Debated in Parliament on 17 Apr 2023.
Debate resumed.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.
Thank you, Sir. Actually, I only have one more paragraph left. [Laughter.] But it is the most important paragraph because it is my final message to everyone.
Faced with the stark realities of a troubled world, my message to Singaporeans is simple: there is no challenge we cannot overcome; no obstacle we cannot deal with. Singapore can remain exceptional. We can keep the Singapore Story going. We can move forward together as one people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Mr Speaker, while significant visibility has been afforded to matters of the economy and healthcare in the first session of the 14th Parliament and rightfully so, it is often the invisible social tenets that elude us – unnoticed. Nations globally are only realising now the true impact the crisis has left on social fabrics. In America, the erosion of authentic relationships between people has been dubbed the "friendship recession". In China, economic slowdown as a result of the pandemic has driven youths to "lie flat" or 躺平; and indeed, in Singapore, as we build a "new social compact" as a nation, many in our communities and in our neighbourhoods are picking up fragments left from the pandemic, to rebuild lives and livelihoods and to make sense of the post pandemic world.
Have we considered the invisible implications of COVID-19 on the social fabric of our nation? I propose, Mr Speaker, that these invisible impacts are most felt by those driven further invisible in our post-pandemic society. I would like to talk about three such profiles: first, our women workers doubling up as sole caregivers at home; two, our freelancers caught up in a precarious, ever-evolving gig world; and three, our vulnerable adults with special needs – invisible and voiceless.
Mr Speaker, today, women are not an invisible force in the workplace and indeed a force to be reckoned with. However, domestic and caregiving norms at home which have been in place for generations, have not caught up with these great strides in the workplace. Women in their dual roles, often in equal parts of working and of caregiving, are taken for granted and go unnoticed and underappreciated. As a result of the pandemic, the lines between these women's professional lives and domestic responsibilities have become even more blended.
Work from Home or in the COVID-19-era slang – WFH – was a word that was both celebrated and feared by our women workers. At NTUC, our sisters and unions have been pushing workplace norms to embrace flexible work arrangements (FWAs) of which WFH is an example of, for decades. FWAs can enhance workplace productivity and can allow companies to retain women workers in the workplace and attract women returners back; of which by the way, there are 240,000 women of economic age not in the workforce today.
COVID-19 created the opportunity for FWAs to be adopted widely, but it also brought into better focus, the challenges women workers and companies need to overcome for FWAs to continue to be adopted both widely as well as wisely.
The realities are that FWAs or otherwise, will not shift the burdens of caregiving from the shoulders of mothers, wives and daughters, should women still be culturally expected to be the sole or main caregivers at home while balancing their careers. More practical support must be given to help move the needle in shifting cultural caregiving norms and the Labour Movement is appreciative that our workers' suggestions of shared parental leave and increasing paternity leave have been accepted by our tripartite partners.
A wider scope for caregiving leave can also be considered, for our workers to be able to share caregiving duties outside of the typical parent, grandparent and child familial sets, to include family members such as uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces. Keep the number of caregiving leave days but allow for flexibility on who a worker can give care to.
Now that normalcy has been restored to most of the workforce, more workers are called back to serve their nine-to-fives in offices. Let us not lose the momentum we have made in the progress for FWAs in the past three years. FWAs are a critical workplace philosophy to help our women workers balance their dual duties. The Labour Movement thanks the Tripartite Partnership in supporting and legislating in the near future, our workers' rights for individual FWA requests to be considered by employers. The Labour Movement on our part, will continue to support and push for companies to redesign jobs and to ensure FWAs are win-win and sustainable for businesses and workers.
Another group of workers who have seen much changes since the onset of the pandemic are our freelancers and, in particular, platform workers who are the lifeblood of Singapore's gig economy. Having transformed the way we eat, shop and move and especially so in the thick of the pandemic, our freelance gig economy has grown in the past three years. Yet, as a community, they still bear invisible risks we do not fathom as a nation. These include risks to their physical safety in transit when delivering food or other logistical requirements, but also concerns over the adequacy of their retirement savings, health safety nets and housing.
While the Government will continue to work with these platforms to ensure equitable outcomes for platform workers, Singaporeans should also bear in mind these invisible risks borne by platform workers the next time they tap into their services.
As a progressive Labour Movement, the NTUC and our associations – National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) have been engaging our ever growing freelance and self-employed community and garnering support to address their concerns with our Tripartite Partners – the ride hail platforms, delivery platforms, taxi companies, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the CPF Board, and the list goes on.
The move from pandemic to endemic has certainly brought further light to the precariousness of our riders and drivers' livelihoods. As business models shift and adjust with the gradual opening of our economy and borders, this should not be done without due consideration that these moves have on the livelihoods of our platform workers.
To a platform owner, the impact of a rise in platform fees of less than 50 cents, could be minimal in consolidated amounts, but to the driver or to the rider, the accompanying decrease in ride or delivery orders, will mean decreased earnings and less food on the table for their families, sometimes even for weeks. A poorly executed app update resulting in a few hours of glitching will impact earnings and even the safety of our riders and drivers.
The Labour Movement has been championing the cause of our freelance and self-employed for many years now and in the face of a fast-evolving gig landscape, the Tripartite Partnership has formed the platform workers Advisory Committee to look into the protection and representation of our gig platform workers. This is an important move and draws visibility and, more importantly, public awareness and discourse to the issues that this evolving and growing group of workers face on a daily basis to their livelihoods and safety.
Our drivers and riders are a proud, independent group of Singaporean workers. And I call on all Singaporeans to work with the Labour Movement and Tripartite Partnership on defining a fair, dignified livelihood for our platform workers in the new normal.
On dignified lives, this brings me to the last group and arguably, the most vulnerable group of adult Singaporeans living among us. For those among us who are parents, do you remember the looks shot at you as you might have brought your wailing infant to a crowded mall, or worse, a fully occupied plane? You may have, on some occasions, muttered to yourself, "Just a few more months of this to get through". For some parents out there with children with special needs, they never really find solace from public scrutiny, even as their children reach adulthood.
Mr Speaker, though presented conjecturally, many parents of adults with special needs are no strangers to this line of thinking. On my block visits in Punggol Shore, I encounter a good number of cases of adults with special needs – some of them undiagnosed, cooped up at home, rarely stepping into the outside world having fostered no real sense of independence.
