An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transition with No Jobless Growth

Resumption of Debate on Question [5 May 2026],

That this House –

1. Recognises the transformative power of new technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to drive Singapore’s next phase of economic development;

2. Emphasises that Singapore’s approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all;

3. Resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and

4. Affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters.

Question again proposed.

12.32 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, building on the earlier speech by my colleague National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Secretary-General Ng made last night, I would like to focus on how this Motion is made real at the enterprise level.

Sir, no jobless growth cannot be achieved through worker support alone. It must also be designed into the way enterprises transform, the way jobs are redesigned and the way our system supports firms to move with confidence.

History shows that in periods of technological change, the winners are not those who try to protect existing business models but those who understand their underlying strengths well enough to redeploy them into new arenas. Fujifilm is one example. It did not survive the collapse of film by trying to sell more film. It built on capabilities in materials, optics and imaging to move into skincare, diagnostics and healthcare technology.

In sectors where Singapore is already strong – advanced manufacturing, logistics and connectivity, finance and healthcare – AI is not replacing the industry itself but changing how value is created within the industry. That is the mindset Singapore needs now. Our task is not to preserve every job exactly as it is. Our task is to help our enterprises and our workforce recognise their strengths, adapt them and move into the next phase of growth together.

I will divide my remarks into three parts: first, what AI is actually doing for businesses; second, its impact on jobs and workers; and third, how we can build a clearer enterprise front door and a wider bridge forward so that businesses and workers can cross the transition together.

Mr Speaker, businesses adopt AI where it delivers measurable outcomes. The evidence is already emerging. In customer service, generative AI improves productivity by around 15%, with larger gains among less experienced workers. Firms are also seeing double-digit gains in software engineering while in operations and supply chains, AI is improving forecasting, reducing waste and optimising inventory and logistics.

Second, AI does not simply improve jobs. It reconfigures work. Global evidence shows how AI adoption is increasingly concentrated among higher-skilled workers, with firms re-organising work around smaller, more experienced teams supported by AI. This creates a double risk: first, productivity gains may accrue more to those already ahead, widening inequality; second, it risks eroding the bottom of the career ladder.

If entry-level roles are reduced too quickly, the traditional pathway where workers build judgement through experience is disrupted. Firms may still require mid-level capability but fewer workers will have had the opportunity to develop it. That is a structural issue.

At the same time, new roles are emerging, integrating AI into workflows, validating outputs, redesigning jobs and translating domain knowledge into solutions. Companies like DBS and Mastercard are using AI to handle routine queries and personalise responses at scale, freeing up human agents for higher-value work. We are seeing the same among small and medium enterprises (SMEs). MTM Labo, a skincare company, for example, uses an AI tool called Hana that supports customer enquiries in multiple languages, allowing its team to focus on more complex, high-touch interactions.

This is an important point. AI, when deployed thoughtfully, does not just replace jobs. It changes the nature of jobs and can raise the value of human work.

But adoption is not plug-and-play. It requires integration into workflows, redesign of processes and alignment with business strategy. This is where many firms, especially SMEs, face challenges in translating AI into implementation. If we do not address this, capability will concentrate among larger firms and among more skilled workers. The gap will widen. That outcome would run directly against the spirit of this Motion.

However, we must also be careful about how we respond to these changes.

I understand Mr Ng's good intent behind the call for earlier notification of retrenchment to better support workers. But if firms are not yet ready to redesign jobs or absorb workers differently, earlier notification alone will not solve the problem.

If AI is re-organising work, perhaps a better solution that matters more is not whether we intervene earlier after displacement occurs but intervening early enough before displacement becomes necessary. We should shift the focus from managing retrenchment to enabling all firms to redesign jobs and retrain workers so that they transform and the workforce adjustment happens alongside transformation, not after it.

This brings me to my third point – how do we we build a bridge forward? A bridge that is wide enough for many to cross, not just a select few.

The recently introduced Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package is a step in the right direction. With the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) as programme partners, companies can access advisory support to redesign processes and job roles and tap on the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant for consultancy, workforce technology adoption and capability building. This is a meaningful shift.

However, today, firms are still navigating multiple schemes, multiple agencies and multiple claims processes, slowing adoption at the point where speed matters most. But I am heartened to hear from Minister Tan last night that the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore into Skills and Workforce Development Agency aims to solve this issue.

But can we do more to help businesses?

This brings to my first dimension of practicality. One way forward is also for AI grants and schemes to have a more integrated approach where businesses can access this support through a single interface rather than navigating multiple agencies and deploy it flexibly, whether for basic implementation, subscriptions or experimentation, without repeated layers of claims, just like the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit wallet.

For larger or more complex customised projects, there may also be a case for more upfront support so that firms are not constrained by cashflow when making longer-term investments.

At the same time, we must recognise that AI adoption involves experimentation. Not every project will succeed. If firms are penalised despite genuine effort, we risk discouraging innovation. A reasonable tolerance for failure will be necessary if we want companies to move decisively.

The second dimension is capability at scale. The pool of experienced AI professionals remains small and highly competitive. If we are too restrictive on bringing in foreign AI talents, we will slow down capability building across our economy. So, our efforts to build a wide bridge must also mean keeping our talent pipelines open. Not just to bring in talent, but to allow that talent to cross-pollinate skills across firms and sectors.

For SMEs, one area we can consider is to give targeted flexibility to bring in specialised AI expertise beyond existing manpower constraints. This can be time limited and on an application basis, with some checks in place to prevent abuse.

The third dimension is through our institutes of higher learning (IHLs). IHLs can be positioned more deliberately as execution platforms for applied AI, especially through Centres of Excellence anchored around postgraduate programmes. Many postgraduate students, including foreign talent, bring prior industry experience and technical depth. When paired with local undergraduates, this creates a practical model for capability transfer. If anchored around real SME and sectoral problem statements, these teams can go beyond proof-of-concept work to develop deployable solutions.

This achieves several outcomes. It lowers the cost of experimentation for SMEs while enabling cross-pollination between international and local talent, and it creates a pipeline for startups to emerge, anchored in Singapore and focused on solving real industry demands.

This model also helps address to the broken career ladder. As entry-level pathways narrow, embedding students in real problem-solving builds capability earlier. At the same time, it strengthens our students' critical thinking, preparing them to question and validate AI and not just rely on it.

The fourth dimension is industry enablement. Today, many firms are attempting to solve similar AI problems in isolation. This leads to duplication of effort, higher experimentation costs and slower adoption.

Trade associations and chambers are structurally positioned to address this gap. They operate at the interface between government policy and firm-level behaviour and can translate national AI strategies into sector-specific implementation. They can function as coordinating platforms, identifying common industry problem statements, aggregating demand and working with solution providers and IHLs to develop integrated, deployable solutions aligned to actual workflows and job roles.

Let me illustrate. SBF is developing an AI tool to help businesses understand the rules of origin of free trade agreements and how to apply preferential tariff treatment when goods are exported overseas. This is one example of how an industry‑led approach can reduce duplication and improve efficiency.

For many SMEs, the challenge is also on applied capability. Firms want to know which problems to prioritise, who can help and how to proceed without excessive cost or risk.

The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) AI Experience Programme, launched together with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) in support of the Digital Enterprise Blueprint shows this clearly. It has been heavily oversubscribed because SMEs are looking for guided entry points.

Similarly, SCCCI's AI Enablement Programme allows SMEs to define real problems and work with students from Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore Polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to develop solutions. SMEs gain workable solutions. Students gain relevant experience. And knowledge spreads across the system. With the right support and funding, trade association and chambers can become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the fifth and most important dimension is human capital. The success of AI-enabled growth will not be determined by how many tools we deploy, but also by how many workers we carry through that change.

I agree with Mr Ng that workers who are displaced, whether due to AI or industry consolidation, need stronger support during transition. But we should also consider how that support is structured.

Today, much of it follows a "train and place" approach, where workers are first retrained and then supported to find a job. In practice, this can be uncertain. No worker wants to be retrenched, spend months in training and still face uncertainty about the next job. We should, therefore, move more deliberately towards a "place and train" model. If another company is prepared to take in a displaced worker, even if the fit is not immediate, we should support that transition directly. This can be done by targeting temporary wage support to the receiving employer, similar to the spirit of Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) but anchored under an industry transition fund so that companies are incentivised to hire first and retrain on the job.

This shortens the period of uncertainty for workers, while giving the firms the confidence to take in and develop new talent. This is also where trade associations and chambers, and unions can also play a coordinating role – identifying firms with demand and matching them with workers at risk.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the open bridge must be a moral and social contract, and at the heart of that contract is trust. Workers must see AI as enabling, not threatening. If AI is seen as a tool to remove jobs or close off pathways, adoption will slow not because the firms lack technology but because trust is lacking.

And if that trust is broken, we may inadvertently create a lose-lose outcome where governments step in with more restricted workforce regulations around AI adoption, raising longer-term costs and reducing flexibility for businesses. Trust must, therefore, be built deliberately through how AI is deployed, how jobs are redesigned and how workers are supported through change.

Sir, I am a businessman and I join the call to support my union brother Mr Ng in this Motion because I believe this embodies the true spirit of tripartism that has served Singapore well.

We cannot say every worker matters and then leave workers to navigate this transition alone. Businesses must lead in redesigning jobs and investing in their people. Workers must step forward and adapt. And Government must ensure the system enables both. Only then can workers and businesses advance together.

Mr Speaker, this motion reflects Singapore's determination to get this right. Let us take the proactive path to work together, to build trust early and ensure that AI expands opportunity rather than narrows it. Sir, I strongly support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

12.49 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am working in a bank, a financial institution in Singapore. I am also an advisor to the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE) and the Logistics and Supply Chain Union (SCEU).

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank, foremost, the Secretary-General of NTUC and Member, Mr Ng Chee Meng, for moving this important Motion and for setting out the need for a new compact for AI-enabled growth, one that keeps workers at the centre of our transformation, anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all.

I will focus on how we can build a more inclusive AI economy, where growth is not only strong, but broadly shared.

AI is no longer emerging; it is already reshaping how we work and live. Beyond well-known AI tools, I saw this first-hand during engagements with the UPAGE, SCEU and, recently, Manpower Government Parliamentary Committee's learning journeys to SMRT, NTUC Finest at Punggol and Chye Thiam Maintenance Pte Ltd.

In different sectors, power and gas, supply chain, transport, retail, food and beverage (F&B), cleaning and facilities management, all of them embedding AI, autonomous vehicles (AVs) and robotics into workflows, raising productivity, creating new jobs and redesigning roles for existing workers.

There is now a global race in AI innovation and adoption. And there is a growing belief that those economies and companies that move early and decisively will capture the greatest value.

But Mr Speaker, Sir, as this House has consistently emphasised, economic success must be inclusive. Economic success is not just growth, but how widely its benefits are shared. Uneven growth is not a model Singapore should follow. Besides the redistribution measures that we have implemented through tax measures and targeted assistance, we must cultivate a sustained mindset to ensure AI-enabled growth is inclusive.

Usage of AI has raised concerns for many workers. For example, will AI take away my job? Will it lead to jobless growth?

Based on the NTUC's survey on economic sentiments in Singapore, which it conducts yearly, the fear that AI would replace their job or current role is more pronounced for professionals, managers and technicians (PMETs) and entry-level jobseekers. For non-PMEs and lower-wage workers, the lower level of concern could be because they do not use AI tools as extensively and are unaware of how AI would impact their job opportunities and not because there is no AI-disruption risk.

These concerns are reinforced by news of job restructuring globally, as well as uneven adoption of AI across sectors and occupations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me illustrate this unevenness with a concrete example from our own financial sector, of which I am working in. In banking here, AI is no longer emerging, it is already deeply embedded and a core driver of productivity. Across the sector, our local banks are deploying automation in operations and customer servicing, particularly in labour-intensive and repeatable processes. These are not experimental use cases; they are transforming how work is done across the value chain.

AI is now used in operations, such as processing, settlements and compliance, and in credit evaluation through machine learning models that support faster and more consistent underwriting. It is even beginning — well, I would not say beginning; it is already playing a bigger role in hiring, particularly in initial screening.

But the impact is not uniform. Routine clerical and processing roles are most exposed, while hiring is shifting towards higher-skilled roles in data, AI, cybersecurity and governance. At the same time, regulation is sustaining demand for oversight roles in risk, compliance and audit.

But crucially, more complex work still requires human judgement. Handling nuanced customer issues, managing relationships and making judgement calls cannot be easily automated. As a result, many roles are not disappearing but evolving. For example, credit officers are moving towards interpreting and oversight while contact centre roles are shifting towards experiential, escalation and trust-building. So, what we are seeing is not wholesale job replacement, but a reconfiguration of tasks within jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while much of the AI discussion focuses on PMETs, we must not overlook skilled tradespersons and our blue-collared workers. Our electricians, technicians and maintenance workers are essential. AI cannot repair lifts or maintain MRT systems on its own. As our economy becomes more digital, these roles will become more sophisticated, not less. They are, in fact, high-mastery professions.

If AI raises the premium on skills, we must also raise how we recognise mastery. But beyond recognition, we must also rethink how mastery is built. As AI reshapes how work is performed, we must also rethink how skills are transmitted.

Today, many of our industry transformation maps (ITMs) guide sectoral growth and workforce development. But they were largely designed for a pre-AI world. There may be merit in updating these frameworks to explicitly account for how AI is changing apprenticeship and on-the-job training pathways. This issue has been raised in this House before and it deserves renewed attention.

In particular, we should consider whether we need Industry Training Continuity Maps alongside our ITMs, to ensure that even as AI takes over more routine tasks, we continue to sustain a strong pipeline of deeply skilled human workers especially in roles where mastery, judgement and hands-on expertise cannot be replaced.

Today, this is less visible in skilled trades. This is why I have also proposed a National Master Trades Accreditation framework during the last Committee of Supply, to recognise progression, reward deep skills and integrate AI competencies.

If we get this right, AI will not hollow out middle-skilled jobs, it will elevate them. This will also help elevate further the skilled graduates from our Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and polytechnics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, given the immense opportunities and risks, AI as a growth engine requires sound policies that benefit workers and citizens. Countries, such as the United Arab Emirates and Finland, have adopted coordinated national AI strategies combining government leadership, enterprise adoption and workforce development.

Here in Singapore, we have taken important steps. Budget 2026 announced the establishment of a National AI Council led by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, alongside incentives for businesses through the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and support for workers via SkillsFuture and the TechSkills Accelerator.

I would like to offer some suggestions to equip workers and enterprises more effectively, so that no worker is left behind.

First, we must normalise AI as a way of life. We must go beyond training pathways and time-limited access to AI tools. While I welcome the provision of temporary access through Government and NTUC initiatives, we must think ahead about what happens after this initial phase of subscriptions.

Many of the more capable AI tools require ongoing subscriptions. Over time, this may create a divide between those who can afford to use these tools regularly and those who cannot. If left unaddressed, we risk creating a new form of inequality between AI "haves" and "have-nots".

Because access to AI tools directly affects productivity, learning and income potential, unequal access will translate into unequal outcomes. We should therefore consider how to ensure sustained and affordable access, especially for lower-income workers, freelancers, tradespersons and small businesses.

Possible approaches include a baseline level of subsidised access, similar to digital connectivity, tiered or group-based pricing with industry partners, shared access through community centres, libraries and training hubs, and ensuring employers receiving AI support also extend access to workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if AI is to be a force for inclusive growth, access cannot be a privilege, it must be broadly shared. And in the digital age, access to AI may become as fundamental as access to the Internet. We must ensure no Singaporean is priced out of that future.

One way to drive adoption is for the Government to be the "first customer" of useful AI tools and to mitigate AI transition-related concerns. AI-enabled systems can provide faster and more practical responses to citizens navigating Government services. As AI systems consistently deliver useful outcomes and quick advice to Singaporeans, confidence in AI and AI adoption will grow.

Against this backdrop, I would also like to acknowledge the Government's efforts to support workers through an AI-shaped economy, with employment remaining the central outcome and address job anxieties.

As such, it is important to recognise, for example, that employment outcomes for the Malay/Muslim community under M³ and Focus Area 4 (FA4) have been delivered at both scale and through targeted support. Between 2022 and 2025, Workforce Singapore and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) assisted over 29,000 Malay/Muslim jobseekers, with more than 19,000 placed into jobs.

At the same time, through community-based pathways under M³ and FA4, over 6,000 jobseekers were engaged, with more than 500 securing employment, including those requiring more sustained support. This reflects both the breadth of our national employment system and the depth of our community-anchored interventions. Building on this, FA4 workstreams will sharpen their focus on supporting workers through an AI-shaped economy, with employment remaining the central outcome.

I am glad that NTUC will work closely with MENDAKI through NTUC's e2i to strengthen job transitions, particularly for young adults transiting from campus to career, who may be entering the workforce amid heightened uncertainty about job relevance and AI-driven displacement. This includes strengthening early career pathways by partnering IHLs and integrating engagements with e2i's career services, job matching and employer networks, so that fresh graduates are better prepared for a changing labour market.

For underserved Malay/Muslim workers, as an early step, MENDAKI and NTUC's e2i jointly piloted Langkah Digital AI workshops in community settings, with plans to scale further this year; and I plan to attend some of these workshops. Taken together, these deliberate employment-linked interventions will help to ensure that productivity gains from AI do not result in jobless growth, but instead, equip Singaporeans, across life stages, to adapt, remain employable and progress with confidence, supported by NTUC, its partners and the wider Labour Movement. So, I encourage our community to take advantage of these initiatives to upskill.

Second, we must focus on the infrastructure that enables AI. Singapore has invested in strong digital rails. Systems, such as Singpass, already allow secure transactions, including legally binding processes, such as the Lasting Power of Attorney. The next step is to enhance interoperability through application programming interfaces (APIs), so more services can be integrated seamlessly.

When services are integrated, AI can significantly enhance efficiency and user experience. At the same time, we must calibrate data-sharing frameworks and safe harbours, so that data can be used responsibly without stifling innovation.

Third, we must ensure employers redesign workflows to embed AI meaningfully. Member Mark Lee has mentioned that. Training alone is not sufficient. While the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package provides useful support, it tends to reach large firms that are already inclined to transform. We need to go further.

One possibility is to launch an "AI Bilingual" accreditation, for employers and not just for workers and jobseekers. While it can be on a voluntary "opt in" basis, like BCA's Green Mark Certification Scheme or TAFEP's Fair Employment Badge, the accreditation can be tied to certain other benefits or quotas to incentivise companies to come forward. Like existing voluntary schemes, this could be linked to incentives to encourage broader participation.

Fourth, we must support those with traditional employers, tradesmen, lower-wage workers and platform workers. AI can act as a personal assistant, enhancing productivity and income. For example, tradesmen can use AI tools to generate quotations, invoices and customer responses; lower-wage workers can use AI for scheduling and financial planning; and platform workers can optimise routes and jobs across platforms, increasing autonomy. Is there scope for the Government to invest in such tools and provide time-limited access, so these workers can experience their practical benefits?

