding meaning in caring for others. Our work will not be just about helping children pass our mother tongue subjects but reconnecting them with our cultures and strengthening their ability to communicate with the world. And our work will not be just about avoiding screen time but helping children, and parents, rediscover the life lessons from play and nature, and strengthening parent-child relationships.

My other portfolio, Digital Development, brings me face to face with a different kind of anxiety. We worry about children glued to screens, exposed to online harms, workers displaced by AI and seniors left behind in a fast-changing society. Yet, just as with anxiety, technology can either paralyse us or propel us.

Our youths wonder if AI will take away the jobs that they aspire towards or if they will be able to keep up with machines that learn faster than humans. Yet, when I meet students at hackathons, I also see their excitement. They want to experiment, they want to create and they want to shape how AI can be used for good. So, I believe, that if we guide them well, our youths will not just adapt to AI, but they will help define the future with it.

As we embrace technology and prepare our young for an AI-driven future, we must remember never to lose our humanity. Machines can process faster than us, but they cannot feel for one another. They cannot comfort a friend in pain, forgive a mistake or show compassion to a stranger. These are deeply human capacities – empathy, kindness, moral judgement – that no algorithm can replace. So, as we advance, let us hold firmly to the values that make us human because it is these values that will guide how we use technology and ensure it serves people, not the other way around.

These values of empathy and kindness also guide me, as I fulfil my duties as the Minister-in-charge of GovTech. I will be a watchman, not just to keep Singapore at the forefront of technology but to guard the values and integrity of our society, so that technology and AI do not become our digital opium.

We will continue to strengthen our public digital infrastructure. Through the work of GovTech and our agencies, we will ensure that Government digital services are not only efficient but also inclusive and trusted. Our public service must continue to be best-in-class, setting the tone for how technology can serve and strengthen people, not the other way round.

Mr Speaker, every generation of Singaporeans had anxieties, and what has defined Singapore is not the absence of anxiety, but the imagination to dream big in spite of it and the courage to act in spite of it. Our pioneers built homes while anxious about survival. Our parents built industries while anxious about recessions. As leaders, our role is not to erase anxiety because that is impossible. Our role is to steady the anxious hearts and to channel the restless energy into constructive action.

Years from now, people may ask, “Jasmin, did you live up to these words? Did you hold true to your commitments? Did you carry through on what you promised?” I hope that when that day comes, I can say, “I gave it all I have got. Yes, I was anxious but I took action. Yes, I spoke of assurance, and I worked every day to provide a little bit more of it.”

Every evening, I see the real reason for my work – my children, sleeping soundly, full of unspoken trust that tomorrow will be okay, that the world will be kind. In their faces, I am reminded of why I stand here – to help build a Singapore where every child can grow up confident, kind and courageous.

Mr Speaker, I commit myself to this work. To serve with both head and heart, to walk alongside Singaporeans in their anxieties, and to help transform those anxieties into action for a kinder, more resilient, more compassionate and confident Singapore. [Applause.]