When I speak with their parents or siblings, I am often met with worries about how their ward might continue to upkeep a standard of living and quality of life should they pass on. Sure, state-centric solutions might exist, but all parents would wish upon their children a life of safety, choice and protection, at least one that goes beyond the confines of an institution.
I would like to share the story of one of my residents, Mr Y, who has sadly passed on, but left behind his wife and a 21-year-old son from his first marriage who is on the autism spectrum. I met with Mr Y when he contacted my office and asked me to visit him at home as he was too sick to leave his home. I remember Mr Y laying on his sofa when I saw him in his flat; he was very ill, and his stomach was painfully distended.
Even though he was relieved to see me and smiled a lot, he looked like he was in the jaws of death. Mr Y had last stage cancer and his doctor told him that he only had weeks to live. Mr Y told me that he was in pain and the only reason why he was still holding on was because he did not know what to do to ensure that his son and his wife continued to enjoy a good standard of living after he passes on. He was worried as his son has no language skills and his wife is a foreigner; and while she is a full-time caregiver to his son, after his passing, he wished for her to find work. He was also adamant that his son would be able to live and age in place in the flat that he owned and not to be confined to a home or institution. Mr Y was estranged from his family and there were no additional supporting networks for him. He had no will, no Lasting Power of Attorney; he did not even have a "Plan B" on how to ferry his son should the bus fail to turn up that day to bring his son to daycare.
After listening to him, we knew we were running against time. Together with my volunteers, we spent the next five days setting up the necessary paperwork for him, visiting banks, getting the lawyers in, setting up a Special Needs Trust. We even arranged for job interviews for his wife and paid attention to his final funeral wishes. More importantly, we knew we had to set up the necessary safety nets for his son, while Mr Y was still of sound mind. Thankfully, things went smoothly and through community contacts, we managed to get things in order for him. He passed on that night after he signed the trust agreement, which actually took the longest to set up. That was two weeks after our initial meet-up at his sofa in his home. He was only then 58.
Mr Y left a very long-lasting impression on me. His story is not unique among caregivers and guardians of special needs adults. Through understanding his wishes for his son and the hoops we had to jump through to coordinate the safety nets needed to protect Mr Y's son, I know that we need to do more for our special needs adults and their caregivers. Mr Y envisaged a warm model of care for his son and this was about his son living in the community he grew up well into his later years. It is, well, a care model around a village more than it is around an institution. What this means is that our adults with special needs would be able to live in a safe and dignified manner, fulfilled lives in their communities with the support of other members of the community.
I believe that Singaporeans have what it takes to be that village for adults with special needs. No institution can give this great an assurance to families of our special needs adults than the community itself.
Mr Speaker, what is unseen is often ignored and what is ignored often suffers. Together, this need not be true for the invisible slices of Singaporeans we have formed a blind spot, as a result of the pandemic. Strengthening the social compact begins with kindness and kindness begins with putting ourselves in the shoes of others. As I continue to tell the stories of those I champion, I will call on the Government to effect change and renew the kindness of Singaporeans to effect lasting change. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Speaker, Sir, today I would like to talk about three important topics that are integral to the building of a cohesive and resilient society in the face of challenges.
As we all know, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to our nation. The rising costs of living, coupled with the economic impacts on the pandemic, have added further strain to many Singaporean households.
Despite these challenges, I firmly believe that as a nation, we have the strength and resilience to overcome them. It is now more important than ever that we come together as a society and work together, towards a shared vision for the future.
I will focus on three key areas that I believe are critical: one, the importance of Mother Tongue languages; two, strengthening the role of the M3's Focus Area Four (FA4) in supporting vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community; and thirdly, building trust and prospects for our workforce.
By embracing our cultural diversity, supporting vulnerable communities and investing in our workforce, we can build a society that is both resilient and prosperous.
Allow me to touch on each point in greater detail in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Mother Tongue languages are a cornerstone of Singapore's multiracial and multicultural society. They provide a vital link to our diverse heritage and cultural identity. In Singapore, each ethnic group has its own Mother Tongue language, such as Mandarin for the Chinese community, Tamil for the Indian community and Malay language for the Malay community. According to the 2020 Census of Population, 74.3% of Singaporeans are proficient in their respective Mother Tongue languages. This data demonstrates the significant level of proficiency and emphasises the importance of these languages in our society.
In addition to serving as a communication tool within our respective ethnic communities, Mother Tongue languages have played a critical role in building social cohesion and national unity in Singapore. They have helped to foster a sense of belonging and shared identity among Singaporeans of different ethnicities, contributing to the country's success in maintaining social harmony.
Beyond their cultural significance, research has shown that being bilingual or multilingual offers cognitive benefits such as enhanced memory, cognitive flexibility and decision-making skills. For example, a study by the University of California found that bilingual individuals performed better in cognitive tests than monolingual individuals, highlighting the cognitive advantages of being bilingual. Thus, the cognitive benefits of being bilingual or multilingual are numerous, making it a valuable skill to have in today's globalized world.
As a Malay Singaporean, I can personally attest to the significance of the Malay language in my daily life. It is not only the language I use to communicate with my family members, but it also allows me to actively participate in the wider Malay community. For example, when attending cultural events such as Hari Raya Aidilfitri or weddings, the ability to converse in Malay allows me to connect with my fellow Malay Singaporeans on a deeper level and better appreciate our shared cultural heritage.
Given their cultural and cognitive benefits, it is crucial for the Government to continue investing in the preservation and promotion of Mother Tongue languages in Singapore. This includes ensuring that Mother Tongue language education is accessible to all and providing resources to support its learning. By recognising the value and significance of Mother Tongue languages, we can continue to build a society that embraces diversity, promotes social cohesion and values our shared cultural heritage together.
Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement has kept faith with workers through the decades, including COVID-19, and continues to break new ground in areas that contribute to Singapore’s economic recovery and transformation. This includes initiatives to support marginalised groups in the community amid economic recovery and transformation. One such example is Focus Area (FA) Workgroup within the ambit of M3. FA4 is an important framework that seeks to provide support and assistance to Malay/Muslim workers. FA4 is especially significant in today's context as the country continues to grapple with the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the pandemic has disproportionately affected certain groups, including those in low-wage jobs, gig workers and mature workers, among others. FA4 plays a crucial role in ensuring that these vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community have access to the necessary support and resources to navigate these difficult times.