Finally, we must recognise that not all workers have equal capacity to adapt to AI. Time constraints, caregiving responsibilities and life-stage challenges affect participation in training. We should move forward towards flexible learning; integrate training into work; and strengthen cross-sector mobility. This ensures our workforce remains agile, mobile and inclusive. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to now to speak in Malay, please.

(In Malay): We want every worker to receive the support they need to upskill and not be left behind as AI continues to progress. Through my interactions with Malay/Muslim workers, many see AI as an opportunity, but also worry that they cannot keep pace with this rapid technological advancement.

This concern is valid. AI is transforming the way we work. PMETs in particular are beginning to ask: are my skills still relevant? Can I adapt to these changes? The fundamental question is: Does this AI economy have a place for me, or will I be left behind?

As co-chair of the Economic Resilience Committee alongside Dr Wan Rizal, our focus is clear – to build and strengthen the economic resilience of our community by embracing the AI transition with openness and readiness. We want growth that creates opportunities and empowers workers, not replaces them.

We will assess the implications of the economic shifts that the Economic Strategy Review Committee will outline, identify new sectors and growth opportunities and understand how we can encourage broader participation from the Malay/Muslim community in these areas. At the same time, we are developing targeted strategies to strengthen community involvement in economic transformation initiatives, so that participation can be deepened across all segments – from youth to professionals and entrepreneurs.

Within the Malay/Muslim community, this work has already begun and must be strengthened through the M³, now known as M³+. Allow me to share some examples of efforts being undertaken by Malay/Muslim institutions to raise AI literacy among our community.

We are seeing encouraging initiatives. At Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) (or Islamic Religious Council of Singapore) and the mosques, AI literacy programmes help the community understand the responsible use of technology. The IftaSG initiative uses AI for Fatwa research. Programmes encouraging thoughtful AI integration have also been made available to asatizah, to enable richer and more meaningful Islamic learning experiences.

At Persatuan Ulama dan Guru-Guru Agama Islam Singapura (PERGAS), AI training equips asatizah with digital skills through programmes such as Diversity-driven Upskilling for Asatizah, the AI Accelerator Challenge, and AI for Asatizah Entrepreneurs.

At the Association of Muslim Professionals, for working professionals, the "Learning Circles: All About GenAI" programme will be held this month. It will explore how generative AI is reshaping the way we work and how professionals can begin applying it meaningfully in their daily roles.

At MENDAKI, the MENDAKI Achievement Programme, or MAP, now uses AI tools such as Khanmigo and KiteSense Luminee to enhance the learning outcomes of students from less privileged backgrounds. This reflects a commitment to ensuring that technological progress serves as a catalyst for social mobility and inclusive growth within our community.

Mr Abdul Kadir bin Abdul Rahman, a veteran educator in science and mathematics, is a fine example of how three decades of deep experience can be combined with present-day innovation. Now a trainer in the MAP programme, he is a strong advocate for using AI technology to improve learning quality. He has noted that one significant change is students' increased willingness to ask questions – fostering a more interactive and supportive learning environment.

In addition, MENDAKI's Langkah Digital initiative provides AI-Ready workshops, hands-on training and upskilling programmes to help individuals understand and apply AI in their lives and work. MENDAKI has partnered with institutions, such as SUTD, opening up opportunities in AI, design and application-based learning – so that our community is not merely a consumer of technology, but capable of mastering it.

This shows that AI can be a catalyst for social mobility – if we ensure that access and opportunity are widely shared. But not everyone starts from the same point. Some have access, a supportive environment and the time to learn. Others face constraints – whether in terms of time, family responsibilities, or self-confidence. That is why our approach must be inclusive. Training must be accessible, relevant and practical, so that every individual has the opportunity to adapt and progress alongside these changes. Ultimately, success in the AI economy is not measured by technology alone, but by how well we ensure that every citizen can move forward with confidence and hope.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, AI will bring both disruption and opportunity. If managed well, it can raise productivity and expand opportunities for all. But if left unmanaged, it can widen inequality.

We must ensure that AI drives not just growth, but inclusive growth. If we get this right, AI will not divide our workforce, it will strengthen it.

And in doing so, we will renew this compact for AI-enabled growth. One where every Singaporean, whether working with code or with their hands, has a place and a role and a future in our economy. I wholeheartedly support this Motion, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

1.09 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Speaker, not long ago, I was at a stop light in Punggol when an autonomous shuttle glided past. I was not the only one watching. Around me, drivers and pedestrians looked up – a mix of curiosity and something quieter. A low, humming anxiety, fringed with a dash of awe. And behind their eyes, a very human question: what does this mean for me?

That image has stayed with me. AI and autonomous technology are transforming the way we work, live and play, faster than any technology humankind has seen. So, the question this House must answer today is not how these technologies work, but what we are doing – concretely, deliberately – to make sure our workers' lives and livelihoods are not left behind.

Mr Speaker, that is what this Motion is really about. And I want to speak to it not with mere assurances, but with a plan. A plan for our workers, a plan for our union members, a plan for our brothers and sisters sitting up in the gallery supporting us in this Motion.

The transformation is already happening, quietly, all around us. At Changi Airport, autonomous baggage tractors ferry luggage between terminals. At Marina Barrage Service Road, autonomous sweepers clear leaves and litter. At Pasir Panjang Terminal, driverless automated guided vehicles move containers between yards. And our first revenue-generating autonomous bus services are set to run on two routes in the second half of this year.

Upskilling has rightly been at the forefront. But job redesign is equally critical to re-engineer existing jobs for new realities, to create new job types and to support workers through transitions as AI reshapes job longevity. And for job redesign to truly move the needle, it must be a genuine, ground-up effort with workers and their real workflows at the centre. Let me elaborate.

First, consult workers deliberately, to really understand their work. As Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), I have seen first-hand what it looks like when tripartism works. Our management partners, SBS Transit, SMRT and others, have been preparing our bus captains and technicians for the advent of AI, electric vehicles (EVs) and AVs. Employers provide upskilling and training. Government supports companies and workers through that process. And unions, we do what we do best at: listening carefully on the ground to what workers truly need.

It is exactly that ground listening that surfaced something we would have otherwise missed. Even as we move towards 50% of our bus fleet becoming electric by 2030, our bus captains flagged that EV training had important gaps. Unlike conventional buses that use mirrors, EVs use digital monitors and our captains told us about the time delay, the glare, the eye strain and in more severe cases, nausea. They asked for longer training and preparatory times. The union pushed for it with our tripartite partners and it was addressed.

Mr Speaker, that is feedback no consultant's report would have surfaced. But it directly shapes bus design, driver safety and passenger experience. Workers know their jobs better than anyone. That is a resource we must keep on tapping.

In anticipation of our first AV bus services, NTWU, last year, surveyed around 500 bus captains and technicians. One in three expressed concern that AVs would affect their jobs – job security was the top worry, followed by fears of pay cuts. Unsurprising. These are sentiments shared by transport workers worldwide. Yet one in three of our Singaporeans, also remained confident that drivers would continue to play an important role.

So, we dug deeper. We sat with bus captains and asked them to walk us through a day's work, not what their job description said, but what they actually did.

What they told us turned our assumptions upside down. On paper, we assumed driving was the core of a bus captain's job, perhaps, 80% of their tasks. Our captains told us it is closer to 20%. The other 80%, helping elderly passengers board safely, managing crowding, de-escalating difficult situations, giving directions, being a calm and reassuring presence on board and even telling passengers they can only have a singing performance when seated – these are deeply human responsibilities that no AV can replace.

This has profound implications. If we had acted on our paper assumptions about the bus captain role, we would have misjudged job sizes, skill requirements and salary structures – creating inequitable outcomes for workers and human resource (HR) planning disasters for organisations alike. Getting the job description right is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is the foundation on which all of job redesign rests.

Mr Speaker, the unions and the Tripartite Jobs Council will continue to walk the ground. But we cannot do this alone, not if we are serious about job redesign at scale. I call on the Government to resource this properly: to fund systematic study and mapping of actual job roles and workflows, so that job redesign is built on ground truths and not just assumptions.

Mr Speaker, my second point is this: for AI transformation to succeed, workers and customers must be at the centre of the reimagination process of what AI can bring to workers and businesses. Not consulted after the fact. Not informed of decisions already made. At the centre, right from the start.

AI will transform work as we know it. But where exactly it will land – which tasks, which roles, which industries – nobody can fully predict that. That is precisely why the reimagination process matters so much. We cannot wait until the dust settles. We have to build, prepare and yes, dare to dream of what an AI-powered workplace can look like together with our workers. The most important lesson I have taken from visiting companies in transformation is this: when you involve workers early and genuinely, they do not resist change. They drive it.

Mr Speaker, let me tell you about Trusted Hub. A Singapore SME, 25 years in business, in the business of data processing, which, at its heart, actually is what AI is. Rewind to 2001, Trusted Hub was handling Government submissions from members of the public; stacks and stacks of paper; photocopiers, faxes, prints. Fast forward to 2026, same business, more or less the same clients, but a completely different way of working. AI now processes much of the data, taking the load off their staff.

What impressed me when I visited was not the technology. It was the people. Because Trusted Hub brought their workers into the reimagination process as stakeholders – not passengers – the majority of their staff have upskilled themselves to programme AI Agents, creating both enterprise and innovation value for the company. And the oldest AI Agent programmer in the company? A gentleman in his 60s. Self-taught. And this is what happens when you do not underestimate your workers.

I have spoken in this House before about FairPrice's Store of Tomorrow at Punggol Coast Mall, featured at international trade shows as a model for the supermarket of the future and a living showcase of how technology can make work better, easier and safer for our workers. It displaces fear not with words but with evidence people can walk into and see for themselves.

But what made it work was not the AI. It was the process. Workers and unions shaped and designed the system, not inherited it. And because of that, staff did not just accept the change, they owned it.

And what I want is more of this. Stores of tomorrow, bus interchanges of tomorrow, restaurants of tomorrow, clinics of tomorrow. Living testbeds that allow reimagination to happen, not just within companies but across clusters and our communities, so that conversations about AI in the workplace can take place openly, candidly and with imagination, rather than dread.

Very much like my Punggol residents watching our autonomous shuttles glide by, a low hum of anxiety, yes, but definitely fringed with a dash of awe.

While the shape of tomorrow's workplace is still forming, one thing is clear. Putting workers and work processes at the centre of transformation is not optional, it is the method. What does it look like in practice?

It is Chye Thiam Maintenance offering $200 training allowance to workers who volunteer to be trained on their robo-sweepers, making transformation something workers choose and not something done to them.

It is Grab working with unions to assess whether an AV Shuttle safety driver can sustain a full eight-hour shift on continuous alert because worker welfare is part of the design and not an afterthought.

And it is a British entrepreneur who has started calling his AI bots, AI employees, to remind himself and his team that AI is not about replacing people but about changing roles.

These are not grand gestures. They are small, deliberate, but very significant acts that normalise AI in the workplace and make it something workers can see themselves thriving in rather than being displaced by. This involves responsible employers, progressive employees and indeed, a supportive and nurturing Government. It is the tripartite way and it is why the Tripartite Jobs Council matters so much to organise, to set the tone right from the start, on how AI is embedded and rewarded in everyday company life.

Mr Speaker, this is the real answer to unfounded fears about AI displacement – not reassurances, but evidence. Evidence that when workers are treated as co-creators, transformation is faster, adoption is stronger and outcomes are better for everyone.

The Tripartite Jobs Council is well-placed to drive this reimagination work at every level, through Company Training Committees (CTCs), CTC Queen Bees at cluster level, sectoral AI uplift plans across industries. Our Queen Bees can bring their contractor ecosystems along, as what FairPrice did with their Store of Tomorrow. Unions will do what we do best: walk with workers and management through what the road ahead looks like, and what new roles are emerging along the way.

But Mr Speaker, this really requires investment and intentionality. I call on the Government to resource sectoral AI uplift plans for industries – retail, logistics, healthcare – with the same deliberateness that has started to guide our AV roadmap for public transport. Workers deserve to know not just that AI is coming, but where the next testbeds will be, what the new jobs will look like and how to get there. Clarity is not a luxury. For workers standing at that crossroads, it is everything.

Mr Speaker, my third point is this: even the best-run AI transition will see jobs disappearing and some occupations finding the tasks they do taken over by AI. That is the honest truth. And we should not paper over it with optimism. Hence, transition support must be real, it must be timely and it must reach those who need it most.

We owe our workers a system that catches them before they fall too far and gets them back to a good job as quickly as possible. That system must start with job redesign. Not as an afterthought but as the first line of defence. If we redesign jobs well and early, we reduce the number of workers who need to be caught in the first place. The best transition support is one that makes the cliff shorter to begin with.

That is why the signal we send to enterprises matters so much. AI grants must be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. If these enterprises are unable to retain our workers, these companies should be required to notify the Government early on personnel whom they are unable to retain, so that these displaced workers can be assisted by e2i and our newly-formed Tripartite Jobs Council. This will be the assurance to workers that Singapore’s AI transition will not result in jobless growth and that we keep the transition time to a new good job as short as possible.

Mr Speaker, I am heartened by our Prime Minister's assurance during Budget 2026 that the AV transition will be managed carefully, with close engagement with Platform Worker Associations and our drivers. As Advisor to the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, I want to speak directly to that. In Mandarin, please, Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Our taxi and private-hire drivers are already navigating a fiercely competitive environment with high fuel costs. Seeing AVs operating in Punggol and hearing news of autonomous bus pilots, they cannot help but harbour a quiet, unspoken worry. They are not asking us to halt technological progress – but what they need is not just reassurance. They need a clear sense of direction.

How will the geofencing of autonomous vehicles be progressively expanded? What is the timeline? New roles such as remote operators and safety supervisors are beginning to emerge. I hope that drivers who are willing will be supported and given access to training, so that they can transition into these new positions. For those who are not yet able to make that transition, I also hope that the newly established Skills and Workforce Development Agency will take the time to understand their needs more carefully – because they are not a homogeneous group and cannot be treated as one.

This is not just a matter that concerns platform drivers. Our technicians and tradesmen keep Singapore running with their hands, yet in conversations about AI, they are often invisible. Their contributions have long gone without sufficient recognition.

I am glad that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has begun driving efforts in this area, starting with the electrical trade. We must press on to build career pathways for tradesmen that are more promising and more respected, while harnessing AI to enhance their capabilities – not to replace their judgement.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the workers most exposed to AI disruption are often the ones with the least buffer – least savings, least flexibility, least time to wait for a system to catch up with them. That is why our response must be tripartite in the fullest sense. Employers and platform partners must lean in as their business models evolve and not step back. This means staying involved in transition support, co-sharing training cost, covering opportunity cost and supporting workers through employment and post-employment pathways.

Unions will do what we have always done, walk the ground, listen and shape livelihood opportunities alongside our workers and we will continue to "jaga rumah" – by keeping watch on what other jurisdictions are doing, from China's Internet court ruling that AI replacement alone is not grounds for dismissals to California's requirement for human safety operators on AVs. These are signals of a world working out where the boundaries are. Singapore must learn from them, and when necessary, get ahead of them. Government must design transition support around the people who need it and not around what is administratively convenient. This is a standard we must hold ourselves to.

Mr Speaker, I will conclude with three calls to the Government.

Give time. Job redesign cannot be rushed. It requires sitting with workers, understanding what their work really is, not just what the job description says, and going back to the ground when the first answer turns out to be incomplete, as ours was with bus captains. Companies need to be supported through this and not just pushed into it.

Give help on the reimagination piece. Most companies, especially our SMEs, cannot do this alone. I look to the Government to provide practical facilitation, frameworks and funding that makes job redesign achievable. And I look to our leading companies, our Queen Bees, to step forward, share what has been worked on, and bring their sectors along with them. Transformation that stays within one company is transformation that is only half done.

Make NTUC the linkway. Our unions, our e2i, our Tripartite Jobs Council – we are already on the ground, in the companies, with our CTCs, sitting across the table from workers and employers every day. We have trust that took many, many years to build. Our Labour Movement is ready to be the connective tissue of this transition, matching displaced workers to redesigned roles, advocating for fair treatment and holding everyone, including ourselves, to account. The SWDA and our agencies must build on this.

Mr Speaker, I think back to that autonomous shuttle gliding through Punggol. Our workers watching it are not asking us to stop it. They are asking us to make sure that as it moves forward, they move forward too. That is the answer we owe them. Not just a promise; a plan.

I believe that an AI transition with no jobless growth is possible. Not because the technology will take care of it, but because we will. If we consult workers properly, involve them in the reimagination of their work and back that up with transition support that actually reaches the people who need it most. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

1.28 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I declare my interest as the owner and director of a company that provides software to training providers.

Mr Speaker, we face a structural threat to our workforce. For decades, Singapore's economic model has been built on the premise that a highly educated and skilled workforce would hold the keys to a prosperous future and be a buffer against economic storms. However, we are now in the midst of a paradigm shift where AI is not only augmenting human capability, but in many ways replacing it. Unlike past economic cycles, where such turbulence could be written off as an episode of creative destruction, AI promises to be a harbinger of a fundamental shift in our economic and social relationships. Taking this concept further, it would even impact the roles that the Government plays in mediating between the individual and society.

Today, we must recognise that the very nature of labour's economic power is changing. Failure to address this issue, even as productivity soars, will lead to an entrenched lower and middle class with the loss of economic agency. This concern is articulated by Jasmine Sun in an opinion piece for the New York Times, where she identifies the San Francisco consensus, a growing recognition that the hiring of young workers in highly AI exposed occupations is already in decline. She reminds us of the risk of a resulting permanent underclass, where the gains of technology are concentrated in the hands of a very few.

Not all the evidence points towards catastrophe. A 2025 US National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that tasks with higher AI exposure do experience reduced labour demand. However, overall employment effects have so far been modest as productivity gains offsets some displacement. Similarly, a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Danielle Li and Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson found that generated AI tools boosted worker productivity by nearly 15%, with the greatest gains among the less experienced workers, thus suggesting AI can be a ladder, not just a trapdoor.

It should be noted that these studies examined early and controlled deployments. As agentic AI scales across entire industries simultaneously, the distributional consequences may be more severe and swifter than early productivity research would suggest.

We cannot be certain which trajectory Singapore is on. The asymmetry of risk demands that we prepare for the harder scenario, not the easier one.

This concern is shared by the very architects of the AI revolution. In 2021, OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman predicted in his blog post "Moore's Law for Everything" that AI would shift power from labour to capital, positing that if public policy does not adapt accordingly, most people will end up worse off than they are today. Crucially, Altman was not fatalistic. He argued that the proactive redistribution of AI-driven wealth, including giving citizens equity stakes in the economy, could make this a broadly prosperous transition.

Similarly, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has observed that the health of a democracy is premised on the average person having leveraged through creating economic value, a view he expressed in his 2024 essay, "Machines of Loving Grace".