Through a referral process, these workers are channelled to multiple agencies for assistance, such as NTUC's e2i and LearningHub, as well as the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI). By doing so, jobseekers are given access to job placement opportunities and skills upgrading courses, which can help improve their chances of securing better employment opportunities.
As the Malay proverb goes; if you do not ask, you will get lost; if you do not row, your boat will drift aimlessly. FA4 is an important framework that seeks to provide support and assistance to vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community, especially in today's challenging economic and social climate. By addressing the unique challenges faced by vulnerable groups such as platform workers, women, mature workers and youth, FA4 can help create a more inclusive and equitable society. This is important in the social compact of Singapore as it seeks to build a more resilient and cohesive community for the future.
FA4 is just one example that illustrates how NTUC and M3 are committed to ensuring that workers are upskilling and adapting to the changing nature of work. As we look towards the future, it is evident that trust will continue to be a crucial component in shaping the workforce landscape. This is especially true at the tripartite level, where our ability to work together has enabled us to make significant progress on the national economic agenda. As we move forward, we need to maintain this trust and continue to collaborate to support workers and ensure that they are equipped with the necessary skills to succeed in the ever-evolving job market.
Building trust with the workforce is a crucial factor in the success of any organisation. A high level of trust at the workplace fosters a positive work environment where everyone feels valued and supported, and this leads to a more engaged and productive workforce. At the national level, trust is strengthened by working together to create good opportunities for our workers and investing in training to ensure that workers build up resilience in their careers. Over the years, the tripartite partners in Singapore have made significant efforts to support the workforce, especially those who were badly affected during crises.
We acknowledge that there are still gaps that need to be addressed, especially in supporting vulnerable groups. This is why we launched the #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations, which aims to engage workers from all walks of life to collectively define the workers' compact and hear their views on the future of work. Through these conversations, the Labour Movement hopes to build a stronger connection with workers and better understand their perspectives. Such feedback will also contribute towards charting our longer-term strategies in the road ahead.
Looking to the future, the Labour Movement recognises the need to “future-proof” our workforce. As underscored by Deputy Secretary-General Mr Desmond Tan, one such effort by the Labour Movement is the Company Training Committees (CTCs). These CTCs involve unions and employers working closely together to identify skills gaps and look into scaling up on reskilling, training and career progression for their workers. In this vein, we want to form more CTCs to help businesses build a skilled and adaptable workforce.
Building trust with the workforce is critical and the tripartite partners in Singapore have made significant efforts in the past to support workers during challenging times. Presently, the Labour Movement's #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations campaign has sought to listen to the voices of workers. Looking to the future, the Labour Movement recognises the importance of helping workers build resilience in their careers as well as a skilled and adaptable workforce. To do so, we plan to form more CTCs. However, more needs to be done to support vulnerable workers and youth and it is a call to action for tripartite partners to continue this trust-building effort with workers. By working together, we can create a workforce that is skilled, adaptable and resilient in the face of challenges.
(In English): To conclude, as Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng of NTUC, said, and I quote, "As the voice of workers, we at NTUC want to forge a new workers' compact, one defined collectively by the working people in Singapore."
This quote encapsulates the theme of today's speech, which is the importance of recognising and valuing diverse perspectives and building collaborative partnerships in achieving progress and success as a nation. The importance of Mother Tongue languages, the role of M3's FA4 alongside PWM in supporting vulnerable groups in society and the other existing initiatives are all critical components of a cohesive and resilient society.
By recognising the value and significance of our diverse cultural heritage, investing in the support and resources of our vulnerable groups and building trust with our workforce, we can continue to progress and thrive as a nation. Let us continue to work together to build a Singapore that embraces diversity, promotes social cohesion and values the well-being and success of all its citizens. I stand in support of the Motion.
Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.
The global workforce has come under considerable strain. The Singapore workforce is also similarly affected. These strains are caused by increased international competition, outsourcing of business functions, generational transitions in the workforce and the speed of technological advancement. COVID-19 has also vastly changed the way we work.
Many jobs are created while many are lost. The latest Randstad survey reported that 48% of respondents in Singapore are worried about losing their jobs. This anxiety is despite significant labour tightness. As uncertainty becomes more pervasive, we need to restore confidence by addressing underlying structural causes of such an anxiety.
As President Halimah said, we will strengthen social safety nets so that in every stage of life, Singaporeans can better cope with uncertainties and look forward with confidence.
It is impossible to shield Singaporeans from all such vagaries if we are to keep our economy open. An open economy is our livelihood after all. But we can certainly enable Singaporeans by pushing for training and reskilling and ensuring that all our workers are well-equipped to rebound and capture opportunities in the brighter areas of the economy. And if they do fall, they can bounce back quickly.
The economic outlook globally is more volatile and uncertain. Transformation cycles are shorter. Skills are becoming obsolete faster. Researchers have found that 37% of the average job skills have been replaced just over the past five years.
ChatGPT marks the first significant milestone that generative artificial intelligence (AI) is placed in the hands of many companies and consumers. Companies are racing to incorporate such capabilities into their work. It also heralds the acceleration of the loss of certain jobs, such as lower-level analysts and research jobs.
Those slowest to react to such changes stand to lose the most. And out of these affected individuals, some segments of our workforce are in greater danger.
I would like to focus my speech on three segments of the workforce.
Firstly, our Singaporeans born in the 1960s to 1970s. They will be in their late-40s and 50s now; some of them are even in their 60s. This segment of individuals joined the workforce when Singapore was still in early stages of economic development. Many of them sacrificed their education to support their families. They have tended to work in one company, industry or function. Some have not upgraded their skills since entering the workforce. Many of them have risen through the ranks over the years in technical and managerial jobs. When faced with the need to switch jobs, they tended to see a sharp drop in income.
Another group of vulnerable individuals comprise our self-employed persons (SEPs). We have seen the disproportionate impact COVID-19 had on SEPs. Through NTUC’s assistance in administering the Self-Employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), we are fully aware of the imperative to strengthen financial and career resilience for SEPs. Because of irregular contributions to CPF, it was also difficult to dispense loss of income support.
Of course, next, are our older workers. They not only face difficulties in landing new jobs but they also find it more difficult to acquire new skillsets. They also face the perennial and perhaps trickiest issue of workforce ageism, which requires addressing of mindsets.
As President Halimah also rightly highlighted, it is important for us to concentrate our efforts to improve social safety nets.
At this point, I was pondering about Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's observations and suggestions on support to our needy Singaporeans. I agree that we must continue to work our hardest to help our needy Singaporeans and work must not stop.
But the suggestion of having a single poverty line has inherent problems. It can have an unintended cliff effect where those below the line get the support but those above do not. The line also misses out on other issues that needy families face, for example, trying family circumstances, ill health and job readiness. It casts undue intention on just the financial circumstances of needy families. Experience from other countries has also shown that it is hard to simplify to just one figure and there is a tendency for people to want to stay below that figure; not too many of them, but certainly, there are.
I fully agree that our poor need extra help, and we can do better, and we must do better. Thus, our policies are shaped to give more to those who have less. Their needs are also complex. Therefore, we have many assistance schemes with different ways of helping for different outcomes. And there is also some sense to have separate criteria for different schemes. For example, ComCare is for poverty alleviation, supporting them in their needs versus Workfare, which is to help workers level up, tackling some inequality.
In my work as the Mayor of Northeast Community Development Council (CDC), I have often hoped to simplify the 60 schemes that the Northeast CDC run. But the more that we walk the ground, the more we realise that targeted solutions will work best and we cannot shine away from assessments. Not only does it reflect our prudence of responsibilities to public resources, it allows us to size the assistance to the needy appropriately. Therefore, an approach of providing support based on the varied needs of Singaporeans and their families might work better in a singular poverty line. It is rigorous in its assessment and flexible to the needs of Singaporeans.
I agree that documentation can be a burden. I struggle with that in my work in CDC too. And we must continue to make applications simpler. It is good for both Social Service Office (SSO) staff and applicants. With greater digitisation in the Government, we can already see the benefits of streamlining and we will, and I think, can do more on that front.
While we have different schemes with different criteria, what is most important is to make sure that while we streamline the application process, that the schemes are also effective. Our SSO officers work hard on the ground to do this, and I do feel, maybe I thought it incorrectly, but the way that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim characterised what they do might not be entirely fair. They seek not to take away the lifelines of the residents they serve.
Our SSO officers work hard to help our needy residents. I am extremely proud of them and knew a lot of them through the work in ComLink. In fact, many of them take on duties beyond what I required of them because of the multifaceted issues facing lower-income families. I certainly know my Tampines and Sengkang SSO officers. They built strong relationships with our ComLink families, testimony to the dedication and good work. But I acknowledge there will always be gaps in our schemes with the families or residents who need help in the Northeast District which includes Sengkang, I will do my best to help them as Mayor of Northeast CDC.
We must not also forget that helping more, which we must do, also requires that we earn more to pay for it. It is easy to say to do more, but it is much harder to pay more.
Good growth, good jobs and good wages are clearly important to helping needy residents better and more sustainably. In our new social compact and strategy, we hope to mobilise more support from all of community: corporates, charities, volunteers and philanthropists.
I have seen how donors, corporate donors, went from just pure financial support to volunteering personally to solve ground problems. Our Northeast CDC WeCare programme supports thousands of families, above the ComCare financial qualifying lines. It was funded by donations from religious organisations, temples, churches and mosques and funds from CDC. Only when we own the problems and solutions can we do more and build a stronger Singapore.
Next, I would like to suggest a couple of areas of focus to help Singaporeans to be able to rebound from tough times in two distinct phases: pre-loss of jobs and post-loss of jobs.
Firstly, on the pre-loss of jobs, we are experiencing a tight labour market now. With the tightness, actually, our median gross monthly income has increased in 2022 by more than $400. However, such a tight labour market also creates an environment whereby future-proofing opportunities may be put in the backseat. In this volatile economy, the key is to reskill to remain relevant in the workforce and to keep abreast of the changes.
The first suggestion I have is that we can help employers to allow workers to reskill while being gainfully employed. One of the ways is to increase absentee payroll funding and the overall $100,000 annual cap for companies. This will allow companies to send workers for training while being subsidised for such costs.
The costs of hiring temporary staff or replacement staff are increasing. The related costs of hiring and onboarding staff are also not insignificant. Hence, we can consider increasing absentee payroll funding support based on the age of employees, with older workers receiving greater support. Workers in vulnerable and sunset sectors can also be considered for enhanced absentee payroll support.
Currently, there is a fixed level of support for SSG-funded certifiable courses at $4.50 per hour. The organisation's cap is also limited to S$100,000 per calendar year. We should increase this cap, considering the increase in overall business costs. Companies sending a larger number of mature workers for training should also qualify for a higher cap. Companies will be incentivised to hire mature workers and our mature workers will be incentivised to train.
Next, on improving the post-loss of job support.
Firstly, we can introduce unemployment support for workers who are involuntarily forced to leave their jobs, such as retrenchment, something that my colleague, Member of Parliament, Mr Patrick Tay has mentioned. This support can be linked to training and job search to preserve the work ethos of the workforce. This builds on the principles behind our Workfare and COVID-19 Recovery Grant. These are important Singaporean policy characteristics. We must not forget that the longer one stays out of the workforce, the poorer employment outcomes will be. Thus, our system of unemployment support should taper off with time to ensure that individuals remain incentivised to re-enter the workforce.
Next, we can also enhance the Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). We can increase allowance and income support during the conversion process as workers will still need to care for their families. We can also extend the enhanced CCPs to our SEPs. Many SEPs in the profession are in there because of their need for more discretionary income. Some of them do want to go on to other careers, hopefully, more permanent ones.
The next move is to extend career trials to SEPs as well. Currently, SEPs will not be eligible for career trials under the existing eligibility requirements. Could the Government look into expanding the eligibility and for those considering a job switch to undertake formal employment?