The erosion of that leverage is a deeply concerning prospect that requires a bold and structural policy response. Singapore is uniquely positioned to lead this response and to capture the genuine economic opportunities AI presents for our people. As a small, open economy with a highly educated workforce, strong institutions and well-capitalised sovereign wealth funds, we have the tools to act swiftly and structurally, compared to many large nations.

But that window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely. While cost arbitrage makes offshoring attractive, AI could erode that advantage – not by bringing those jobs back but by enabling small teams of skilled Singaporeans to do the work that once required hundreds of offshore workers. The opportunity is not in reshoring in a traditional sense but the concentration of higher-value orchestration and oversight roles here at home, where trust, institutional quality and proximity to decision-makers matter.

AI's equalising potential extends beyond white-collar work. A blue-collar worker who struggles with English could dictate in their mother tongue and have AI render as professional documentation in real time, freeing them to focus on their craft rather than their grammar. AI should be an equaliser that elevates the technical master, not a wedge that stratifies our workforce. AI tools can also power a new breed of local startups by enabling small hyper-efficient teams to create immense value and scale, achieving global reach with minimal manpower.

Singapore must therefore be at the forefront of this shift while ensuring that benefits accrue to all citizens. This will require workers and entrepreneurs who are trained, skilled and adept at harnessing AI tools and innovations and empowering their employees to do the same.

Our current efforts to reskill Singaporeans are often hampered by the trap of low-utility external training programmes which produce certifications that lack real-world currency in an AI-driven economy. These programmes enrich training providers while leaving workers with skills that have little economic value. This misalignment risks creating a two-speed economy where capital owners and tech-integrated firms leave behind those stuck in the slow lane of traditional employment, leading to a fundamental erosion of social cohesion and increasing the risk of long-term structural unemployment.

To address this, I propose the establishment of a National AI Equity Fund. This fund is a necessary safeguard to maintain the integrity of our social contract. It is a strategic surplus transfer from enterprises which benefit immensely from AI back to Singaporeans to facilitate our collective stability.

I will elaborate on the precise funding mechanisms shortly after I explain the uses of the fund. I propose the fund be organised in two distinct pillars.

The first is a social dividend where revenue is distributed as a direct payout to every adult Singapore citizen. I propose an initial citizen dividend of $500 per adult citizen, scaling upward as fund contributions grow. This is modest by design. It is not meant to replace income, but to provide a tangible signal that every Singaporean has ownership in our shared future.

Based on our current citizen population, this would cost approximately $1.5 billion annually – or less than 10% of last year's Budget surplus – and provide a meaningful return to every Singaporean household. This would serve as a social floor, ensuring that the gains from national digital prosperity provide tangible peace of mind and dignity for all.

This dividend will provide an additional cushion for families as the nature of work evolves. It also allows Singapore to reap the full productivity benefits of AI without overly exacerbating social inequality.

An argument could be made that the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers already do this, but those are entirely discretionary. The social dividend I propose is a structural entitlement – a function of receipts rather than what the fiscal mood of the moment happens to be. That distinction matters enormously for a family planning its future.

The other portion of the fund will be dedicated to a mastery fund, which will be an employer-led, on-the-job training (OJT) model that moves training out of the classroom and into every enterprise.

I propose that the mastery fund provides a mastery apprentice wage covering 50% of the gross salary, capped at a median wage for six months, for any Singapore citizen entering or transitioning into an AI-augmented role. This rewards the worker's effort in adapting while lowering the barrier for firms to hire, train and retain talent in this volatile market.

Recognising that many SMEs lack the capacity to design structured OJT programmes, I propose that the fund also finance a pool of expert OJT consultants. These consultants experienced in OJT design will rotate between firms to structure OJT blueprints tailored to each firm's specific needs. This will help SMEs fill their talent gap while also addressing the need to create new steps in the ladder of training and apprenticeships for new entrants into the marketplace.

Furthermore, I suggest a mentorship credit be provided to employers to compensate senior staff for the time they spend on structured mentorship, turning our workplaces into true academies of mastery and ensuring that skills remain relevant to the actual needs of the economy.

The mastery fund should be made available to all business entities and societies that are founded and based in Singapore, including micro enterprises. The use of funds should be closely monitored to ensure that it genuinely contributes to AI mastery within each firm. I estimate the annual cost of the mastery fund to be approximately $1.42 billion.

Let me set out the financing details.

The first source is a marginal increase of two percentage points of the corporate income tax rate for firms with annual profits exceeding $100 million. By focusing on these companies, we capture the automation surplus from those best positioned to drive growth through AI rather than headcount. Whether global tech firms or traditional giants, these enterprises are at the forefront of decoupling revenue from labour. This tax increase will generate an estimated $1.5 billion annually, ensuring that gains from record-breaking efficiency are recycled back into the National AI Equity Fund for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

The second source is a targeted increase in the utilisation of our investment returns. I propose raising the maximum net investment returns taken into the Budget from 50% to 52.5%, with this additional 2.5% flowing directly into the fund. Based on current estimates, this would raise approximately $1.45 billion annually.

Our sovereign wealth entities, GIC and Temasek, have been early movers into the AI space, investing in foundational firms like Anthropic and committing billions to the AI infrastructure partnership alongside Microsoft, BlackRock and Nvidia. As these global Investments profit from the automation of labour worldwide, it is only right that we recycle a modest portion of those gains back into our own workforce.

Relocating 2.5% is not a radical request. It ensures our reserves provide more than just financial stability, but also the long-term economic agency of every Singaporean.

As we look toward the future, we cannot simply assume that displaced workers will transition smoothly into new roles as they have in previous technological revolutions. The steam engine did not replace human judgement, but AI may do just that. That is precisely why passive reskilling is insufficient and why the financial security of a social dividend is needed. Workers shifting towards less automatable roles in entrepreneurship, care work, the skilled trades, sports and the arts do not just need training, but time and security to make that leap.

Certainly, new jobs will emerge that we cannot yet imagine, but we must build a system robust enough to support our people even if that emergence is slower or more unevenly distributed than we would otherwise hope. The National AI Equity Fund provides a financial buffer for Singaporeans to make these transitions with confidence.

During this year's Committee of Supply Debate, I proposed a Youth Wage Credit Scheme – a targeted wage subsidy for employers who hire younger Singaporean workers. The National AI Equity Fund extends that logic into a broader longer-term framework for all Singaporeans navigating the AI transition and other technological disruptions.

Mr Speaker, the National AI Equity Fund is a renewal of our social contract for the digital age. We cannot allow AI to become a wedge that fractures our society. Instead, we must use it to become the greatest equaliser our nation has ever known. By establishing the social dividend and the mastery fund, we give every Singaporean a direct stake in our digital prosperity and the resources to stay ahead of the curve.

Let us make it our goal to ensure that as machines grow more capable, our people grow more secure. By acting now, we can ensure that technological progress serves the dignity and economic agency of every Singaporean. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

1.43 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, in this Sitting and indeed, in the past few Sittings, few speeches have been made without mentioning the age of AI. Much has also been said by the Government about how the global disruption will impact our play, our work and our lives.

In policy-making, there is always the binary choice: ride this AI wave or be submerged and be left behind. This is Hobson’s choice and the answer is obvious. But we cannot ask a question of a strawman. Singapore is a small, open and digitally connected economy. AI will be a fact of economic life.

The Government has said that it will grow our economy, support our businesses and take care of our workers. But there is a difference between policy-making in the Ministries and implementation on the ground.

At street level, the AI transition looks intimidating, expensive, and for many middle-aged workers, a place of anxiety and confusion. This is the first wave of change and may be the hardest. The Government, businesses, unions and workers must struggle together to ride out this wave.

During the transition, some jobs will disappear, but new jobs will also emerge. Left to the market, there will only be growth where the strongest, fittest and most able benefit. In a city where the law of the economic jungle operates unfettered, let us be honest, the AI transition will benefit some, but not all. This growth will not lead to better and more prosperous lives for all.

But that is not the job for the market. That is our job; all of us here in this House must bend the market to our will: to create more high-value jobs for Singaporeans and retrain displaced workers but to do so in a way that also meets the business imperative for profits, so that our economy can continue to grow in the long run. We have built Singapore on solutions that met both interests in the past, and we must do so again in the future.

Let me talk concretely about two ways that AI can benefit our workers.

We used to say that people are Singapore’s only resource. We are now a superaged society with a total fertility rate of 0.87. Our resource pool is shrinking. Human resource is now the key bottleneck and cost driver for most businesses, especially SMEs which are hiring 70% of local workforce. If businesses close down, more workers will lose their jobs, even those not threatened by AI.

Our businesses have faced worsening labour shortages over the past decade. The 2025 ManpowerGroup's latest Talent Shortage Survey reveals that nearly four in five employers in the Asia Pacific region are struggling to find skilled talent, with 77% reporting difficulties. In particular, many jobs that Singaporeans cannot or will not do are done by non-Singaporeans.

But there is a limit to our dependence on foreign workers, including political and social constraints. We need AI-powered robots to replace foreign workers in roles that no Singaporeans would want to do or can do. For instance, heavy duty roles in construction, maritime and aviation sectors, that are exposed to the harsh elements of a warming climate. This will be a game changer for us.

The next frontier is in physical generative AI or embodied AI. In more recent times, generative AI technologies have been integrated with physical systems, enabling machines to interact with and adapt to the real world. It enables robots to learn complex tasks, such as manipulation and navigation, via simulation and transferring intelligence from digital models to real world hardware. Put simply, robots and humanoids capable of thinking and even perceiving, can be deployed in unstructured and dynamic environments, to assist or even replace human workers.

In recent months, companies such as Dexterity AI, Figure AI and Unitree Robotics have demonstrated their capabilities in AI-powered robots and humanoids in specialised roles.

Unlike generative AI tools like ChatGPT that trawl the Internet to train its models, physical generative AI tools need to be trained in contextualised environments for the roles and tasks they are set out to do. Over time, these physical AI capabilities will mature and become accessible to businesses facing manpower shortage. These AI-powered robots can help our businesses overcome manpower constraints, lower costs and increase profitability.

Physical AI robots are good at repetitive tasks but cannot replace every single role. Jobs and process redesigned into man-machine hybrid teams will be the new norm. Seniors and women can join the transformed workforce – with repetitive, heavy-duty roles done by robots and complex supervisory roles performed by humans. It will be a new model of freedom and empowerment, unimaginable today but a reality in the very near future.

Singaporeans can be upskilled as supervisors of robots. New high-value job roles such as design, build and maintenance of these AI robots will be created for young engineers and technicians.

More Singaporeans can retire at a later age if they wish to, since their roles will become less physically demanding. Seniors and women can join industries previously dominated by those with stronger physical abilities. And robots also do not carry any social baggage.

Mr Speaker, the transition to AI-powered robots is my area of work, and this is the vision we are working towards – to solve real problems for businesses and elevate the quality of life for workers. I feel strongly that our AI transition should be focused on customising physical generative AI solutions for our industries, so as to help every Singaporean on this journey of empowerment.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong outlined four key pillars for our National AI Strategy. In particular, in the Advanced Manufacturing and Transport Connectivity sectors, AI-powered robots will indeed be the force-multiplier.

Are we ready for this transition? Not yet. We are well-positioned for it, but we must move fast. And I would suggest the following six steps.

One, unions should forecast which are the types of jobs and sectors at risk, as well as numbers of workers that may be displaced.

Two, MOM should fund retraining for affected workers, to prepare them for other roles or other industries.

Three, workers should also step up, learn new skills and be open to new job opportunities.

Four, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and IHLs should redesign academic programmes to shift students away from fields already taken over by AI. All IHL students should learn AI tools relevant for their disciplines.

Five, the Ministry of Trade and Industry should attract more world-class physical generative AI companies to set up headquarters in Singapore and attract talents for research and development (R&D).

Six, businesses should be open to work with AI companies to automate and redesign work processes, revamp job roles and create man and machine hybrid teams. Mr Speaker, I would like to share a few points in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Singapore's AI transition must be managed jointly by Government, businesses, unions and workers to avoid uneven gains. Physical AI can ease labour shortages and reshape work into human machine teams. With job redesign, upskilling and education reform, workers can move into higher value roles, while businesses can grow with higher productivity.

To support this transition, Government support and regulation are crucial to fund retraining of workers, create higher value jobs, attract leading AI firms and ensure that AI is used ethically for broad societal benefit.

(In English): In the near future, a new AI ecosystem will emerge. Technology companies create AI solutions, businesses own them and workers leverage them.

But the Government must set the rules. AI must be used as a force for good and not for criminal and harmful exploits. Establishing the ethics around AI use will make the difference between our society benefiting from the use of AI or becoming enslaved by it.

But there is also a deeper moral question relating to AI. AI is artificial; it has no intrinsic good, no value in and of itself. We, in this House, have a duty to bend the market in the use of AI, not just to forbid what is criminal but to enable what is fair, good and just. We must ensure that the AI transition does not merely create growth but creates jobs, benefits workers, strengthens businesses and elevates communities. Mr Speaker, I would also like to conclude my points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Singapore's AI shift needs a coordinated effort by Government, businesses, unions and workers to ensure that both businesses and employees stand to benefit, and to support and assist those who are affected. This includes providing retraining and expanding the scope of education, creating higher-value jobs so that more Singaporeans can adapt to these changes as quickly as possible.

Physical AI – robots combined with generative AI – can ease labour shortages by taking on tough and risky work in sectors, such as construction, aviation and maritime, while reshaping roles into human-machine teams.

I would like to propose several key steps to support the AI transformation:

First, companies should automate and redesign jobs; second, unions should flag at-risk roles; third, workers should keep learning; and fourth, Government should set clear AI rules. A national transformation should not merely be pursued for the sake of higher economic growth, but should ensure that all segments of society can benefit.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the Motion on which I rise to speak today asks for us to affirm that AI transition "must not lead to jobless growth". And this "must" is not an empirical prediction, nor is it empty rhetoric. It is political resolve.

AI in this free market may or may not be the new model of freedom and empowerment for our people. It is our resolve that makes it so. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

1.57 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the Motion before this House calls for an AI transition that does not leave Singapore's workers behind. The Prime Minister, the Labour Chief, the Government as a whole, have all said the same in the past months; that this is what they intend. What I want to examine this afternoon is whether the policy architecture we have is equal to the commitment we are being asked to affirm.

Mr Speaker, every AI deployment a firm makes is at its heart a choice. The firm can use AI to make its existing workers more capable, more productive, more valuable than they were before or it can use AI to do without those workers entirely. The economist's shorthand for this is augmentation as opposed to automation: augmentation where AI works alongside the worker, and automation where AI replaces them.

Stanford economist, Eric Brynjolfsson, one of the leading academic voices on AI and labour markets, has made a convincing case that in an unaided market without deliberate policies steering in the other direction, incentives systematically favour automation. Firms find it easier and cheaper to deploy AI to replace workers than to retrain them. The tax code, the labour market institutions, the cost structures of capital all tilt the playing field. Even though augmentation creates more total value over time, more good jobs, broader prosperity and a fairer distribution of the gains, the default trajectory of an unguided system is automation.

The Government's chosen and declared direction is augmentation. The Motion before us today assumes augmentation. The Labour Chief in this Chamber yesterday put the same commitment in his own words – not AI instead of workers but AI working for workers.

The philosophical direction is settled across the aisle. The substantive question is whether our policy architecture matches it.

There are three places where architecture is currently miscalibrated. Three places where, today, the system is permitting automation despite promises to the contrary.

The Labour Chief yesterday said that AI is also reshaping professional, manager and executive (PME) jobs in higher-end professions, like doctors, lawyers and accountants. The Prime Minister has said much the same – AI will affect Singapore's professionals, managers and technicians (PMETs) who have spent years building specialist careers and who are now being told that the ground below them is moving.

At his May Day rally last week, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, "We may not be able to protect every job, but we will protect every worker." The question is whether the instrument the Government has chosen, the SkillsFuture Job Seeker Support scheme, delivers on that promise. The Prime Minister has termed the Job Seeker Support scheme the "Singapore way", a more pragmatic, more Singaporean alternative to the redundancy insurance that is the Workers' Party's (WP's) preferred solution. That reads the Singapore tradition backwards.

Mr Speaker, the Labour Chief said in the Chamber yesterday that financial support during the transition is not welfare, it is an investment in worker outcomes. By that test, the tradition has long been built on investments of exactly that kind. The Central Provident Fund (CPF), MediShield Life, MediSave, these are all universal contributary schemes paid out when life's major contingencies hit. Each catches every worker because the contingency it insures against can hit every worker. That is the Singapore way.

The Jobseeker Support scheme is not built in that tradition. It is a tax-funded grant gated on pre-redundancy income, closer in design to a means-tested assistance than to insurance against contingency. As currently configured, it pays up to $6,000 over six months in tapering monthly instalments, starting at $1,500 and ending at $750 over the last three months and it is only available to workers who earn $5,000 a month or less before they were made redundant.

The Labour Chief acknowledged in this Chamber yesterday that the ceiling excludes PMEs who face the same displacement risk in the AI era and has proposed raising the qualifying ceiling to closer to the PME median gross income level.

If this proposal is adopted, it is movement in the direction that the WP has long argued for. But Mr Ng's proposal moves the line, ours would remove it. Raising the ceiling lets more workers into the scheme but it does not change what the scheme does for them. For those who do qualify under the ceiling, the taper carries its own message: a payment that starts high and slowly reduces is not a flaw. It is a countdown. And a countdown pushes a worker to take the first offer, not the right one.

MOM's own data tells us why this matters. Of retrenched residents in the final quarter of last year, 43.6% of PMETs had not found new employment within six months. That is the cohort that the Jobseeker Support scheme runs out on. And of those who do find work within six months, roughly four in 10 return at lower wages than before. So, they took what was available and not what their experience was worth. Most of us have experienced how the higher up the career ladder you climb, the longer it takes for you to find your next role.

Mr Speaker, a PMET who is pushed by a six-month countdown into a lower paid job that they did not want has experienced exactly the automation outcome that the Government's framework was supposed to prevent, with a small cushion attached for the fall. Raising the ceiling only widens the cohort, but it does not shorten the countdown.

Mr Speaker, the WP's proposal for redundancy insurance scheme is built in the actual Singapore tradition. We pay out 40% of last drawn salary with no income ceiling and no tapering mechanism. It is funded by employer-employee contributions in the same model as the CPF and it covers every worker who pays in, including the professionals the Labour Chief has identified as the most exposed because the contingency it insures against does not stop at $5,000, $7,600 or any other ceiling Parliament may set.

The Prime Minister said we must protect every worker. The instrument the Government has selected does not. The WP's does.

Mr Speaker, when a firm is contemplating a major AI deployment, it stands at a fork in the road: down one path it retains the existing workers and retrains them to operate alongside the AI; down the other, it retrenches, runs leaner, brings in a smaller AI-fluent workforce. The first is augmentation. The second is automation.

But what does our tax code say to the firm at that decision point? The current architecture rewards activity. It rewards capital expenditure on AI. It rewards expenditure on training. These are good things to reward, but what the architecture does not currently do is reward the choice itself.