While training and reskilling is an important feature of the nation's work ethos, it may be demoralising for workers to continually train but unable to secure employment. This is especially so for older workers whose runway is much shorter. While we cannot completely remove such risks, we can moderate the risk by having more Place-and-Train programmes. We can do so starting from the Public Service ecosystem, including the suppliers to the Public Service. More outreach efforts to potential host companies could be undertaken to increase the scope of such programmes and the Labour Movement stands ready to assist. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The working environment today is very different from what it used to be. The pace of economic transformation will be accelerated as geopolitical risks become more volatile. Our country and workforce will also be affected.
We must actively strengthen the social safety net to give Singaporeans the confidence to move forward at every stage of their lives. We can promote and strengthen training programmes to ensure that Singaporeans have the skills that they need and capture job opportunities.
Workers and businesses that are relatively slow to respond to changes will be hardest hit. Therefore, we have to prepare for the work environment before and after job loss so that Singaporeans can bounce back quickly from the tough times and seize job opportunities.
For the unemployed, I hope that the Government will help them receive training during unemployment, such as the Career Conversation Programmes (CCPs). I also call on the Government to increase subsidies for the unemployed during this period.
Job opportunities remain key to improving the quality of life for the people. The Government and the unions will do their best to help Singaporeans achieve this to ensure that all Singaporeans will not be left behind. Let us work together to create a better future.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, we have continued to strengthen our social safety nets. With an increasingly volatile global economy, we must help Singaporeans cope with the uncertainties and enable us to have the confidence to forge ahead.
Good growth, good jobs and strong social safety nets are key to helping Singaporeans navigate the vagaries and vicissitudes of a rapidly changing economy. I support the Motion.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, if I may clarify some points that the Member has just pointed out?
Keep it to clarifications. Thank you.
Thank you. The first is the Member, Mr Desmond Choo, had pointed out that there is a cliff effect. But if I am not wrong, this applies to all lines already in place. And I wonder if the Member is suggesting that we should therefore encourage the Government, by the same token, to remove all thresholds that they currently have because of the same cliff effects?
The Member also suggested that there were many schemes for many outcomes. And, of course, I agree with this specific tailoring. But still, it does not strike me as precluding a clear benchmark for which we can tag all these idiosyncratic needs to a clear benchmark line.
Just a third point, Mr Speaker, is that he mentioned that SSO officers have worked hard to support residents, including in Sengkang and, of course, I should clarify that I agree with this. But it is clear that they are constrained by the system. For example, the three- to six-month limit on short- and medium-term assistance is not decided by them but by MSF.
So, my question goes back to him. If the Member may clarify, how having an official poverty line makes it harder to provide tailored solutions? It is like saying that just because you seek this, you set a passing mark of 50%, but we cannot help a student to actually score higher than that —
Assoc Prof Lim, you can keep it more compact, please.
I end here.
Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Speaker, the Member, if I can recap, has three clarifications? I think what he meant, if I get him correctly, when he asked for a singular poverty line, that there is a line cutting across all schemes by which different schemes will be benchmarked too.
If not, then why would he be asking for a one singular poverty line rather than the current system that we have that will have different lines or different qualifying criteria for different purposes? And I think that, in our position, it is still better to adjust and be flexible to the needs of the ground, making sure that we size support appropriately for different schemes and not have a "one-size-fits-all" scheme.
I do agree with him that even if you have a singular line, it is not mutually exclusive. And I am glad that he agrees with that; regardless of whether you have a single line or not, you still must understand that the needs of the grounds are complex and you do need to have targeted schemes for targeted problems. That is one part that, first, I wish to clarify.
And the second one is whether they are constrained by the general policies. I cannot speak on behalf of MSF. But what I can speak on behalf is the schemes that CDC run. In the cases that I have seen, I have seen residents who have gotten support beyond three to six months, some even longer.
We have also provided our residents through schemes with CDC through our WeCare support. Many of them were from Sengkang. So, I think it is not true that the MSF scheme necessarily handicaps or that we constrain our officers in the help they can dispense. I also want to extend once again that if the Member has families in Sengkang that require assistance, I will be more than happy to assist them.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
I promise to be brief. And just to quote exactly what I said in my speech, which was, I suggested and I quote, "to peg all thresholds for Government assistance, especially ComCare to this line or higher but never lower." So, the idea is that you would have a clear benchmark to map it to and you could have multiples to allow for these various tailored solutions.
Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in her address, President Halimah Yacob spoke about strengthening the social safety nets so that at every stage of life, Singaporeans can better cope with uncertainties and look forward with confidence. I totally agree that this is very important and we have to pay particular attention to low-income families, especially those with young children.
Last August, MSF announced that a one-person household on the ComCare Long Term Assistance scheme will receive a cash assistance of $640 per month or an increase of 6.25% from the previous cash amount of $600 per month. The qualifying criteria for Short Term Financial Assistance remain at a household income of not more than $1,900 per month or a per capita income of not more than $650 per month. There is no adjustment to the qualifying criteria despite a high inflation rate over the last two years.
We understand that MSF has allocated about $601 million in its 2023 Budget to administer long-term and short-term financial assistance to vulnerable Singaporeans. But the question is whether this amount is sufficient?
To have a better comparison, we can look at how other advanced countries are providing cash benefits to assist vulnerable families. The Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) countries spent about an average of 7% of their GDP on cash benefits. As Singapore is not a welfare state, it may not be fair to compare us with most of the OECD countries. Perhaps, we can look at those closer to home, such as South Korea. South Korea spent about 3% of its GDP on public social expenditure in cash benefits and how is it compared to Singapore?
MSF will be spending $601 million on long- and short-term financial assistance, including the manpower costs to administer the ComCare Assistance. This represents about 0.6% of Singapore's 2023 Budget or only 0.1% of Singapore's GDP. Now, 0.1% of GDP appears small, compared to 3% of GDP South Korea spent on cash benefits for public social expenditure.
I am not advocating that we have to increase the ComCare expenditure by 30 times to match South Korea's. However, it is important that our support for low-income families keep pace with inflation. Singaporeans have been very much affected by the 14-year high inflation rate. We feel it every day as we buy our food, coffee, and groceries and pay our bills. According to an August 2022 study last year, it is the low-income households earning less than $2,500 a month which are the hardest hit, as they spend almost all their income every month.
Given the high inflation rate for the past two years and the expected slow economic growth this year, there is scope to help families cope by easing the qualifying criteria for help schemes across the board. For example, the qualifying criteria for ComCare short-term assistance can be revised by 10% so that applicants with per capita monthly household income of not more than $715 can qualify. Likewise, HDB rental flat qualifying criteria can also be eased by 10% so that applicants with less than $1,650 monthly income can apply.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has indicated that it is “almost a certainty” that inflation will be higher and longer. That is, high inflation will be the norm for quite some time. To better help the low-income families, I would like to suggest that all the Government assistance schemes could incorporate an inflation component so that both the qualifying criteria and the quantum of assistance rendered could be adjusted annually in tandem with inflation.
Mr Speaker, Sir, low-income families receiving financial assistance are living in much uncertainty, as described by Ms Cindy Ng in her article in The Straits Times last Saturday. We do not want inflation to add another layer of uncertainty for the lower-income families.
Mr Darryl David.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.
As Deputy Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) for Education, and Culture, Community and Youth, I will be focusing my speech on these areas as covered in the President’s Address. I would also like to declare my interest as CEO of an educational organisation.
Mr Speaker, I become an educator more than 20 years ago because I believed, as I do strongly believe still, in the transformative power of education.
Education can unlock potential; it can allow a child to transcend his or her humble beginnings to achieve success; it can inspire a mid-career switch from discouragement to determination; and it can empower a generation to believe that there is nothing that they cannot do, on account of their gender or ethnicity.
Education, however, is more than just what is taught or learnt in formal, institutionalised settings. Indeed, as the writer Mark Twain once said, “Never let school interfere with your education.” For true education to be effective, we need to look at it from across all the multiple stakeholders in our society.
Families, employers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), social groups and communities all have their part to play, be it via advice and guidance you would give to your child or a policy that you would implement in your organisation.
So, I would argue, as we move forward into this post-COVID-19 era, an era that is probably as uncertain and unsure as any before it, that it will be the education of our society that will be crucial to Singapore’s next phase of development and that this education will not be a whole-of-Government, but rather a whole-of-community effort.
We live in an era where we are bombarded with information constantly and consistently. However, unless we have a way to process this information, it remains purely that – “information” that does not serve much use.
Education used to be about helping to turn that information into knowledge. So, if information was just random facts, education helped transform it into knowledge, that is, the information now made some sense and it was something that we could use.
However, the assumption then was that just because you knew something, you could put that knowledge to good use and actually do something. And, hence, it evolved into skills. So, now it was not so much about what you knew but what you could do.
So, I believe, indeed, that one of the key objectives of education should focus on what we can do rather than on what you know. There is no point amassing degrees and certificates if you ultimately cannot perform in terms of the skills that you need to deliver.
However, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that we should also aim to go beyond skills and to strive for the attainment of competencies as the ultimate end-goal of education. If skills are what you can do, then competencies are how you do it. And these are competencies that we should emphasise to ensure that our students, workers and people stay relevant for the future.
The OECD Learning Compass 2030 has identified three “transformative competencies” that students and learners need in order to contribute to and thrive in our world and to shape a better future. These are: creating new value; reconciling tensions and dilemmas; and taking responsibility.
Creating new value focuses on innovation and creative dynamism of thinking on how one can apply methods, processes and techniques in real-world and practical settings to either solve existing or emerging challenges, while working towards the betterment of community and society.
Our system has had a long history of taking a fairly safe and established route to attain the results that we have been judged on. Hence, the obsession in the past with 10-year series and sample examination papers to see how we would perform in terms of being able to attain a particular set of results.
Students and learners who aim to create new value have got to be courageously curious and regularly push the boundaries and challenge the status quo. I believe that we can take steps in this direction by not just encouraging our students, but also our educators and even our employers, to be courageously curious as well so that they can create new value for their students, learners and employees.
The ability to reconcile tensions and dilemmas sees students and learners being able to apply themselves in real-life scenarios by taking into account seemingly contradictory viewpoints and opinions and opposing concepts in formulating potential solutions to situations in the real world.
Real life is messy; real life is uncertain; real life requires you to work in the grey. For our students to develop this competency, I would suggest that we increase the focus on formative assessments, such as coursework, and less on summative assessments like examinations. And let us have the courage to apply this to that mother of all examinations, the PSLE.
I have made this point before at the previous Motion of Thanks to the President in 2020. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we scrap the PSLE per se. But what I would like to surface again for consideration is to urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) that has done great work so far in being progressive towards the PSLE and looking at different ways of scoring and so on. But I would like to urge MOE to see how they can make each Primary 6 student a final combination of coursework and their PSLE examination score.
This combination of coursework and examination is already practised in many other programmes, such as the International Baccalaureate (IB), and I believe that we can apply a similar concept to the final Primary 6 students’ grade instead of making it purely about a high-stakes one-shot examination.
Third, the competency of taking responsibility is a powerful lifelong concept that encourages students and learners to connect it to the ability to reflect on and evaluate their own actions in light of their individual experiences and also in their collective exposure to the world around them.
Taking responsibility means that students and learners are proactive and focused in dealing with societal and environmental challenges and issues that present themselves, and the emphasis is not on waiting for “the Government” or “someone else” to do it, but to show initiative, be accountable and take responsibility in dealing with the matter at hand. In short, own it.
The MOE Addendum to the President’s Address presented by Minister Chan Chun Sing talks about a “collective responsibility”, and I could not agree more with the Minister.
Just as all of us have a part to play in shaping and strengthening our social compact, every stakeholder – the Government, educators, students, parents, employers – all need to work together also to ensure that we contribute to the development of students and learners who have the competencies to take on the challenges of the next phase of our nation’s development.
Before I move on to the next part of my speech, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also thank all of our educators – from our preschool educators to our primary and secondary school teachers, our polytechnic lecturers, our university academics, our trainers, those who work in continuing education – for the great work that they are doing and that they continue to do in the growth and development of our people.
I would now like to move on to the second part of my speech, Mr Speaker, that talks about the trifecta of diversity, equity and inclusion, and why I feel that they are critical to Singapore moving forward.
By its composition, Singapore is remarkable for its diversity. We have four major ethnic groups and Singapore’s inter-religious organisation (IRO) oversees 10 religions in our country. When you further divide the ethnic groups into sub-groups, such as the Teochews, Hokkiens, Cantonese and so on for the Chinese; or Tamils, Malayalees, Punjabis and so on for the Indians, then we truly have a rich palette of cultures not just co-existing but thriving together in peace and harmony.