A firm that retrenches its existing workers and trains a smaller set of new hires receive the same fiscal treatment as a firm that retain and retrains its existing workforce. A firm that buys AI to replace workers receives the same fiscal treatment as a firm that buys AI to augment them.

The tax code is silent at the fork.

And as Bronson previously observed, silence at the fork is not neutrality in consequence. When the tax code does not actively reward retention, the underlying economics tilts firms toward retrenchment. Labour is, after all, the most expensive line on the balance sheet and labour costs are permanent in a way that one-off training costs are not. An unaided market would choose retrenchment.

Yesterday, Mr Ng defended the CTC framework in this Chamber as the mechanism that ties enterprise transformation to worker progression and proposed expanding it through the new Tripartite Jobs Council.

CTC operates at the project level for firms that engage with it, with grant funding attached, expanding its reach scales the grant model, but does not change the broader fiscal architecture that every firm operates within, whether or not it is within the CTC scheme. And it is this broader fiscal architecture that shapes chief financial officers' financial decision-making at the decision point.

In February, in this House, I propose a retraining tax credit, a deduction available only to firms that can demonstrate that they have retained an existing worker into an AI-augmented role, rather than retrenching them. It is this missing conditional piece that will give firms a fiscal signal precisely at the point where they have to make a decision. This retraining tax credit would reward a proactive choice instead of simply investing in AI.

The fourth limb of this Motion affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive. That is a commitment about distribution, not just growth. My colleague Gerald Giam has proposed a National AI Equity Fund to deliver on that commitment structurally. The instrument I am proposing today is the diagnostic tool that any redistributive mechanism, including Mr Giam's, needs to operate on. Because the third condition for an augmentation strategy, to be real, is verification.

Mr Speaker, augmentation is, in the end, a testable claim. It makes a prediction that wages in the sectors where AI is being deployed alongside workers, will track the productivity gains that these workers helped to create. If that prediction holds, the framework that the Government has adopted is being delivered as advertised. If productivity rises in these sectors, but wages do not move alongside it, then what is being delivered is something other than augmentation, whatever language we use to describe it.

Right now, we have very few mechanisms and very few systematic ways of telling which is occurring.

The Government is investing serious public money at scale in four national AI mission sectors, advanced manufacturing connectivity, finance and healthcare. Public funds are flowing into these sectors and more through the CTC grants, the newly formed Tripartite Jobs Council, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency and various enterprise transformation programmes. These are appropriate investments, but public investment creates a corresponding public accountability obligation. where public money goes in, the public has a right to know what is coming out and to whom.

So, what I am asking for is a targeted transparency mechanism, an annual AI gains audit scoped specifically to the four national AI missions to start, reporting to Parliament on how productivity gains from state-backed AI investments are being distributed between wages and returns to capital. Over time, its scope and coverage can be expanded.

In February, in my Budget speech, I framed this as a distribution question. Today, with this Motion before the House asking us to affirm that economic progress must remain inclusive, I propose it again as something more fundamental. The AI gains audit is the most direct instrument available to Parliament to test whether the Government's chosen direction of augmentation is actually being delivered. If the gains are being shared with workers, the audit will say so and the framework will have evidence to back its claim. If they are not, we will know before the gap becomes a chasm and before this Motion becomes a statement of hope rather than of policy.

Mr Speaker, the choice between augmentation and automation is not made in one day. It is made every day by the architecture of the schemes we run, the tax code we maintain and the data we choose to collect. Whatever the House says today, that architecture will keep making the choice on our behalf.

Right now, my position is that the architecture pushes workers towards the first available job rather than the right one. Our tax code says nothing to affirm at the fork between retraining workers and retaining them and we have built no mechanism to tell whether the gains from public AI investment are reaching the people whose name that investment has been made. And that is why I support this Motion. I urge the Government to give it the architecture it requires so that we can make sure that no worker is left behind. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

2.10 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am a business owner for a private orthopaedic practice, which is unionised, and also an advisor to the Health Services Employers Union (HSEU).

I rise in support of the Motion, an AI Transition with No Jobless Growth. AI is already here. It is not a pilot; it is already becoming a platform.

Sir, our question is not whether we adopt AI. We will. The broader question is whether we grow without leaving our workers behind. In the next decade, Singapore should be judged not by how fast we deploy AI, by how well we translate adoption into better jobs, better wages and stronger trust at the workplace.

I speak in three roles today as a professional, as a parent and as a Member of Parliament listening to my residents.

First, the professional anxiety. Many PMETs, they are not afraid of technology, they are uneasy about the uncertainty because AI rarely replaces the whole job. It unbundles tasks, it compresses teams, it changes what employers hire for. And when you cannot see how your role evolves, anxiety rises.

Second, the parental anxiety. Parents today ask very simple questions: will my child have a fair start? What will entry-level work look like? And if entry-level work shrinks, who will then train the next generation?

Third, the resident anxiety and this is the most practical one. Mid-career workers worry about displacement. Caregivers worry about time. Many people cannot just stop their work to train or retrain. They are not asking for guarantees. They are asking simply for a fair chance and a system that they can navigate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should be candid about AI. AI is smart, but it is not wise. It can hallucinate, it can sound confident and yet still be wrong. So, the future should not be about humans competing with AI. It should be about humans working with AI, with judgement, with verification and with accountability.

This Motion is just not about technology. It is about trust, job redesign and the worker journey in whole. Trust will determine if this adoption would succeed. If AI is experienced by workers as surveillance, the trust will thin and eventually break. And when trust breaks, adoption will slow and gains will not be sustainable.

Prime Minister Wong spoke about protecting every worker and scaling practical tripartite tools, like the CTCs for the AI transition. This is the direction we should double down on and I offer four practical moves on this front.

First, skills must be a pathway and not a menu. SkillsFuture is a major national asset. But on the ground, many workers tell me this. It is useful, but it is also overwhelming. Too many courses, too many badges, too little signal.

So, the problem now is not just access. It is navigation. A worker should not need to scroll for hours to guess what really matters to him or his next job. So, I suggest that we curate clearer AI-relevant pathways by sector, by job role, with a clear front door and clear employer recognition. And we can consider additional incentives for those who choose priority courses that support AI-enabled growth, especially when there is clear employer demand. This could mean higher subsidy tiers or outcome-linked support, such as completion plus interview, attachment or redeployment pathways subject to design and feasibility.

Second, tie AI adoption to job redesign. Many Members have spoken about this. If we fund adoption, we should ask, how will tasks change, how will workers be redeployed and how will the performance measurements continue to remain fair? Productivity must show up as better work and, ultimately, better wages for our workers and not only a shrinking headcount.

This is not meant to be punitive. It is meant to be practical. This is where our tripartite partners can help with playbooks, with templates and advisory support so that SMEs are not left alone to figure it out.

Third, bring AI readiness to the professional sectors, like clinics, law firms, accounting firms. Many are small, PMET-heavy and time poor. They want to adopt AI but they worry about safety, confidentiality, liability and trust.

One practical model already shared in this House is already emerging in healthcare. In April this year, HSEU and GP+ Co-operative signed an agreement to train primary care clinic staff in AI awareness, and to help primary care clinics adopt technology and redesign their workflows, supported by the CTC approach and the CTC Grants. I observed this partnership up close. The value is in making adoption practical, responsible and anchored on job redesign, and not just a tool roll-out.

I hope that we can extend this cluster-based, CTC-style approach to other professional sectors too, including law and accountancy, so smaller practices can move from uncertainty to readiness, with clear governance standards and worker protection.

For our workers, support should begin when need is recognised. That means faster job matching, modular training that fits real-life schedules and practical guidance for responsible transitions. In practice, structured coaching and a clear next step reduces anxiety, because it shifts a worker from waiting to acting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): Hon Speaker, many feel concerned when talking about AI. They worry that jobs may disappear, that the value of skills may diminish and what may happen to the future of children. These concerns are real. The questions are also difficult, but our response is not to fear.

AI is advancing quickly, but human mercy, trust, sense of justice, creativity, language, culture – all these cannot be fully replaced by any machine. AI can compute; but the human connection, human judgement and the human responsibility will always remain with us. So, we must move ourselves from the path of fear to the path of opportunity. The rise of AI does not mean that humans are no longer needed. Rather, it makes it clearer on what truly are the important tasks that humans must do.

In this regard, the humanities are important; language skills are important; cultural nuances are important; social understanding is important. Healthcare, caregiving, education, social services, counselling and work that involves direct contact with people – these are fields that AI cannot replace.

The Tamil language and Tamil culture are a support in this endeavour; our literature nurtures the human feeling. Our culture strengthens social responsibility. That is our strength. So, this is what we must tell our young people: embrace AI but also grow the human capability.

Learning is not merely a certification. It is a path, a belief, a plan for the future. When growth comes, employment opportunities must come with it. Support for change must also come with it. So, do not fear. Let us have faith.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, no jobless growth must mean one thing. Growth that workers can feel, in wages, in dignity, in a clear next step.

So, I offer one governing standard. The test is not how many schemes we have. The test is whether a worker can quickly see the right course, for the right job, at the right time. Whether a parent can feel confident about their child's runway and future, and whether the citizen's journey feels seamless.

If we keep this direction and refine delivery with tripartite resolve, Singapore can deploy AI effectively, responsibly and at speed, while strengthening trust and protecting dignity. With these observations, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

2.19 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, Singapore's approach to AI is often cited by international institutions and consultancies like BCG, and prominent figures, such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva.

Our technological infrastructure and initiatives to upskill our workers are key parts of how we plan to confront the disruptions and opportunities presented to us by this new and rapidly developing technology.

However, we must also recognise and act on an additional uncomfortable reality. Singapore is one of the most vulnerable economies to AI disruption. International estimates suggest that around 60% of workers in advanced economies are in jobs that are highly exposed to AI. For Singapore, that share seems significantly higher. Because we are a high-skill services-oriented hub, estimates from the IMF indicate that approximately 77% of our local workforce is highly exposed to AI disruption, and our transition is likely to be sharper and more acute than in many other economies.

How is AI fundamentally reconfiguring our labour market? This can be understood through three distinct shifts.

First, many existing jobs will be transformed from within. AI is taking, or has already taken, over routine information processing tasks – drafting, summarising, extracting data and standardising analysis. Managers, health professionals and legal professionals are already using AI tools to handle these types of tasks, freeing up time for judgement, complex problem-solving and human interaction.

Second, some jobs will be displaced. In what economists call high exposure, low complementarity roles, AI can perform most of the core tasks on its own and there are fewer reasons to keep humans in the loop. Clerical support workers and many business and administrative associate professionals, whose work is built around routine documentation, basic processing and standardised customer queries, face the highest risk that their roles will shrink or even disappear. Advances in agentic AI technology and models have only sharpened this impact. In the UK, some financial institutions, like investment banks, have relooked their hiring of fresh graduates for certain roles because of AI's automation capabilities.

Third, AI will also create new jobs and new demands. We are already seeing rising demand for AI engineers, data scientists and AI-product specialists, but also for data-savvy professionals across finance, healthcare, logistics and education. These new roles tend to offer higher wages, but only for workers who can supply the right mix of technical and complementary human skills.

Yes, indeed, the AI job transformation is already here and we are in the midst of a major disruption. Yet, the impact will not be uniform across all professions, nor is it, and will it, affect our society and economy evenly. For now, AI disruption is strongest amongst white-collared workers, especially entry-level roles. Unlike previous technological disruptions that have historically affected blue-collared jobs, AI today will most affect cognitive, white-collared roles – a call centre agent, an admin officer or a junior business support executive, whose workday is built around standard processes, routine reports and scripted responses, is in a role where AI can perform almost all core tasks.

In such high exposure, low complementarity white-collar roles, employers can consolidate positions, slow hiring or redesign jobs to ensure that fewer people are expected to do more with AI as a simple justification. If we do not address this, the benefits of AI will end up with only a small group of workers.

Research suggests that productivity and wealth gains could disproportionately accrue to those best positioned to leverage AI capabilities. One documented economic effect of high-skill job creation is increased local service demand. Studies from major tech hubs, including San Francisco, indicate that each high-end job is associated with the creation of approximately four jobs in local service sectors, such as retail and food services.

Even if such spillover effects generate more jobs, the quality and availability of these jobs for vulnerable workers is less certain to me. In Singapore, lower wage and routine-intensive roles are more likely to be held by vulnerable worker groups who may also face greater displacement risk from automation.

International institutions, including the IMF and World Bank, have noted that AI could exacerbate income inequality in the absence of policy intervention. The extent to which spillover effects from AI-driven growth would benefit lower-income workers remains uncertain. We need Singapore-specific research, modelling these distributional impacts and to make this data publicly available, to inform more targeted policy responses.

We must also remember that Singaporeans are already feeling the strain of rising property prices and higher cost for essential services. These pressures are real. They have been building for some time as we are a small, open economy, significantly dependent on capital inflows. Would AI's effects drive further unequal wealth accumulation? It is, therefore, a fair and pressing question to ask: could AI-driven economic activity inadvertently add to daily cost pressures?

Beyond broad economic pressures, we must turn toward the human face of this transition. As jobs continue to be reshaped and workers continue to be upskilled, we cannot leave behind those who face systemic barriers as our nation progresses towards an AI-ready future. Amongst them are persons with disabilities, women, lower-income Singaporeans, as well as young graduates.

AI can introduce new forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities. As AI algorithms are often trained via pattern recognition, they arrive at determinations based on common patterns within datasets. Thus, if skilled historical data is being used to train AI for, for example, recruitment processes, AI might reinforce this bias for job applications from persons with disabilities and any other group which historically, is not well represented in this space.

Female workers, too, face a heightened risk of marginalisation from AI. A 2024 IMF report on Singapore's labour market found that women are under-represented in AI-intensive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) roles, and among workers with AI engineering skills. Women in STEM held 29% of entry-level positions, 24.4% of managerial positions but only 12.12% of C-suite roles. Altogether, this means that they are less represented in what is regarded as the safe side of AI. They would thus be less well positioned to benefit where AI compliments high-skill work. Additionally, International Labour Organization data, released in March 2026, found that occupations dominated by women are nearly twice as likely to be exposed to GenAI risks compared with male-dominated ones, with even stronger differences presenting when looking at high automation risk.

Taken together, this creates a double disadvantage. Female workers are less likely to gain from AI's benefits, while remaining more vulnerable to displacement. In short, women face higher risk and have fewer opportunities.

For our young graduates, new uncertainty has been introduced by the way AI has been reshaping jobs. The erosion of entry-level jobs has presented a catch-22 dilemma for Generation Zs. While companies are still looking to hire professionals for experienced roles, young graduates have fewer opportunities to gain such experiences as jobs are absorbed by AI.

With more than 20% of graduates unable to secure full-time permanent roles in 2025, a nearly 5% increase from 2023, and over 60% of graduates claiming that the job search has become difficult, it is only natural that young graduates have become more anxious about landing full-time employment.

Adding to this is recent research, which has shown that simply being aware of AI's potential to augment or threaten one's job can increase burn-out, mainly by heightening job insecurity and emotional exhaustion amongst workers.

While AI is often associated with disruption to white-collar work, vulnerable workers and families face significant risks too.

Unequal access to AI tools and training could entrench existing disadvantages. Those without the resources of home or home environments conducive to learning new skills may find themselves falling further behind. If left unaddressed, then this risks hardening inequality across generations.

Measuring impact on Singapore beyond economic output, what does this all mean for Singapore? Just this past week, we have seen the launch of the Marriage and Parenthood Reset Work Group. What is the effect of AI advances on our birth rate? Economic insecurity has already been cited by young Singaporeans as a reason for delaying or foregoing parenthood, but the barriers go beyond finances. Job uncertainty erodes a sense of stability and confidence in the future, the feeling that one has a firm enough footing to build a family and put down roots. If AI-driven disruption deepens this broader sense of insecurity, we can reasonably expect further downward pressure on our already tragically low total fertility rate.

The Government has to be even more targeted in ensuring that all workers, regardless of their gender, age, occupation, income and accessibility needs, are fully prepared for the disruption caused by AI, to ease financial pressures on vulnerable workers who are made redundant. This will minimise the uncertainty and toll of unemployment on both workers and their families as AI displacement becomes more commonplace.

To ensure our policies are working, we need more public data for us to measure AI-driven disruptions on our labour market. For example, how we measure the success of our AI programmes.

Following up in response to my Parliamentary Question on 24 February this year, I noted that the AI apprenticeship programme is currently assessed through three primary indicators: one, the total number of practitioners trained; two, the percentage of AI Apprenticeship Programme graduates who took up AI engineering related roles, and; three, the completion and supervision of project quality. It is a good start, but they do not tell us the effects of AI programmes and disruptions on different groups of society. These measures focus on throughput rather than equity. We need data on wage trajectories, job quality and retention in AI roles two to three years after the programme is completed. We need more data.

First, the participant data profile should have more details made public. This can include previous occupations, income band before training, age, gender, education and disability status. This allows us to see where participants come from. High exposure, low complementarity roles, or already high complementarity roles. This will inform if vulnerable groups are even putting their feet through the door.

Next, more accurately measuring AI disruption in the wider labour market can come in the form of exposure complementarity mapping, thus understanding whether jobs are high exposure and low complementarity, and to establish a tuned framework to track displacement, wage changes and job quality across demographic groups. Such data gives the Government a clearer picture of how AI is affecting different communities, so that support can be directed where it is most needed.

I will now turn to some thoughts on how our youths can address the challenges of AI.

If AI displaces a significant share of entry level roles, young workers may find fewer opportunities to build the foundational experience traditionally needed to progress into senior positions. One of our nation's solutions could be to better encourage and support entrepreneurship amongst youths. This will allow them to also gain valuable skills independently, rather than wait to be picked up to be employed by an established firm.

This approach builds on an already open door. AI has greatly reduced barriers to starting a business by being deployed to build websites, analyse data, run marketing and even automate back-office tasks. We have many schemes for startups, such as grants and boot camps, but do these initiatives adequately provide sustained long-term support across the full lifecycle of a burgeoning firm?

Moreover, our grant architecture remains milestone heavy and programme bound, encouraging compliance over competition. We need a culture and framework that recognise the value of a failed startup, or that support founder-led networks over time. Drawing on lessons from other entrepreneurial hubs, what are the areas that have inhibited Singapore's ability to establish a more sustainable ecosystem conducive for entrepreneurs?

First, we must continue to build sustained informal networks that made an entrepreneurship culture self-sustaining. Our current networks are often programme based and time limited, skewed towards short-term coaching. Yet research shows that informal mentorships arising from mutual choice and affinity are far more effective than administrative matching. If mentorship is only linked to short-term grants, our youths may miss out on the benefits that accrue from the trust-based guidance that can be seen in, for example, Silicon Valley. In leading entrepreneurial hubs like Silicon Valley and Shenzhen, informal founder networks have been a critical but often overlooked driver of success. They enable knowledge sharing, supply chain connections and a spin-off of new ventures from anchor firms.