This is truly something unique and special and is due, in large part, to the many policies that, while not perfect, were critical and crucial in ensuring that the diverse groups in Singapore learnt to live together in one common community, especially in Singapore’s early days.
Indeed, a look around this august Chamber would be a wonderful reflection of the diversity that I am referring to. In terms of age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other demographics, I would argue that we have a good representation of different Singaporeans here. Again, while the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) policy might be criticised, I would argue that the diversity in this Chamber is a positive result of that.
The one area I feel that we could do better would be to see how we can work on a greater diversity and representation in the Public Service leadership.
I believe that some progress has been made over the years in terms of increased gender diversity. However, it would seem that we could do better in terms of greater ethnic diversity in Public Service leadership, especially at the senior levels.
I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, that we should resort to tokenism or to just have someone in a position because he or she is of a particular ethnicity.
However, if the Government is one of our largest employers and if the senior public leaders are responsible for formulating key policies that would be responsible for taking Singapore forward into the next few decades and beyond, then I would hope there could be more ethnic diversity among the Permanent Secretaries, Deputy Permanent Secretaries, Statutory Board Chief Executives and Deputy Chief Executives, as well as other senior leaders in the Uniformed Services in a manner that would be more representative of the ethnic mix of Singapore society.
Greater diversity in Public Service leadership would not just result in diverse perspectives, less groupthink and a richer quality of strategic decisions; it also introduces role models that Public Service officers of every background can relate to and look up to. I sincerely hope that this is something that the Government can look into when formulating its Public Service leadership strategy.
Mr Speaker, I believe the concept of equality is important. Indeed, it is mentioned in our nation’s pledge that we believe that our society should be a democratic one based on “justice and equality”. And I could not agree more. In this regard, equality is important and crucial, but we must also take this in a particular context because equality is about being equal in status, rights and opportunities and making sure that individuals or groups are given the same resources or rights to other opportunities.
However, I think that we should also seek to embed equity as something that guides us in our journey forward as a progressive and caring community. If equality is about everyone getting the same thing, then equity is recognising that not everyone has got the same means and resources. And for us to progress as a community, we have to see how different groups and individuals are provided with what they need rather than be given the same thing as everybody else.
In this regard, those in our community who need more should be given more, especially from those who can afford more. This is something that the Government has been moving progressively towards in their more nuanced and differentiated taxation and redistribution policies over the years. I would encourage not just the Government to continue with this approach but also for our fellow Singaporeans and members of our community to develop and lead their own initiatives in this area as well.
If equality sets the foundation of creating an equal playing field, then equity levels out the playing field by identifying disparities to ensure that everyone has what they need to achieve success.
This is something that I strongly believe in and it is my hope that even as equality remains a core pillar of our democratic society, the concept of equity will become embedded not just into the core of our community, but into our consciousness as well.
As the inclusion strategist Verna Miles once said, "Diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance." It is not just about celebrating diversity in our community, institutions and organisations. We should also continuously endeavour to be inclusive by involving all those diverse groups and individuals in many ways and at multiple levels in genuine and open engagement.
For example, in schools and institutions – I shift the focus back to education once again – let us actively promote inclusion by involving students from different backgrounds and with different capabilities too, so that they can learn how to learn and how to work together.
While it is good, for example, to have dedicated schools to cater to those with special and unique learning needs, I hope that we can continue to work towards more integrative inclusive models where we can have students with differentiated learning needs studying together with those with more neurotypical backgrounds.
Learning to care for your fellow student starts that journey towards developing empathy, kindness, compassion and generosity which, in turn, teaches you to care for your colleague, your neighbour and even a stranger in the future. This, I believe, will see us not only moving forward together, but doing so in a manner that reflects our commitment to being a kinder, caring and compassionate Singapore where – to echo Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – it is less about "I", "me" and "my" and more about "we", "us" and "ours". With that, I end my speech in support of the Motion of Thanks.
Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. The world order is changing. Some of these changes are once in a generation, some might say once in a century. Not just the relationships between the great powers, the US and China, but the relationship between humans and technology, between humanity and artificial intelligence (AI).
Just one year ago, if someone had suggested you could log into a server online, have a conversation with a software application, have it write a detailed essay that might be indistinguishable from some journals, you might have been told that was a bit speculative.
Just one year ago, if you said you had an AI which could outperform many humans at advanced placement exams in the US, you might have been told that was a stretch goal.
Just one year ago, if you said software could generate photo-realistic images of scenes and events which never happened just through some text instructions written and keyed in via a keyboard, you might have been told that was some way off.
And yet, today, we have ChatGPT, GPT-4 architecture, Midjourney 5 – and that is just one year on. Now, imagine that technology developing five, 10, or 15 years from now. Just imagine.
In short, the genie is out of the bottle. What has been invented cannot be un-invented, whether it is the light bulb, the computer, the smartphone, cloud computing or AI in its current form. What has been invented cannot be un-invented. That is the world we live in – a brave new world for Singapore and Singaporeans in the generation ahead.
This means the world of SG100 will be very different from the world of SG50 just a few years ago. Some might say the world of SG100 will be as different from SG50, as SG50 was from the early days of our Independence in 1965.
Just as today, we look back and reflect on what the founding generation of Singaporeans and leaders did, the choices they made, the directions we took, in SG100, there will be another generation looking back at what we decide today and in the next few years. And they will know whether we chose well.
It is incumbent on us to make those decisions soon, given how quickly the world is changing. There is not much time. We have to move very quickly and very decisively.
I will speak first on togetherness in our society. There is an old saying from Mr Lee Kuan Yew to the effect that "all other policies would 'bend at the knees' for our water survival."
We still face existential challenges and dangers as a small country, whether it is water security, our ability to defend ourselves in an ever more hazardous world. But there can be no policy stability, no policy continuity, no ruggedness of policies to bend at the knee for other issues if as a society, we are fragmented, divided and splintered. We will be less than a dot if we are splintered.
There can be no consensus on redistribution or a social compact, regardless of what view is put forward on any side of the House or in our society. There can be no consensus without that basic idea of togetherness – a togetherness that each of us sees fellow Singaporeans as our brothers and sisters. Before we can be our brother's keeper, we have to see that fellow citizen as our brother or our sister, as the case may be.