Singapore can gain much from this. While we have anchors like Grab and Block 71, the Asian Development Bank has noted that our ecosystem trails others because our collaboration remains policy-driven rather than organically clustered. How can we reduce administrative burden on founders to ensure that they do not become overly occupied with meeting grant milestones instead of establishing the market competitiveness they need to survive AI-driven disruption.

One possibility is to limit formal reporting to end of grant rather than more regularly to strike a balance. Singapore must also better leverage our anchor firms. Companies like Grab, Sea and Singtel hold deep reservoirs of technical expertise and industry networks that largely remain locked within the firm.

Could we use targeted tax credits or co-investment matching for peer development programmes to encourage anchor firms to run structured mentorship and spin-out programmes for early-stage founders? This will allow organic networks to form around existing reservoirs of excellence, rather than hope that Government grant cycles will do so.

The private sector must lead, and the Government's role should shift from convener and gatekeeper to catalyst. This is how we can start to grow our entrepreneurial system from within industry.

We must also learn to value failure. Singapore's culture of economic emphasis and social conformity makes us sometimes afraid to fail. A 2018 piece of study by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that Singapore students expressed a greater fear of failure than their peers compared with any other participating country. Yet entrepreneurship means being tolerant of failure. Founders have to make decisions with incomplete information and meaningful innovation has to be backed up by some freedom to fail. We have to treat failure as a stepping stone rather than a stigma, or we end up stifling the very ecosystem we are trying to build and leave our youths ill-equipped to flourish in an age of disruption.

We can do so by beginning our own transition towards a better space for entrepreneurship, encourage experimentation and normalise entrepreneurial failure as growth and experience.

Failure should be a stepping stone, not a dead end. And we began this transition within schools where we have to move away from perfect scores, where we have entrepreneurial projects in schools which expose students to the inner workings of a startup. We should also showcase failed projects for their bonus.

Singapore's current bankruptcy framework can also be re-examined to better support entrepreneurs. Currently, founders who fail face the same restrictions as any other bankrupt, with travel bans, director disqualification and no automatic discharge, regardless of whether their failure was the result of genuine risk-taking or financial misconduct. Could we explore a dedicated pathway for bona fide startup failure, one that allows founders to be discharged sooner, resume directorship more quickly and have their experience recognised as something valuable rather than a liability. It is not to make failure consequence free, but to ensure that the cost of an honest bet gone wrong does not permanently deter our most enterprising young Singaporeans from trying again.

Finally, it is also my hope that we use our experiences navigating the AI transition to play a regional and global role as other economies too attempt to navigate the disruption.

Singapore comes from a place of strength and we are already intentionally deciding to lead the way when it comes to setting the agenda in global AI governance. Our stewardship role must extend beyond frameworks, and we have to play our part in addressing global imbalances in AI development and use reflected in recent data. World Bank 2025 data show that high income countries account for 87% of notable AI models, 86% of AI startups and 91% of venture fund capital funding, despite representing just 17% of the global population. There is justifiable concern about how vulnerable groups and the global South are woefully underrepresented in the AI space. As responsible world citizens, we can do our part to address this.

Recently, we have already begun developing AI tools tailored to Southeast Asian languages through Project Sea Lion, recognising that much of the developing world risks being left behind by AI systems built on Western data. We should build on this by championing equitable AI access across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), exporting our governance expertise to nations that lack the capacity to develop their own frameworks and ensuring that the rules governing AI reflect not just the interests of the powerful, but the needs of the many.

This is not merely an abstract foreign policy and ambition. It has direct consequences for jobs here at home. Singapore's standing in the global AI ecosystem, gives us leverage to shape how AI tools are built, deployed and adopted across the region. We should use that leverage intentionally. When our researchers —

Mr Speaker: Ms He, you have a minute left.

Ms He Ting Ru: When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.

We must ensure Singaporeans are in the room where these technologies are being built and not merely be on the receiving end of decisions made elsewhere. Our global AI leadership is ultimately an investment in ensuring that the answer is the former. This approach also ultimately has the added benefit of creating more jobs and opportunities for Singapore in what would be a true trickle-down effect. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

2.39 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare I work in a global investment firm working on ecosystem workforce strategies.

In recent weeks, a plane has been circling San Francisco with a banner that reads, "Stop Hiring Humans." The same message appears on billboards and bus shelters across the city, alongside slogans such as "The Era of AI Employees Is Here." The campaign is the work of Artisan, an AI startup. This is not just a marketing stunt. It reflects a fear that the future of work may exclude people rather than empower them.

I rise in support of this Motion because that must not be Singapore’s approach. AI must not be a signal to workers that they are dispensable. In my work in Temasek, I have seen how technology disrupts industries, and I want to lay out my key thesis upfront. To achieve growth without casualties, enterprise AI adoption cannot just be about buying technology. It must follow a deliberate thread: we must first build AI fluency; use that fluency to drive workflow and job redesign; and ensure that this redesign leads to tangible, shared outcomes for our workers.

Let me begin with an important observation. In the Temasek ecosystem, many companies are already investing in AI. Tools are being deployed and pilots are multiplying. But the real constraint we are seeing is not technology, compute, or capital. It is workforce readiness. We are not short of technology. We are short of transformation.

In our AI Fluency workshops with over 20 Temasek portfolio companies, we see clearly that fragmented AI literacy remains a primary bottleneck. We are working closely with Chief Human Resource Officers and Chief Technology Officers to bridge the gap between adoption and actual value creation. Fundamentally, this is a skills-matching problem. Where skill supply lags, opportunity does not disappear. It simply moves elsewhere.

The AI transition we are debating is structural, global and accelerating. Tasks that took weeks now take hours, and soon minutes or seconds. Change no longer moves in a linear way, it moves exponentially. In this context, adoption is no longer optional. In Singapore, while large firms wrestle with legacy systems and heavy compliance, and SMEs face severe constraints in capital and bandwidth, the implication is the same for both: enterprises that do not adopt AI will struggle to remain competitive.

But if AI adoption is necessary, disruption is inevitable. We must be clear about the risks to workers if this transition is not managed carefully. On one hand, as AI lowers the cost of many tasks, demand for those tasks can expand rather than contract. Economists refer to this as the "Jevons employment effect", where efficiency leads not to less work, but to more work in new forms. We have seen this before. ATMs reduced routine tasks but expanded banking. Word processors increased output and shifted work to higher-value roles. AI will likely follow the same pattern.

But the practical reality often produces a K-shaped outcome. Experienced, AI-enabled workers capture disproportionate gains, while those without such capabilities, especially entry-level workers, risk falling behind. So, the question is not whether AI creates growth. It is who that growth accrues to. The real risk is not that AI replaces jobs. It is that it replaces opportunity at scale. A worker may remain employed but face slower progression and a quiet erosion of experience. Our task is not to deny disruption. Our task is to govern it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are to govern this disruption effectively, the debate must shift. It is not enough to observe whether firms adopt AI. We must demand accountability for what happens after adoption. The question is simple. Are workers better off after transformation than before it? We must ask: are jobs and workflows being redesigned? Are gains being shared? If AI raises output but weakens livelihoods, that is not transformation. It is exclusion. We must ensure public funds do not subsidise this.

Hence, I ask the Government: can we establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes? If public grants are funding a company’s pivot, should it not be explicitly tied to a national, human-centric scorecard? A scorecard that tracks the number of net new roles created, the scale of workflow redesign, wage improvements, staff retention and upskilling. If we are serious about no jobless growth, our adoption metrics must move beyond counting jobs to measuring careers.

From our work in AI fluency in Temasek, we know companies are urgently asking for guidance in leadership capability, job redesign, measurement of outcomes, trust and governance. Companies cannot navigate this alone.

This is where our Labour Movement, NTUC, e2i and the unions come into play. We must empower them to provide this guidance, ensuring that union leaders and management sit at the same table, mapping out the enterprises' technology roadmap and the workers' retraining schedules simultaneously. If companies need guidance on job redesign and shared outcomes, our tripartite partners must be right there on the ground with them.

The recently announced Tripartite Jobs Council is a timely step, but it must actively bridge the gap between firm-level transformation and worker-level outcomes. Because the real challenge is not introducing AI into firms, it is integrating workers into that transformation.

This brings us to the central challenge of this transition: AI is not just a technology multiplier; it is a leadership multiplier.

Leaders must have real conviction in the transformational potential of AI and lead by example in using it, guiding its application and bringing their workforce along. AI can write, design and optimise. But it cannot exercise judgement, build trust or carry people through uncertainty. That responsibility remains human.

Mr Speaker, Sir, employers have a critical responsibility, but without the right leadership, the easiest way to adopt AI is to simply cut headcount. We are already seeing this tension play out globally. We have seen Amazon announcing 16,000 job cuts in early 2026 while leaning further into AI for corporate efficiency.

When AI is introduced mainly as a headcount strategy, it breeds fear. When introduced as a capability strategy, it builds trust. Stories of this fear have long played out in our workplace, even among AI-enabled workers.

When generative AI first started trending, some workers proactively explored AI on their own to improve their efficiency at work, but kept it a secret. They worry that if they reveal the source of their newfound productivity, they will eventually be made redundant or be loaded with more work without extra compensation. When trust is absent and gains are not shared, workers hide their capabilities rather than sharing them.

True transformation requires leaders to adopt a long-term perspective. Firms must expect short-term productivity lags as workers transition to new ways of working and they must create space for experimentation. However, we must acknowledge that many businesses struggling with high operating costs in this challenging economy do not have the luxury of time.

I ask the Ministry: how can we better support companies to absorb these short-term lags, ensuring that the cost of time required to retrain workers does not become an excuse for lay-offs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as employers lead this transition, there is one structural shift we must recognise clearly – before job redesign can happen, we must have workflow redesign.

We ask workers to change, but we leave the system unchanged. AI cuts across functions and domains, reimagining how processes connect and how value is created. That reshaping of the entire process must come before individual roles themselves are redesigned.

However, here lies a significant gap in our current policy approach. Today, much of our national support is heavily focused on individual job redesign. We ask workers to adapt to new job scopes, but legacy company processes are left unchanged.

As a result, AI is often layered onto outdated workflows with silos and fragmented data. Productivity stalls and frustration rises. Workers resist change not because they are stubborn but because it is deeply frustrating to use advanced AI tools within broken workflows.

So, I ask the Government and our tripartite partners: can we expand our support schemes to explicitly look into workflow redesign? How can we provide enterprises with the expertise and funding to reimagine their cross-functional processes first? If we fix the workflow, workers will naturally see the value of the technology, turning inertia into eagerness to adapt.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even with the best workflows, disruption will occur. Some workers will be displaced and some roles will change faster than expected. We often point to existing measures like SkillsFuture and career conversion programmes. But here is a hard truth – if these measures are sufficient, why are our workers still so deeply anxious?

The answer is that AI disruption moves at an unprecedented speed and workers worry our safety nets cannot catch them fast enough.

I ask the Government: how are we rigorously tracking the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures, particularly the financial runway for displaced workers, to guarantee that they remain truly responsive?

For the workers who remain, basic AI capability will no longer be a distinct advantage. It will be the price of staying in the game. The task is to help workers transition from being mere AI users to becoming AI conductors, workers who know how to curate, steer and verify AI outputs.

This brings me to a critical concern regarding our workforce pipeline. If AI automates drafting, summarising and first-pass analysis, what happens to our entry-level jobs? If young graduates cannot get a real first job and the mentorship they need, they will never gain the foundational experience earlier cohorts relied on to grow and we risk losing our future workforce.

I ask the Government: how are we working with employers and industry leaders to protect and redesign entry-level pathways so that our youth can develop the professional judgment required to become the AI conductors of tomorrow?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to where I began. In the Temasek ecosystem, we see companies investing in AI, piloting new tools and pushing forward with transformation. But the decisive constraint is not the technology. It is whether the workforce is ready.

I shared this story with chief technology officers across our Temasek companies. A factory invested heavily in new machines. They were faster, smarter and more efficient. But productivity fell, not because the technology failed, but because the people were left behind.

On another line, the company did something different. Instead of replacing workers, they retrained them. Machine operators became data readers. Technicians became problem solvers. What changed was not the equipment. It was the capability and confidence of the people using it. Soon, breakdowns fell. Ideas came from the shop floor. Workers who once feared change began to lead it. The same machines. The same factory. But a very different future.

That is the lesson. Technology may set the pace. But people determine the direction. And in an AI transition, fluency, not just adoption, determines whether that direction is inclusive.

That brings us to the Motion before us. An AI transition with no jobless growth is not just about creating jobs. It is about ensuring that workers advance with technology, not fall behind it. It is about translating productivity into progression. It is about turning innovation into shared outcomes.

If adoption builds capability, then fluency must build advantage. If work is redesigned, then skills must be deepened. If growth is created, then it must be broadly shared.

But this will not happen on its own. It requires coordination. It requires leadership. It requires trust. And this is where Singapore has a unique advantage. Our model of tripartism, where Government, employers and workers move together, gives us the ability not just to react to change, but to shape it. This is our secret weapon.

When firms invest, workers must be equipped. When jobs are redesigned, workers must be involved. When disruption occurs, support must be credible. Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice.

Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building. It cannot be one that says, "Stop having humans". It must be one that says, "Invest in people". Whether our workers advance is a choice we must make together, deliberately and decisively. Thank you, and I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.54 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my contribution in today's debate is straightforward. I argue that if our objective is to protect our workforce from job losses that could result from an economy-wide embrace of AI, then our efforts today should mainly be directed towards policies that promote new hiring rather than those that focus either on reducing displacement or pushing for retraining.

The explanation is simple. The evidence shows that to date, job displacement of current workers due to AI has been modest and localised whereas the hiring slowdown of new workers is already evident and even likely to accelerate.

In principle, the consequences of AI could bite on two ends of the labour market. It could reduce the incentives for firms to hire, thereby lowering the number of total new job openings, or it could raise the frequency of hiring by companies or induce workers to quit.

Hiring slowdown results when AI tools allow a company to cheaply and effectively replace job functions that they previously needed to hire a human worker for. This is especially the case for entry level since the lack of experience among new graduates and the relatively straightforward grunt work new hires are generally tasked to do make this group somewhat less valuable and more replaceable by a machine.

But as many observers, including Members of this House, have already pointed out, this is a chicken and egg problem. If we do not absorb new workers into our corporations, we surely cannot expect them to gain the necessary experience and job-specific skills that make them valuable as mid-career professionals.

Job displacement occurs, in contrast, when AI tools reveal that certain roles are no longer needed as they can be well replicated by AI. Tasks that used to be done by a human are replaced and if there is nowhere else in the firm for this person to be reassigned to or if the individual turns out to be too costly, then they are let go.

On the positive side, AI could open up new opportunities for displaced workers to pursue a career elsewhere, either because they gain AI-related skills that make them more valuable in the marketplace or because perhaps they could go into business for themselves.

For now, however, the message from studies worldwide is clear. While there has been little evidence of displacement thus far, there are more ample signs that there has been a decline in hiring. This has been the case for AI-exposed sectors following the advent of generative AI such as ChatGPT and is likely to accelerate as agentic AI matures. Prospects are especially perilous for early-career, entry-level workers. And even when hired, such workers tend to receive lower salaries.

The reasons for this are intuitive. AI mainly substitutes for mechanical, repeatable and well-defined tasks, which are mostly performed by junior employees. Firms still value the maturity and experience of senior employees and, by and large, would rather skimp on hiring and re-allocate their otherwise loyal staff rather than giving them the boot.

Sir, these trends are also visible in our local labour markets. Thus far, AI is yet to contribute much to job displacement here. MOM's latest labour market report reveals that since 2023, overall retrenchments have remained stable and the unemployment rate of about 2% has not budged much since 2022.

In response to questions about the PMET sector, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Manpower Shawn Huang also pointed out that retrenchments among PMETs in AI-exposed sectors such as finance and infocomm remain low, numbering only 960 in the final quarter of last year. Moreover, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Huang also pointed to the large number of vacancies – around 10 times higher – in these sectors over the same period. This could be interpreted as a healthy robust labour market for new hires, but I will caution against it. This is because as any jobseeker will tell you – an opening does not a job make. These jobs have to be filled, ideally by Singaporeans who are themselves looking for jobs.

Here is where the picture is less encouraging. The latest graduate employment survey shows a drop in the share of graduates that managed to land a job in almost every single field of study, with around one in every four graduates unable to secure full-time employment.

In response to a Parliamentary Question filed, Minister Desmond Lee pointed to how the decline was due to a post-pandemic hiring surge and that what we are seeing is simply a mean reversion to the early trend.

I am less sanguine. Based on my calculations, what is true that pre-pandemic and permanent employment among graduates averaged around 70% in 2020, it was closer to 85% as recently as a decade ago, which is significantly better.

The youth unemployment rate which is lower in the 2020s then it was in the prior two decades has admittedly, elsewhere in the world, also steadily inched up since 2022, by around a percentage point. And unlike earlier instances when uptakes followed an economic cycle, Singapore's economy is actually currently in expansion.

On the demand side there has also been reports that some employers have been tentative and reluctant to onboard workers, albeit these thankfully appear to be a minority for now. Moreover, this pessimistic picture also mass more troubling pathologies. Many Singaporean workers may have had to contend themselves with opportunities that do not fully employ their skills and talent. Such mismatches are not well captured by the aggregate data.

Think of the graduate with an advanced degree from a local university but nevertheless still felt compelled to work in food delivery, or the student who spent years at a top university abroad but has been repeatedly rejected by employers since coming home. Or the experienced mid-career professional with bills and a young family to support, who floundered unsuccessfully in the job market month after month despite upskilling as advised. I believe others in this House will have seen cases similar to these in our weekly Meet-the-People Sessions. And indeed, two recent studies published by NTUC and MOM, corroborate these examples.

Overqualification is the greatest for those who are early in their careers and the gap between the involuntary and voluntarily underemployed is greatest for those under 30. Coupled with the global climate of economic policy uncertainty, we may be heading toward an era of the so-called "great hesitation" in hiring in our local labour markets, similar to what has been observed elsewhere in the world.

If our goal is, as the title of the Motion suggests, to avoid jobless growth, then it follows that we should prioritise policies that target the hiring of the labour market. Let me offer a few.

First, we can improve the incentives for companies to hire fresh graduates. As I have shared in the long cut for this year's Committee of Supply, this would call for expanding the existing GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme to a national level, cross-sectoral national internship initiative. Young workers will be free to apply their SkillsFuture credits toward paid apprenticeship and internship programmes with companies willing to take them on.

Corporations, especially SMEs, should also be able to submit credible proposals for in-house, on-the-job training to MOM, which will then offset the cost of taking on these trainees, drawing on the SkillsFuture enterprise credit and other subsidy schemes already earmarked for businesses. My hon friend, Gerald Giam, has also proposed an AI mastery fund for this purpose, which is complementary to what I am suggesting here.

Second, such short term, by which I mean six months to a year, apprenticeships and internships should also embed a clear employment pathway, conditional on reasonable performance on the part of the employee, unless a waiver is granted to employers due to changed economic circumstances.