So, I would suggest that in this new era, every policy in the Government must have one eye on the impact of governance and policy, on our cohesion and our social togetherness as a nation and as a people.
AI will pose great challenges for social togetherness and social trust. What happens when any photo or video can be a deepfake? What happens when people can no longer trust what they see online, whether on a broadcast video, a WhatsApp message, a social media platform or something that is circulating around? What happens when people feel they cannot trust what they see and hear?
You can imagine how foreign troublemakers will try to damage our society – circulating deepfakes of community incidents that never happened, deepfakes of opinion shapers or people in the news. That is the world we are going to have to deal with.
This means every policy has to keep social togetherness and social cohesion – one eye on it, sometimes both eyes, but always mindful. In a world of unnatural AI, where the unnatural AI is the new natural, we have to assume that the natural workings of society are going to be very, very different.
If you are a policymaker and you are not already thinking about how to strengthen social cohesion in this brave new world, then business-as-usual policies will actually mean the progressive weakening of our social togetherness in a world disrupted by AI and generative AI.
I use the word "togetherness" with some consideration. You can have different views, come from different backgrounds, have different ideas, different perspectives, but that togetherness is what allows us to pull together and move forward as one people, especially in times of difficulty. This means we need to double down on how people meet, face to face, in the community.
When HDB estates are designed, do the shape of blocks and neighbourhoods make it harder for people to come together when going out for work, to play, or to school? Or does the shape of estate designs make it easier for people to interact spontaneously or serendipitously?
My Clementi residents tell me that the older blocks with void decks are not quite the same as the newer blocks, which do not have void decks and therefore have fewer shared spaces for organic interaction in the same way as before. My residents feel that about the newer blocks.
When neighbourhood centres are designed and outfitted, do policymakers lean in favour of having more hawker centres and coffee shops as a way of bringing people together, even building, designing ahead of demand, or does the market get to decide after the fact?
Do our policies bring Singaporeans of different backgrounds and different journeys together throughout life, especially from young – children who have come from different starting points and different stories, but who all can learn from mixing with one another?
Because this too builds trust. When people connect, engage, come together, and learn from one another, that sharing and exchange of social capital lifts up a society. It deepens our closeness and identity as Singaporeans. And the beauty of social capital is that unlike fiscal capital, which when redistributed is a case of addition and subtraction. But when we have social capital, exchanging and sharing, it multiplies, makes our society richer, more interesting, more unique, deepens our identity as Singaporeans.
We need to make sure that mixing, that face-to-face interaction happens all the more so in an era of AI.
We also need to equip our students to compete in a world of AI. We cannot hide from it. Even if tomorrow, as some jurisdictions have talked about, we legislated against the use of ChatGPT and other technologies, that would not protect our students or our people – not when a competitor or another firm halfway around the world might be making use of AI.
We have to recognise these new and challenging realities.
So, each new technology, even as it brings new challenges, also brings opportunities. In the new world of technology, there will still be these opportunities, moving ahead.
For example, AI content creation will change as more computing power becomes available. Today, it takes time – if you key in an instruction into Stable Diffusion, DALL.E or Midjourney 5 – to create that image, that one frame. But as computing power increases, imagine if those images can be created 30 times a second. That means you now create a complete AI-generated video.
Imagine now, if you add in dialogue, sound and movement, you are basically making your own movies, your own content without Hollywood, potentially cinema-quality as well.
The next step, of course, then is monetising, marketing and creating opportunities out of that content. Because if you have a very marketable AI content that you have designed, you can sell it to the rest of the world. Generate revenue in the same way that content is generated today on social media platforms.
There will be these opportunities both in the content as well as in the backend – the AI programming, the infrastructure, the data centres, the engineering. There will be opportunities for Singapore as well, but we need to move quickly before others get there before us.
We also need to continue nurturing and deepening the life skills and human skills which AI cannot replicate. That includes in the digital world, helping our students get better at building friendships, face-to-face interactions, communicating with fellow human beings, persuading, building networks, growing social circles.
I debated this in Parliament some time back with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong when he was Education Minister in a Parliamentary Question. These life skills are more important than ever today.
Today we already have computers studying us and what catches our attention. Whether it is Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, there are algorithms which look at what catches the eye, what draws your attention, what makes you more likely to click or move your mouse or manipulate the computer screen. The software is already watching us even as we watch the screen. E-commerce platforms do this; the social media platforms do this too. They use it to make money, shape consumer behaviour, and study what we want.
In a world of AI, we can also leverage this to transform the education process. We already know that different students learn differently. Some students learn better by listening, speaking; they learn better through a verbal way. There are some students who prefer to learn by reading and absorbing. There are many students who learn best by doing things with their hands – building, creating, coming up with something with their hands and handiwork and craftwork.
With AI, it will be possible to customise the learning process to each student's individual skills, understanding what works best for that particular student.
This does not mean teachers will become obsolete. Instead, it means teachers can be freed up to focus on human skills, life skills, and helping prepare students for life. Life skills such as how to work as a team, how to connect with your peers, or how to grow as a person. No AI can replace this. It means educators could have more time to befriend students, understand each student's journey, be that cheerleader, that mentor, that shoulder to cry on in times of difficulty, or that person to motivate the student to grow beyond what they dreamed they could do. So, amid these challenges, many opportunities.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, five years ago, during the debate on the 2018 Budget, I had called upon this Government to make a big push towards in-house AI capabilities because even though there is a role for private sector capability and outsourcing, there is no substitute for having some of that capability in-house, within the Government.
We need to make sure our Public Service deeply understands AI and its opportunities, whether in health, whether in defence, but across the board in policymaking. Amid a world of AIs, deep fakes and generative AI creations, we need to double down in our public policy on how we bring people together, on how we bring fellow Singaporeans together for these face-to-face interactions, which will be the key bedrock foundation of our society and inoculation against deep fakes and other AI disruptions. We need to strengthen human relationships, deepen human trust and we need policy to guide that direction in a world of AI disruption, so that amid big changes in the world, Singapore and Singaporeans continue having that sense of togetherness so that we can survive and thrive in a dangerous world and continue to dream and overcome whatever the world throws at us. [Applause.]
PAPERCUTS