These trainees should be treated as employees under the Employment Act and receive the same legal protections and entitlements, including a minimum period of annual leave, which GRIT trainees currently do not receive.

Third, we can ramp up the delivery of social skills training in communication, empathy, judgement, networking and vision in the final year of their tertiary education prior to workforce entry. Research has shown that AI is the most complementary to workers when the job demands require the fulfilment of not only cognitive tasks, but also in iterative collaboration between humans and AI. But our graduates often load their school time with the pursuit of academic competencies, leaving them woefully under prepared for such interfacing functions.

Fourth, if indeed we stand by our belief that we want our graduates to focus on acquiring competencies rather than certifications, as MOE has made clear in its support for stackable, micro-credentials pathways in our autonomous universities and as corroborated by recent research, then we should put our money where our mouth is and end hiring requirements that insist on a diploma or degree in the public sector if the competency can be demonstrated, otherwise. This can occur with proof of skills via a series of micro credentials, or when candidates pass a live demonstration during the interview stage.

Sir, AI is a general-purpose technology. Like all general-purpose technologies before it, AI will destroy perhaps as many jobs as it creates, but as we confront the bleeding edge of this transition, we must set the stage for those who are most affected by the roll-out, which, for now, at least are clearly our young entry level workers. We need targeted policies that will help sidestep the great hesitation in hiring them. This is how we best ensure that the growth promises of AI are not overshadowed by fears of millions of missing jobs.

Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

3.06 pm

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I used to be a visiting professor of innovation policy at Harvard Kennedy School for 10 years and currently I am still a visiting professor of innovation management at Fudan University.

AI is what we really call disruptive technologies, of which I spent my doctorate on. It is paradigm shift and when you say paradigm shift means it is shifting from one, or completely one industry to other areas that actually will destroy the old ways of working.

Let me just give you an example. Last week, I visited at AI startup in the Science Park, so we were talking about collaborations on a couple of projects in media, and I only saw two persons in the room with a capacity of 20 persons. So, I asked the chief executive officer, "Where are all the staff?" They say, well, they never come to the office, but they are working. And I say, "When do you see them?" They say, "Well, I saw them last week when the network went down and there were no communications. As the broadband was down, they came back to check on their agents to see are they really working?" So, I asked, "How would you know they are really working?" The answer, "Well, actually, they produce the code at any time, all the way, 24/7." So, he has got agents, they are working 24/7. So, I said, "How do you measure the productivity?" And I asked one question, "How many tasks or jobs have you replaced since, or how many jobs have you done, the capabilities of people doing the engineers or the coding jobs, since last year, one year ago?" And the answer that came back is five. So, compared with last year and this year, this guy has agents working for him and he performed the task of five persons.

We can look at it from two angles: one is this company is supremely productive; the other thing to look at is, we have five jobs less.

Which one would you choose? Well, if you are the CEO, you know what to choose. If you are the NTUC Secretary-General, I am not so sure.

So, I asked the next questions. He happened to be interviewing potential staff for his expansion, and so I ask him, "How do you find this guy who is doing his Masters in computing? Is he up to par?" And the answer that came back is, "Well, based on what I discussed with him and his answer shows he is two years behind the current technology".

Two years behind and I was like, wow, so when this guy graduates, maybe next year, what is going to happen to him? Technology is always two years in front of him.

And therefore, that means, do we put this guy into the real environment, which is basically internship, on-the-job attachments, or this person when he graduates, he really needs to speed up on the current competencies where the AI technologies are moving so fast. So, really, this is a tsunami.

Personally, I get myself involved in the small little non-governmental organisations. We are working on one pet project, which is to monitor the senior citizens who are staying alone, so that if anything happens to them, we know. And we actually are using AI, because most of these senior citizens speak dialect dialects, so we are using robot companions, small ones, with the ability to understand dialects; and to monitor them. It is very good, because it is very difficult to get caregivers to go around monitoring and visiting these people.

So that is one thing that the AI is really, really useful for. The robotics AIs are really useful so that we can cover things that Singaporeans do not want or are probably not so suitable to do the job.

The other projects that I am working on is imaging, using AI for magnetic resonance imaging. We will talk about it in some other time.

The issue is that the workplace experience is now changing quite a bit. So, do we, or our staff, or our existing people, or PMEs, or workers have the skills for them to carry on in the job. I am glad actually that the Labour Movement has introduced the CTCs. It is a very good mechanism to bring AI into the workplace or working with the enterprise. And I am glad that there are such grants for it.

But the question then is how do we define competencies? Some Members talked about the workflow redesign, process redesign – but how do we know that at the end they are competent? Where are the competencies level at the workplace? So, I think the new agency, SWDA, should be able to work together with the Labour Movement to define the competencies.

But what else can we do with these competencies? Is it fixed to workplaces; so, one workplace, one company? Or is it portable?

So, maybe we can consider involving the professional institutions, so that for each level or each competency level, whether it is stackable, micro-credentials, they are all certified and recognised by the industry. And therefore, it is portable for this person throughout his careers.

AI is here to stay. Like most workers, initially, I was, I would not say sceptical, but unwilling to change my style. But now, I think I have got no choice. So, for the past one year, I have been working on it. Even my wife has to use AI to generate videos and pictures, although she is an artist, she likes to draw – but it has become part of her life.

It is a tsunami of change and I support the Motion. As I have previously done in my previous voluntary life as a council member of Institutions of Engineer, Singapore, I am the one who actually proposed working with the Labour Movement to set up the Young Engineers Leadership Programme, including the advanced and the global. I believe that the engineering institutions and the professional institutions could work with the labour unions to certify all such programmes for career pathways for the workers.

Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.

3.15 pm

Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I agree with many of the points raised in the Motion, including the commitment to ensure that no worker is left behind during the AI transition.

However, to realise this vision, we also need to share the gains from adopting AI and ensure that future workers can continue to remain competitive and stay ahead of the curve. At present, when technology is adopted to improve productivity, it is often the employer who benefits. I propose upgrading the Flexible Work Arrangement Guidelines so they are given legislative force, which ensures that employees too, can enjoy AI productivity gains.

When AI improves productivity and work efficiency, we should encourage workers to use the time freed up to be with their families, to rest, to participate in activities and to build relationships with others.

Additionally, the workers of tomorrow – who are the children in our schools today – are also already beginning to encounter AI in the classrooms. Some parents have raised concerns about whether introducing AI to children at Primary 4 might be too early. Neuroscientists have also pointed out that premature or excessive use of AI and technology may make learning too easy, thereby depriving children of the opportunity to develop deep learning capabilities.

Children in their formative years should be learning how to think, ask questions and making judgements. I therefore call on the Government to track and regularly report on the impact that AI adoption in our schools has on the cognitive development of students across different age groups.

In the AI era, independent thinking and judgement are the very skills that AI cannot replace. These are what we should be imparting to the next generation so that they remain competitive and resilient, no matter how the world changes.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I share the values outlined in the Motion: that growth must be inclusive, that every worker matters and that no one should be left behind in the AI transition. Ensuring that no one is left behind involves more than just ensuring job full growth. It requires a commitment to sharing the rewards of AI driven productivity. It also requires that we ensure that future generations of workers can thrive in an era defined by AI and possibly other technologies have that have not yet been invented.

Mr Speaker, much of the discourse about AI-driven economic transition has been focused on the need for workers to upskill and remain relevant. While these efforts are essential, they do not answer another equally important question: how do we ensure that the equitable distribution of the AI productivity dividend?

Presently, employers are the default beneficiaries. They benefit from either more output from the same headcount or the same output from a lower headcount. Such productivity gains do not automatically become employee gains. Without deliberate policy design, they tend to remain exclusively employer gains.

One way to share the AI productivity dividend with workers could be through time. During the MOM Committee of Supply debate in March, I made a case for flexible work arrangements to be given legislative force. The right to request flexible work is not the same as the right to have it. We should not rely on guidelines that place the burden of action on the employee who can least afford to do so.

I would like to reiterate the call for flexible work legislation today. It has become more salient as we discuss how the AI transition can benefit Singaporeans. As AI generates real productivity gains, the question of whether Singaporean workers will share in these gains as time regained, not just as higher output, is one which the market will not answer on its own. It must be designed for.

What does more time mean in practice? It means the parents who can be present and do more than just paying for tuition classes. It means fewer caregivers having to choose between a job and a family member who needs them. It also means rest, real rest, in a country where 61% of employees feel exhausted and 39% of workers dread going to work. These are not soft outcomes. There are conditions under which human capabilities are replenished and sustained.

Will the Government and tripartite movement commit to prioritising worker well-being alongside employer gains and economic growth as it shapes AI era policy? If so, I urge the Government to begin by giving legislative teeth to flexible work arrangements.

As AI makes company more productive, workers should have a meaningful and enforceable claim on the time that AI frees up. Time to rest and to pursue the kind of human connection that AI cannot replicate, and that our fertility rate is telling us we are running short of.

Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to a group of Singaporeans who matter most to our long-term success. If we say that every worker matters, then we must look at the workers who are not yet in the workforce. And I am talking about our children who are in today's classrooms and some of them in the galleries above.

Right now, our 10-year-olds in Primary 4 are being introduced to AI tools. While there is, of course, teacher supervision and guardrails in place, we should also be asking a more fundamental question. Is this early exposure building their capability and ability to thrive in an AI world, or is it building an early dependence on AI-powered tools? Some parents are already asking. Is Primary 4 too early? What are the real gains? And more importantly, what are the trade-offs?

These are not just parental anxieties. There are also serious questions being asked by neuroscientists. In his book, "The Digital Delusion", neuroscientist Dr Jared Horvath makes a point that should give us pause. When technology makes thinking too easy, the depth of learning disappears. AI is the ultimate offloading tool. It reads, writes and calculates with minimal user input. But our children are not yet experts looking to offload and increase productivity. They are learners and learning requires struggle. It requires the cognitive friction that AI is designed to remove.

If our children start to offload their thinking at age 10, they do not develop the mental muscles needed to spot errors, ask meaningful questions, or form independent views. What we call AI-enabled personalised learning, then risks becoming customised comfort. It feels like progress because it is frictionless, but it may be short circuiting the cognitive development we are trying to support.

This brings me to a concern that I raised earlier today: the equity paradox in AI use. I appreciate Minister Desmond Lee's point about how MOE actively engages parents through Parents Gateway and share guidance on how they can better support their children at home. But not every child in Singapore has a parent at home who is digitally engaged, has the time to act on that guidance and is equipped to scaffold their children's learning beyond what happens in a classroom. Children from less privileged backgrounds with less access to parental guidance and fewer non-screen enrichment activities may end up leaning on AI more heavily, and not less.

For a child who comes home to an overstretched household where there is no one to redirect, question or supervise, AI will always produce an answer, always reduce the friction and always make the thinking easier. That is not empowerment. If AI dependency erodes cognitive development that it is meant to supplement, then the children most at risk are the ones that we are trying our hardest to support.

Mr Speaker, my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim noted during the recent Budget debate that the gap between stronger and weaker university students is no longer about what they submit in written assignment, but about their willingness to question and think beyond the script. These abilities are built or not built over years. If we displace that effort at age 10, our children cannot simply download it at university. And if the children who are doing the most unsupervised AI offloading are those who already have less of these abilities, then we are not closing the gap. We are widening it – earlier.

A global study published this January by the Brookings Institution found that the biggest risk of AI in education is the displacement of effortful thinking during crucial development years. Interestingly, 65% of the students surveyed in this study cited the undermining of cognitive development as the top risk of the use of AI. The children themselves can feel the difference.

Mr Speaker, I am not suggesting that we do not use AI tools in school. I am suggesting that we follow the evidence, not the hype. Generative AI has been public for barely four years. We do not yet have long-term data on how it affects a child's brain. We should not let the speed of a technology cycle outpace the care that our children deserve.

I also appreciate the Minister's update this morning that the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study (SG LEADS) by A*STAR will expand to collect data that will help us understand Singapore children's AI usage patterns and how AI usage affects their learning and well-being outcomes. I hope this will also include the impact of using AI tools in education on our children's cognitive development, including their effect on their executive function and skills like critical thinking, reading comprehension and capacity for sustained independent effort. We must ensure that we are preparing our children for a world we cannot predict by giving them the one tool that will always be relevant: a strong and independent mind.

This Motion rightly calls for Singapore's approach to AI enabled growth to be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all. I agree. And this is why I spoke today about two critical things that the AI transition is challenging us to protect: time and mind.

For the workers of today, we should legislate the right to flexible work so that productivity gains are reclaimed as time for rest, care and connection. And for our children, the workers of the future, we must protect the cognitive friction necessary for learning, ensuring that we are cultivating independent minds that can solve a hard problem without reaching for a digital crutch. The AI transition is not just an economic event. It is perhaps the most significant opportunity in a generation for us to ask what kind of society we will build with the time and capability that technology returns to us. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

3.26 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Motion. AI is already reshaping our economy. It is improving productivity, enabling new business models and strengthening our global competitiveness. For Singapore, this is an important opportunity. But alongside these benefits, there is also a real concern – how do we ensure our workers are not displaced faster than they can adapt?

Over the course of human history, economic growth has been corelated with the creation of new jobs. When countries moved through industrialisation for example, as industries opened, new jobs were created for people all around. Of course, economic growth can also come not just from increases in labour, but also increases in productivity. And this is also to be welcome because it creates higher paying jobs for those who are working. Singapore has benefited from both of these trends.

Against this backdrop, the conceptual concern with AI is a simple one: will it increase productivity so much that significantly fewer jobs will be needed? The implication for this is that the fewer people who have jobs or alternatively, those that control capital, will get all the benefits from the higher productivity while a large group of people will lose jobs. Essentially, the winners will take a lot more and there will be a larger number of losers.

If we look at developments in other countries, we see that governments are beginning to respond. They do so not by stopping technological change, but by introducing measured safeguards to ensure that workers are treated fairly as the adoption of AI increases.

One area I wish to discuss is the use of AI in the job selection process itself. For instance, in the European Union, the recently adopted Artificial Intelligence Act recognises that AI systems used in employment, such as those involved in hiring, evaluation and performance monitoring, can significantly affect workers' livelihoods. These systems are therefore classified as "high risk" and are subject to requirements such as bias testing, transparency disclosures and human oversight.

This complements Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, under which individuals have the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing where such decisions produce legal effects concerning him or her or significantly affect him or her. In an employment context, this means that important decisions, such as hiring or dismissal, cannot be made purely by algorithms without meaningful human involvement.

In New York City, the Automated Employment Decision Tools Law requires that AI systems used in hiring or promotion undergo regular bias audits and that applicants are informed when such tools are being used.

While these are not laws which directly prevent job loss, they do ensure that decisions affecting employment are not made with reliance on AI in an opaque or unaccountable manner. They also promote fairness and help guard against unintended discrimination in automated decision-making.

Meanwhile, in countries such as Germany and France, labour laws require employers to follow structured processes before lay-offs, including consulting employee representatives, providing advance notice, and making efforts to retrain or redeploy workers. Our NTUC is engaged in similar activities with our employers here. These requirements may not be specific to AI, but they help ensure that transitions are managed in a structured and responsible manner.

Mr Speaker, these examples suggest that instead of blocking technological change, governments recognise that legislation can provide guardrails and ensure that as companies adopt AI, they do so in a way which takes into account the impact on workers. This is particularly important in maintaining trust between employers and workers. If workers feel that decisions are being made transparently and with safeguards in place, they are more likely to support rather than resist the adoption of new technologies.

For Singapore, we can consider whether there should be clearer expectations around human oversight in employment decisions involving AI. While many employers already adopt such practices, formalising this principle can help ensure consistency across sectors. We can also explore whether workers should have a clearer right to transparency, including the right to know when AI systems are being used to assess their performance or influence decisions about their employment.

In addition, it is worth considering whether we should strengthen expectations around responsible workforce transitions. When major technological changes significantly affect jobs, employers can be encouraged to provide structured support such as retraining opportunities or redeployment pathways.

Ultimately, it is important to recognise that legislation alone is insufficient and must be complemented by strong institutions, proactive employers and workers who are willing to adapt and learn. Our goal should be to maintain a system where businesses remain innovative and competitive, workers feel secure and supported, and opportunities continuing to expand over time.

This leads me to my second point – what we can do for jobs which are most likely to be affected by AI. AI is particularly effective at performing routine and rules-based tasks. As a result, roles in areas such as administrative work and those involving entry-level analysis are more exposed to displacement.

However, the issue is not simply that these jobs may disappear. More importantly, these roles often serve as entry points into the workforce, providing workers with the experience and skills needed to progress. If such opportunities are reduced, workers may find it harder to build careers over time.

In this sense, the risk is not only displacement, but also the gradual erosion of career pathways. Over time, this could lead to a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to move from entry-level positions into more skilled and higher-paying roles.

Therefore, beyond retraining in a general sense, our focus should also be on facilitating practical transitions. Workers should be supported in moving into adjacent roles where their existing skills can still be applied and built upon. This makes transitions more feasible, particularly for mid-career workers.

At the same time, companies can be encouraged to redesign jobs so that AI complements rather than replaces human workers. For example, while routine tasks can be automated, human roles requiring judgement, communication and problem-solving can and should be retained and enhanced. This way, AI becomes a tool which increases productivity rather than a substitute for labour.

In practical terms, employers adopting AI can be encouraged to identify adjacent roles for affected workers early on and to provide structured pathways for redeployment into these roles. This may include short, focused training modules or job redesign which allow workers to gradually build new competencies.

Such measures help ensure that workers are not abruptly displaced, but are instead guided through a managed transition where their skills and roles within their organisations are preserved. The unions, the Government and employers can work together on a framework for this.

In relation to the creative industries, including music, writing and acting, we should consider if legislation or further protection is needed in relation to copyrighted material being used to train AI and whether remedies for this should be purely private or whether there is scope for the Government to provide a framework for such materials to be protected. This may include the right to one's image and voice. If left purely to private law, only the well resourced would be able to take up the matter, whereas if there is a framework for this, individual artistes, writers and others might be able to benefit from such protection.

Singapore has navigated many economic transitions successfully over the years. Each time, we have combined openness to change with a commitment to social mobility and shared progress.

The transition to an AI-driven economy will be another such test. It will require us to strike a careful balance between innovation and protection. If we approach this thoughtfully, we can ensure that AI becomes a source of opportunity and that growth remains inclusive. I support this Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

3.35 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, today's Motion rightly recognises the transformative power of AI and affirms that AI-enabled economic growth must remain inclusive.

My speech consists of three broad points. First, we must protect the economic positions of workers and prevent the economic fruits of AI from accruing solely to those who own the AI models or produce the hardware powering AI. Second, we must ensure that AI-resilient employment pathways remain viable for Singaporeans. Third and most importantly, we must hold firm to the idea that technology should serve humanity and not the other way around, because ultimately, the goal is not just growth without joblessness. It is growth without losing who we are as humans and as Singaporeans.

Sir, the second limb of the Motion statement calls upon the House to emphasise that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all, while the fourth limb asks the House to affirm that economic progress must remain inclusive and that Singapore must not have jobless growth.

These are extremely important goals, because if the rise of AI is not managed properly, it could represent not just technological disruption but a recalibration of power between labour and capital. For example, last month, Meta announced that the keystrokes and workflows of every one of its employees in the US will be recorded. Screenshots will be taken occasionally throughout the workday. All this data will form datasets used to train AI systems that could one day replace these employees. Other companies could follow suit soon.

While this is being done in the US, we in Singapore should ask whether companies such as Meta should be allowed to harvest employee data in this way without any clear safeguards. Should there not be stronger protections about how such data is collected and used? Should workers not have a stake in the value that is created in their own data?

If we fail to address these questions, we risk sleepwalking into a future where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few technology giants who increasingly use AI to take over work previously done by their human employees. These firms will continue to be the engine of economic growth, investing in larger and larger data centres and more powerful semiconductor chips that continue to generate gross domestic product growth.

As a country, Singapore may benefit through our shareholdings in and partnerships with these tech companies. However, we must ensure that these benefits, which primarily accrue to the capital owners, do not come at the expense of the labour force. These developments pose a real risk that workers who are replaced may see their economic power steadily eroded, with a larger number of workers having to chase after a smaller pool of lower-paying jobs.

I do not mean to be alarmist in suggesting that if unchecked, what could emerge is a form of digital serfdom, a system where workers like serfs of old are not bound by land or feudal lords but by algorithms. We are already seeing the beginnings of this future play out in real time. Already, platform workers work in service to black box algorithms that have a great deal of control over their earnings and how many hours they work. As AI advances, many cognitive and white-collar jobs will become increasingly automated and possibly, under the control of algorithms. Roles once considered secure may no longer be so.

As such, we need to strengthen frameworks for worker protection in areas such as retention benefits and the rights of workers over data they create at the workplace. AI-enabled growth must not come at the cost of workers and a further tilting of the balance of economic power towards capital owners.

Sir, the third limb of the Motion asks the House to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together. Even as AI threatens to automate and replacement many existing roles, there remain many forms of labour that are difficult to automate using AI.

For example, plumbers, electricians, air-conditioning technicians, phlebotomists and other skilled trades have been assessed to be much less likely to be replaced by AI. These jobs are essential pillars of a functioning society. Yet for too long, we in Singapore have undervalued these roles, both economically and socially. If we are serious about ensuring that growth remains inclusive, we must correct this imbalance. In many other first world societies, the job of a plumber, garbage collector or an air-conditioning technician pay high enough to allow a middle-class lifestyle. This is not the case in Singapore.

We have made a policy choice to fill these roles with lower-paid foreign workers while our local workers are channelled into high-paying white-collar jobs. While this has worked well for us for decades, this may no longer be sustainable as generative AI threatens to reduce the number of well-paying white-collar cognitive roles.

We must therefore raise wages and improve career pathways in blue-collar sectors that are currently less attractive and yet also less vulnerable to displacement by AI. We must elevate their status not just through policy, but through culture and education so that Singaporeans will no longer see such jobs as undesirable.

This may require difficult trade-offs. For example, should we recalibrate our policies in certain sectors to ensure that wages for local skilled trades rise meaningfully and attract more Singaporeans to fill these roles? At the same time, we must make better use of our strong vocational institutions. Our ITEs and polytechnics should guide more students towards specialised high-value trades. In an AI-driven future, the dignity of work must not be tied solely to whether a job is white-collar or high tech. We must expand the range of jobs that Singaporeans considered attractive and meaningful.

Mr Speaker, AI will undeniably determine the future of our economy, our society and our lives. But we should not allow AI to come to define us as humans, as citizens and as Singaporeans. I say this because the question before us is not merely whether AI will create or destroy jobs. The deeper question is this: what kind of society and what kind of human beings will we become in an age shaped by AI? Because Sir, if we are not careful, we may succeed economically, yet diminish ourselves in more fundamental ways.

For example, AI has created a world where knowledge is no longer scarce. Texts can be summarised, essays can be written and equations can be solved in seconds. I spoke before about my own experience as an undergraduate struggling through dense text. It was slow, often frustrating work, but it was through that struggle that I learned how to think, how to question and how to make sense of the world.

Today, however, the effort required to complete any cognitive activity has collapsed to an extent far greater than when the calculator replaced the abacus or the typewriter replaced the pen. In encouraging our students to leverage AI, how can we ensure that they can continue to learn how to grapple with ideas, how to formulate arguments, how to problem solve and how to cultivate intellectual independence?

Sir, I reiterate my caution – that Singapore must become an AI-resilient society and not an AI-reliant one. By constantly outsourcing our tasks to AI, we may erode or undermine our capacity for creativity, imagination, judgement and even empathy, or let these practical skills atrophy from lack of use.

The danger here is the temptation to use AI as a shortcut for thinking through and solving problems. On the one end, there are those who regard AI as a kind of second brain – outsourcing memory, decision-making and even aspects of judgement to ChatGPT or Claude.

It is true that AI tools can sharpen our thinking and serve as intellectual aids. However, in creating a layer of artificial mediation between us and the world, I am concerned that AI would dull our capacity to make sense of the world. By making sense of the world, I mean the ability to interpret, comprehend and coherently perceive the world around us on our own terms, through our own cognitive efforts. And over time, this would involve reflective trial and error, balancing our considered interpretations and judgements of the world with how the world comes to bear upon us.

Interpretation and judgement are practical skills that must be honed through constant and regular use. And we develop these skills by exercising, testing and challenging them. Making judgements about the world and what should be done is a distinctively human task that should not be easily surrendered.

I am not against the idea of a second brain. My worry is more specific – that the reliance on a second brain, if left unchecked, will weaken the equity and reflexes of the first brain.

On the other end, we see people forming emotional attachments with AI companions. These are relationships that stimulate empathy but do not truly reciprocate it. It demonstrates the real risk that people can lose sight of human relations in the real world. If people see these AI companions as a comforting shortcut to finding companionship in contrast to the hard work of developing friendships with others around us, we may see a further impoverishment of our social networks.

In both cases, the danger is the same. We begin to substitute authentic human experience, sense-making and judgement with artificial approximations. And when that happens, we may gradually lose our ability to navigate the world with clarity on our own terms. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart: the pantun – a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, the pantun has a specific metre and rhyme scheme. Its imagery is typically drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice.

A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all. Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition – connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before.

Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns, rather than discovering the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves? Does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun, or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output?

(In English): Sir, a final point. There is a traditional Malay art form that is close to my heart – the pantun. This is a poetic form with its own specific rules. Made up of four lines, a pantun has a specific meter and rhyme scheme. Imagery is usually drawn from nature and scenes of everyday life, to communicate important social values and advice. A pantun that does not follow these structures and conventions is usually not regarded as a good pantun, if it may be called one at all.

Many pantuns are still known among Malays by heart, passed down orally through generations. In short, the pantun embodies a tradition, connecting the Malays today to our forefathers before.

Hence, I want to ask: do we lose something valuable if we teach students to use AI to generate pantuns rather than the fun of experimenting with the lines themselves? More importantly, does the skill of using AI to generate pantuns necessarily translate into the craft of writing a good pantun or even the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the art form? And what is the long-term impact to the Malay language, culture and tradition when a cultural motif is reduced to an AI output?

Sir, I am not suggesting that we return to a time before AI use. We have to adapt. But we need discernment. We must be clear-sighted about what AI can and cannot offer and always ask what is the purpose AI is serving and whether it is fit for that purpose? We must avoid being boxed in into an AI-centric gaze in which we are left with a narrow and artificially mediated understanding of reality and an impoverished capacity to make sense of and relate to the world and those around us. Sir, let me close my speech with a pantun.

(In Malay): When delivering a pantun in Parliament;

It is best not to use AI;

The Malays are cultured and courteous;

The poet's inspiration will not be abandoned.

(In English): When delivering a pantun in Parliament, it is best not to use AI. The Malays are cultured and courteous, the poets' inspiration will not be abandoned.

3.51 pm

Mr Speaker: Order, we have been in the Chambers for close to five hours. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.51 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.

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

An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transition with No Jobless Growth

(Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

4.10 pm

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a director of a company that makes AI-enabled applications and consults on the same.

In the three and a half years since ChatGPT's release, I have had two moments of awe and dread. The first was in November 2022. GPT-3.5 could iterate on software features, generate ideas, write code. Five years ago, it was received wisdom that everyone should learn to code. Today, coding ability is cheap and abundant. Computer science graduates, even from top schools, like Stanford, are finding it difficult to find jobs. GPT-2 was a toy that generated amusing limericks. Three years later, its successors have made an entire profession's scarcity disappear. We used to talk about prompt engineering in 2023 and 2024. That talk has died down too.

The second was in November 2025, when Anthropic released Claude Code, a reliable AI agent paired with a frontier model. I could leave the computer running overnight and there would be work done at the end. It is a different experience from chatting with a chatbot. The chatbot engages you in back and forth, refining your ideas, indulging your whims, red teaming your speeches. The agent, unless it needs clarifications, just goes and does things. It may be off by a bit, but you give your input and it takes another five or 50 minutes before it comes back with the problem solved. A very smart junior colleague.

Now we have AI agents, Claude Code, Codex tools, that have made me, if I may borrow Internet lingo, Claude-pilled. I use Claude Code for my own work. I can give it the most wishy-washy specifications, and it returns the most wonderful data workflow or website layout. For someone who could never build a pretty website to save his life, it is liberating.

There is a spirit of play in working with these tools that every Singaporean deserves to experience. It is an exhausting world it heralds – software engineers pulling 80-hour weeks while running multiple AI agents overnight so that someone, human or machine, is always on the clock. Jobseekers, especially recent graduates in white-collar work, applying to hundreds of jobs without a single interview. Job portals, like LinkedIn, have become memory holds for resumes, where the lived experience is like shooting an application into the void.

The pace of change humbles us all. I am suspicious of any assertion that starts with "AI will never", because the shelf life of those predictions tend to be measured in months. What concerns me is not the destination, but who gets left behind on the way there and whether we are building the institutions to ensure no one does.

I have three propositions. First, that access to premium AI, especially AI agents, must be universal, not gated by course enrolment or union membership. Second, that we must treat the handful of companies building frontier AI with the same strategic seriousness we bring to bilateral relations with countries, because their decisions on pricing, access and deployment now shape our productivity frontier as directly as any trade agreement. Third, that we must buy time for workers by upgrading our retrenchment framework for AI-speed displacement.

Sir, I believe access to premium AI, especially AI agents, is a right, not a privilege. Intelligence, in the sense of uplift, should not stratify according to wealth. I spend a couple of hundred dollars a month on these tools because they are game changing. But for those who cannot afford to, it bakes in inequality from the start. Does it simply disqualify them from the off?

The Government has partially adopted the 2024 suggestions of my colleague Gerald Giam to provide universal premium AI model access. The SkillsFuture Premium AI Access Scheme, six months of free tools for Singaporeans who enrol in selected courses, is a step in the right direction. Likewise, NTUC's subsidies covering 21 AI tools. These are good starts, but they are unnecessarily gated behind course enrolment and union membership. And critically, they likely will not cover AI agents – the tier where the real productivity gap will open.

Why does this matter? AI agents are expensive to run. We may hope agent access follows the cost curve of Internet bandwidth or compute, but there is no necessary reason it should. It is an empirical question.

Anthropic's CEO said in January that 80% of its revenue comes from enterprise customers, driven by API calls on a pay-per-token model. If agents remain enterprise-grade by default, then individual citizens – jobseekers, freelancers, retirees – are locked out of the tier where the real productivity gains are being made.

Three possible directions.

One, negotiate sovereign access – a bulk licensing agreement with frontier AI providers for volume-discounted AI agent access for all citizens.

Two, if agent access is employer-provisioned in the market, make it universally so, require companies above a certain size to provide agent-grade AI to all employees, the same way we require CPF.

Three, if frontier agents remain too costly, identify a minimal, viable agentic tier and fund that universally.

Will the Government make premium AI access a universal entitlement, rather than gate it behind course completion or union membership?

Sir, I learnt recently that even AI engineers at the top two or three frontier AI labs are worried about falling behind because they cannot use Claude Code. And having just returned from China, I learned first-hand that one cannot use Claude Code there at all. Anthropic blocks API calls from mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau entirely.

If even engineers building frontier AI are desperate for access to one another's tools and if entire countries can be locked out, then access is not a convenience. It is a strategic capability. And the question for our country is whether we will secure it or whether we will be price-takers forever.

There are, perhaps, three to five companies in the world whose decisions on pricing, access and deployment will shape every economy's AI trajectory. When Anthropic or OpenAI decides what to charge for agent-tier access or whom to serve, that decision shapes Singapore's productivity frontier as directly as any trade agreement.

We should therefore treat this class of companies – frontier AI firms that have crossed a threshold of systemic importance – with the same strategic seriousness that we bring to bilateral relations with countries. Not because they are sovereign, they lack the durability and legitimacy of states and remain subject to home-state law, but because their decisions carry sovereign-grade consequences for our economy and we should engage them accordingly.

What does that mean in practice? Four things.

First, negotiate access at the sovereign level. In the possible future where frontier AI agent costs go up, not down, Singapore should seek bulk licensing agreements for agent-tier access the same way we negotiate energy supply. This means accepting that frontier AI access may be a permanently higher line item in the national expenditure and procuring it systematically, because the alternative – citizens priced out of the tools that define productivity – is worse.

Second, we trade based on what we have. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has described the AI stack as a five-layer cake: energy, chips, infrastructure, models and applications. In my view, we do not have energy at scale. We do not have frontier model capability. At the application layer, there is little moat outside of the knowledge agglomerations we can build for ourselves. We would be competing with some of the highest cost bases in the world.

But Singapore Inc builds good data centres. And we are among the world's leaders in water reuse and integrated water management, which is a binding constraint on data centre expansion across water-scarce regions in Southeast Asia. If we position ourselves as the infrastructure partner of choice for this region, that is real leverage – something we can bring to the table in exchange for access, for pricing and for presence.

So, when a company like Anthropic or OpenAI approaches us, we should be their preferred regional bilateral partner in rolling out and scaling their data centre build-up regionally, as well as all the infrastructure needed to make these data centres work.

Third, we need to attract real technological presence. We should seek frontier AI companies establishing development offices here – not predominantly sales offices, which was the experience with the FAANG companies in the 2010s. And I would prefer that we be quality-conscious. Most companies that call themselves "AI companies" are not frontier AI companies. We need targeted strategy and engagement with frontier AI companies specifically.

Fourth, get Singaporeans inside these labs. Once you are in the frontier AI ecosystem, it becomes much easier to circulate within that group of companies. I would welcome the Government doing some fact-finding – engaging our local and overseas Singaporeans already in these companies and roles, understanding how they or their colleagues got hired and disseminating that to our students and technical researchers. Right now, anecdotally, half a million to million-US-dollar salaries, excluding equity, in the US for AI researchers are fairly common. So, it is clearly in our interest to figure out how to get more Singaporeans into this tight labour market. What I would really like to see is a Skills Framework for frontier AI lab researcher.

Sir, my last point is about the transition. Let me start with a person. In Hangzhou, a quality assurance supervisor named Zhou joined a tech company in late 2022 at RMB25,000 a month, about S$4,800, reviewing AI model outputs for accuracy and safety. In 2025, his employer decided an AI model could do his job. They offered him a reassignment at roughly 40% less pay. He refused. They terminated him. Zhou went to arbitration and won. The company sued and lost. The company appealed and lost again, at the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. The ruling was published on 28 April this year, three days before International Workers' Day.

The court's reasoning is worth our attention. The company argued that AI had made Zhou's role obsolete – a "major change in objective circumstances", justifying dismissal under China's Labor Contract Law. The court disagreed. AI adoption, it held, is a deliberate business strategy, not an unforeseeable event. A company that chooses to automate cannot unilaterally shift the full cost of that decision onto the worker. The company had not shown the contract was impossible to perform and the reassignment at 40% less pay was not a reasonable alternative. The court added that companies should prioritise retraining workers and helping them transition to higher-level roles.

The principle, that a deliberate business decision should not externalise its full cost onto the worker, deserves serious consideration in Singapore.

If a Singaporean Zhou were retrenched tomorrow under our existing framework, would he win? Our existing Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) is advisory, not statutory. An employer can lawfully automate a role and terminate the worker without first attempting to redeploy or reskill them. And the public purse, through SkillsFuture and Workforce Singapore, would pick up the cost of that worker's transition. There is no AI-specific notice period. There is no statutory redeployment-first obligation. There is no individual cause of action for the worker to challenge the reason for his or her termination.

The data suggests we are entering the zone where this matters. MOM's own fourth quarter of 2025 Labour Market Report reported about 14,490 retrenchments in 2025, up from about 13,000 the year before. PMET retrenchment incidence reached 10.1 per 1,000 resident employees, above the pre-recessionary norm of 8.0 set during 2015 to 2019. Retrenchments were concentrated in Financial Services, Information and Communications, and Professional Services – the most AI-exposed sectors. Information and Communications employment declined outright in 2025.

The Government announced the Tripartite Jobs Council on 30 April. I, of course, welcome its intent. But it creates no new powers, no new obligations on employers and no new rights for displaced workers. How does the Government intend for this Council to work?

Too often, what workers experience is not a frank conversation about AI-driven restructuring but a Performance Improvement Plan, a process that, in many cases, is a bit of "wayang", designed to paper over a predetermined outcome. I foresee that such potential misleading reasons may be given and workers must have the power to be able to challenge this.

I propose three directions. First, a 90-day mandatory transition notice before AI-driven role elimination. Second, a re-deployment-first obligation, retraining or reassignment before AI-driven termination. These provisions will slow the velocity of AI disruption; and velocity is what determines whether adjustment is possible. Third, for workers to be able to substantively challenge the reasons for their termination if they feel they are misleading, so that these AI restructuring protections will be real.

Sir, in closing. Finland gave people unconditional cash as income. They were happier, less stressed – and the great majority still walked into the employment office and asked for work. The American pollster David Shor polled Americans this year: three to one, across every political persuasion, they chose job creation over direct transfers. People, when offered the choice between a universal basic income and employment, invariably choose employment. Not because they are irrational, but because a job is where you are needed, and being needed is not something a universal basic income can replace.

So, no jobless growth – yes. But more than that: no growth where the gains are captured disproportionately by capital and the burden of adjustment falls on labour. Universal access, so intelligence is not rationed by wealth. Strategic engagement, so we are not price-takers in our own future. And a retrenchment framework where the company that decides to automate bears the cost of that decision before the worker does.

I do not think the awe and dread goes away. But in a country that builds for its workers, there is hope for a brighter future. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sanjeev Tiwari.

4.25 pm

Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start, my greetings to my fellow unionists on both sides of the viewing Chamber. Thank you for the support.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as unionists, our role is not just to support change, but to ensure that the change works for our workers. With all the discussions so far, there is no doubt that AI brings about new opportunities, new tools, new ways of working and the potential for better jobs.

For the Labour Movement, an AI transition with no jobless growth must means three things. First, AI augments workers, it does not replace them wholesale. Two, the productivity gains from AI are reinvested into people, into training, into new industries, into better wages and real growth. Three, no worker is left to navigate this transition alone. I will speak to each of these in turn.

Ensuring productivity gains are shared. Mr Deputy Speaker, if we are not deliberate, the gains from AI will not automatically be shared. They will tend to concentrate in firms with the scale and capability to deploy it. The business case for transformation is compelling and I support the Government's announced efforts to support enterprises on this to accelerate their AI adoption, so that they can seize new opportunities.

However, I call on businesses seeking to grow their pie, to be laser-focused on job redesign and training to bring their workers along with them. Here, I must appreciate the many hon Members who have supported this call.

Globally, there are warnings that AI could significantly reduce entry-level white-collar roles in the coming years. Closer to home, DBS Bank has announced plans to reduce its contract and temporary staff by around 4,000 across various markets, with AI adoption.

While firms rationalise their workforce sizes and skills mix, we must be clear-minded that not all of such rationalisation may translate into economic growth that enables our families to thrive, children to flourish and seniors to enjoy their golden years.

Workers are therefore paying attention. They want to know that there are pathways for the gains from AI to benefit workers, and not just management and shareholders. Many workplaces are only at the beginning of figuring out what such pathways need to look like and the pitfalls of failing to provide such pathways.

As mentioned by some Members, recently, courts in China have been active in reviewing cases regarding the dismissal of employees due to AI-related restructuring and choosing to protect labour rights against unfair AI-related lay-offs. In one case, the arbitration panel clarified that AI replacement was not valid grounds for dismissal. In another case, a massive role and salary reduction due to AI taking over the work was not considered a reasonable re-assignment proposal.

I would like to believe that we will not see such court cases in Singapore. Hence, companies must be held to a human transition standard. When a company deploys AI that eliminates roles, it should be required to have a transition plan, re-deployment offers, funded retraining, phased timelines.

It must work with the unions through the CTCs or the tripartite frameworks, to ensure this is managed together. We should make this a baseline, and not the exception. The social contract between employer and employee must evolve alongside technology.

Unions should be involved early in the company's transition plans to integrate new technology, implement job redesign and transition workers to handle new work. In roles that AI is not displacing, AI is increasing the speed, density and complexity of work rather than reducing it.

However, I caution that when AI has pushed human boundaries and job redesign is not done adequately in tandem, there is concern that the working environment will be unsustainable, with very high intensity and pressures that can lead to burn-out, fatigue and poorer psychosocial health. We already see this in many of today's workplaces, especially for PMEs, where work is increasingly outcome-based and the boundaries between work and personal life are more blurred. AI risks accelerating this trend even further.

The psychosocial implications of AI enablement deserve further attention too. Our time-based employment protections were designed for a less digitally connected era with more fixed working hours and clearer boundaries. Today, these new emerging work patterns suggest there is room to further evolve how we can support workers.

This is where our unions in Singapore play a critical role. Through collective agreements, company-level engagements and multi-company initiatives, such as the Queen Bee partnerships for the NTUC's CTC initiative, unions ensure that productivity gains are translated into better jobs, better wages and most importantly better working conditions, not just higher output and shareholder returns. In addition, when AI is deployed to support hiring decisions and performance reviews, we must watch for unintended biases and ensure safeguards for the confidentiality of information.

Supporting workers through transitions. Even when gains are shared, there is a harder question we must confront: what happens to workers whose jobs are displaced altogether?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the standard response we often give is to reskill, adapt, move on. That advice assumes that workers have time, the financial buffer and margin for error to take such risks. However, not all workers have this luxury. I want to be honest, because vague optimism is a luxury that the displaced cannot afford and we must make sure the system watches for this.

This is especially so for our mid-career and older PMEs. They are workers with mortgages and bills to pay, with children still in school and often, elderly parents to take care of. They are not just managing careers. They are carrying entire households.

For them, transitions are high stakes. A failed transition is not just a momentary setback. It can mean prolonged unemployment, income loss and long-term repercussions for their loved ones. And this we are already seeing in the data that is provided by MOM, where there has been a rise in PMET retrenchments compared to the pre-recession norms in 2019, reflecting their greater exposure to sectors undergoing restructuring.

This is where we must go further to support our breadwinners and their families, ensuring that reskilling leads to real job outcomes, that transitions are supported and that pathways to good jobs are clear, especially for those making mid-career shifts.

Instead of welfare, we have workfare. And instead of minimum wages, progressive wage models for key segments of our workforce. For the AI era, we can seek better support for our PME jobseekers. We must continue close monitoring of those who applied for jobseeker support and help them bounce back as soon as possible for the next better job.

Mr Deputy Speaker, giving workers a genuine voice in AI adoption, where the first two pillars of sharing gains and supporting transitions cannot happen without the third. Giving workers a genuine voice in how AI enters their workforces is equally important.

Across advanced economies, one principle is becoming clear, worker voice must be part of how technology reshapes work. In countries, like Belgium, unions and employers are already working together to establish norms around after-hours communication, workload and staffing.

In Singapore, we have a strong foundation in our tripartite model. But as a unionist, I want to make a broader point. If we are serious about ensuring AI is used fairly and that the gains from AI-driven transformation reach workers, then we must welcome unions to represent PMEs who are most vulnerable in the AI era.

PMEs are not a monolithic group – an engineer in aerospace, a financial analyst in banking, a project manager in the tech phase – very different work environments and go through very different impacts of AI transformations. Unions are able to shape workplace norms from ground up, in a targeted manner that recognises diversity. Hence, employers should consider allowing unions to represent PMEs.

The mechanism for having the workers voice at the table is already here – it is the CTC. Through the CTC, unions work directly with management to chart out transformation roadmaps, redesign jobs and upskill workers so that no one is left behind when a company transforms.

Let me just give one example. SBS Transit, with support from the National Transport Workers Union and the CTC Grant, overhauled its bus maintenance operations using AI. The company implemented AI-powered diagnostic systems for predictive maintenance and instead of cutting jobs, it created a new diagnostic expert career scheme for over 50 workers. Such examples must be amplified and more employers should do such things.

We must continue to leverage this to support workers and enterprises in the AI transition. More recently, NTUC is partnering global technology leaders, like Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Huawei, to equip 100,000 workers and 100 enterprises with AI skills through the CTC ecosystem.

At the individual level, union members can also tap on union support for up to half of the subscription fees for AI models. This is in addition to the six-month subscription provided through the Government. I hope more leading multinational corporations can work with our unions to provide more training and uplift the AI skills of workers for our collective future.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I call for Singapore to move forward in these areas.

First, on sharing gains, we must ensure that as enterprises transform with AI, the gains are shared with workers through fair wages, better working conditions and clearer norms around work intensity, including expectations on after working hours communication and responsiveness. They must be calibrated to our Singapore context but clear in intent.

Second, in supporting transitions, we must strengthen how we support workers through the AI transition by ensuring that AI enables enterprises to unlock new growth, that training leads to real job opportunities, that reskilling is twinned with job redesign and that workers are not left to navigate these changes on their own.

Third, in giving workers voice, workers and their unions must be engaged early when AI is introduced into workplaces. Not just on hiring and other employment decisions, but on how AI changes job scopes, workflows and performance expectations. This means welcoming unions' ability to represent PMEs, and scaling mechanisms, like the CTC, so that worker voice is embedded in every transformation journey.

An AI transition with no jobless growth is not a slogan. It is a commitment. A commitment that growth should mean something to everyone, not just those at the top of the economic pyramid. But to the nurse, the teacher, the logistics worker, the small business owner, the young person entering the workforce for the very first time. They are not footnotes in the story of technological progress. They are the reason progress should matter at all. These are not competing priorities; they go hand-in-hand and we are standing at one of those rare inflection points in history where choices we make today will echo for the next generations.

That is where the tripartite partners must deliver, must make this happen and that is also what I hope this House will help us deliver. I strongly support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

4.38 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as someone working in the aerospace and advanced manufacturing industry, focusing on strategy, digital transformation and AI transformation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand here today with a deep sense of gratitude. I grew up in a very ordinary Singaporean home with working class parents, but was given an extraordinary opportunity to build and retrofit advanced factories across the world.

From Germany to the United Kingdom, from North America to Asia, I have had the privilege of building and working on industry 4.0 facilities, cutting edge factories equipped with some of the most sophisticated machines ever created, machines that produce components of such precision that they can only be manufactured in a handful of places in the world and facilities that assembled some of the most advanced engineering systems ever built.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after all these years, one lesson stands above all else. It is not the machine, nor the technology that determines success. It is the people. I have seen factories with the best technology money can buy struggle because of misalignment, because of distrust, because workers, unions, management and government were not moving in the same direction. And I have seen more modest facilities outperform expectations because everyone was aligned to a common purpose.

That is why this debate matters, because when we talk about transformation, especially one driven by AI, we are not just talking about technology. We are talking about people, about workers, about livelihoods, about dignity.

And I want to acknowledge our Labour Movement, NTUC Secretary-General, Mr Ng Chee Meng, and Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Members of this House, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, for putting forth this Motion. Their position is not just right. It is also timely.

It is timely because it complements the direction set out by Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong in his Budget speech and the May Day Rally, where he spoke about how Singapore must confront the realities of AI and global uncertainty while standing firmly with our workers. And even as technology reshapes our economy, we must not leave our people behind.

Our Labour Movement has echoed this with clarity and conviction. That this transition must drive Singapore's next phase of growth, but it must be anchored in fairness and opportunity for all. We must equip both workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities so that progress is not just created but shared. This is the promise we must make to our next generation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, having worked across different countries, I have encountered many labour movements, many focus on protecting jobs, protecting specific jobs that exist today. And often to protect the jobs of today, they invariably have to resist change, even when the tide of change is inevitable. But what we have in Singapore is different.

From my enterprise experience, our tripartite partnership between the NTUC, Singapore National Employees Federation and the Government is unique, so unique that many of my overseas colleagues are genuinely puzzled by how well it works with real positive outcomes for all, because our unions do not just protect jobs, they protect workers.

And our union leaders, like brother Samad from the Union of Power and Gas Employees, brother Fahmi from United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries, brother Poobalan and Goviden from SATS Workers' Union, brother Gabriel from the Amalgamated Union of Statutory Board Employees and many of our union leaders here, stand with the workers, not just for where they are today, but for where they need to be tomorrow. They focus on keeping workers relevant, employable and ready to take on better opportunities as the economy evolves.

And that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is something that we should never take for granted. Allow me to frame my position on the motion around three key ideas: transformative power, opportunity for all and jobless growth.

First, on the transformative power of AI. The impact of AI can be understood at three levels, the individual, the enterprise and the industry. And at every level, success depends on how well workers, businesses and Government work together. At the level of the individual, AI is a force multiplier.

It enhances productivity, augment skills and allows each worker to do more, do better and do faster. Many of us are already experiencing this today through tools, like Open AI, ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Gemini and Canva, but this transformation does not happen by chance. Workers must be prepared to learn, adapt and continuously upgrade themselves, and businesses must invest in training, redesign jobs and empower their workforce to use these tools effectively.

And the Government must provide the support structure, strong skills framework, accessible training pathways and broad-based access to technology. That is why I am encouraged by the support the Government is providing to help Singaporeans adopt AI tools, further strengthened by NTUC's initiative to subsidise AI subscription to its members. This is important because AI cannot become a tool only for the privileged few. It must remain accessible to the masses so that every worker has the opportunity to improve productivity, strengthen capabilities and participate meaningfully in Singapore's next phase of growth.

At the level of the enterprise, AI enables better decision, sharper operations and greater efficiency. It turns data into insights and insights into action. But to realise this, companies need the right framework. Workers need the right capabilities and the Government must provide the right environment to scale transformation responsibly.

At the level of the industry, AI creates entirely new value. It reshapes business model. It transforms competition and unlocks new growth. In a tight labour market, like Singapore, this enterprise and industry transformation must go hand in hand with deep business process re-engineering and meaningful job redesign, as mentioned by a few of the Members here.

And speaking from my own experience in the industry, the decision to adopt AI is really just about tax incentives, as characterised by Member Mr Andre Low. The real driver is how we upskill and reskill our workers so that they can take on higher value-added jobs that are increasing in demand and the opportunity cost of not doing so.

The tax incentives help companies invest in the necessary AI tools and infrastructure. But equally important are the schemes that support workers through this transition, whether it is programmes such as the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant, NTUC CTC Grant, the Union Training Assistance Programme, and Workforce Singapore's Career Conversion Programmes, these initiatives support job redesign, training and even provide wage support while workers undergo upskilling and reskilling.

Very often, AI adoption is not a binary choice between technology and workers. It is about re-engineering business processes so that enterprises can do more with a more capable, more skilled and more productive workforce to take on the challenges of the world.

These values, unlocked by AI, must be shared – shared so that workers are uplifted, businesses grow stronger and society moves forward together. But ultimately, this is a social compact we must continue to uphold between workers, businesses and government – one anchored on fairness, inclusion and shared progress.

Taken together, AI is not just any other technology tool. It is a system-wide transformation. That is why tripartism matters even more in the age of AI. And I am heartened to hear the position of the Labour Movement.

Second, on opportunity for all. Mr Speaker, this transition will create economic growth. But it is also a period of real uncertainty. We must acknowledge these challenges. Our fresh graduates are feeling it. Many struggle to secure permanent roles. Multiple internships are becoming the norm. At what point do we ask whether this becomes a substitute for proper employment?

As AI reshapes professions from developers to lawyers, how do we ensure there are still meaningful entry points for our young people? If companies begin to question entry-level roles, then we must also ask, who will train the next generation of our workforce?

Our mid-career workers feel this even more deeply. With families and responsibilities, they worry that job transformation may render their experience less relevant. Our blue-collar workers – our technicians, our operators and drivers – are asking hard questions about automation and the future of their jobs.

These fears are real. If left unaddressed, they can divide our society. That is why this opportunity for all cannot be left to market forces alone, a point also raised by Member Poh Li San. It requires companies and especially middle managers to give fresh graduates a real chance. It requires businesses to redesign jobs and invest honestly in upskilling and reskilling. It requires all of us to work together so that every Singaporean can find their place in this new economy. Only then can we say that this is not just growth, but opportunity for all.

Finally, on jobless growth. In many economies, jobless growth means growth without jobs. But in Singapore, our context is different. We are already near full employment. So, this is not just about creating more jobs. It is about ensuring our people can take on the jobs that are created.

Because growth will come and new roles will emerge. But if our workers are not ready, if skills are not kept in pace, we risk a different kind of jobless growth – not a lack of jobs, but a mismatch between jobs and the skills our workforce has. Avoiding this means focusing on capability, not just capacity.

Businesses must transform jobs, not eliminate them. Workers must continue learning. The Government must support hope with strong systems and pathways.

When we do this well, growth will not leave people behind. It will lift them. My Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the discussion about AI today is no longer something distant from our lives. In Singapore and around the world, one thing is clear – AI brings hope, but also concern.

Within our Malay/Muslim community, these concerns are real. Young people worry about the future of employment and whether opportunities still exist for them. Those in mid-career are anxious about whether their experience and skills remain relevant. And blue-collar workers – including drivers, technicians and general workers – wonder whether their jobs will be replaced by automation.

We must acknowledge these concerns. But at the same time, we cannot view AI only as a threat. We must see it as an opportunity – an opportunity to progress together.

Allow me to touch on three important points in the AI transformation.

First, on building skills to be part of this transformative force. AI will only become a force multiplier if we know how to use it. That is why we must be prepared to continuously upgrade ourselves – to reskill and upskill.

This is where it is important for us to make use of the support available – whether through Workforce Singapore (WSG) programmes, NTUC, or community initiatives, such as M³+. At M³+ Pasir Ris–Changi, for example, we run various programmes to help the community enhance their skills and employment opportunities. These include Women-at-Work to help women return to the workforce, as well as the Career Marketplace held in Pasir Ris to open access to career opportunities and employment networks.

And these efforts do not stop there. Through the HashTech programme in Pasir Ris–Changi, we are beginning to introduce our children to AI, robotics and autonomous systems – including through activities such as Robot Wars. This is not merely an activity. It is an effort to build confidence, exposure and future-ready skills from a young age.

Regarding skills, the fear of AI should not prevent us from learning how to use it wisely. The concern that AI could diminish any deep understanding of the Malay language and culture, as well as other skills, is understandable – if it is used without understanding the basics and its limitations.

Like any other tool, what matters is how we use it. Mastery of and appreciation for the Malay language remains key in understanding its beauty, values, and meaning.

However, if used appropriately, AI can also help preserve our heritage. AI can assist in digitalising old Jawi manuscripts, producing batik designs inspired by traditional Malay motifs and facilitating the learning and translation of the Malay language. Even classic Malay films can be preserved for future generations.

Technology should not erode our identity. If used wisely, AI can help preserve the language, strengthen culture and carry Malay heritage into the future with confidence.

Allow me also to share a pantun.

Golden bananas brought to sea,

One ripens atop a chest,

If AI is used very wisely,

Culture is inherited, in the heart it rests.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at its heart, this is not just an economic transition. This is a test of our social compact, a compact that must now be renewed for a new era where businesses commit to not just profits but to people, where workers commit to not just jobs, but to lifelong growth, and where the Government continues to stand with both, ensuring that no one is left behind.

If we can do this, if we can move forward together with trust, purpose and shared responsibility, this transformation will not divide us. It will make us stronger because when workers, businesses and the Government move together, we do not just adapt to change. We shape it, we benefit from it and we ensure that every Singaporean moves forward together. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Terence Ho.

4.54 pm

Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this timely Motion. I would like to first declare my interest as the executive director of the Institute for Adult Learning at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.

AI, as we know, is a transformative technology. All of us recognise that it will profoundly transform business models across the economy and with it, the content and nature of work.

As a small, open and technologically advanced nation, Singapore must strive to be at the forefront of new technologies, especially one as significant as AI. In addition to being critical for our economy, AI also has considerable potential to help address Singapore's demographic and societal challenges. But whether we embrace AI or fear it, there is no escaping the impact it will have on our companies and workforce.

I will make four points in my speech.

First, jobless growth is not an option for Singapore as good jobs are integral to inclusive growth and to a fair and vibrant society.

Singapore's social compact is based on self-reliance through work. This means providing for oneself and one's family through employment and income. It has been said before in this House many years ago that "a job is the best welfare, and full employment is the best protection for the workers of Singapore."

In this social contract, the Government's role is to nurture a pro-enterprise business environment conducive to investment and job creation. Any Singaporean who is willing to work hard will have enough to meet his or her housing, healthcare and retirement needs through CPF savings. In practice, significant Government support is given in the form of housing grants, CPF top-ups and healthcare subsidies to support home ownership, retirement adequacy and healthcare assurance.

Singapore's socioeconomic model has evolved over time. We now have more extensive risk pooling through social insurance, complementing individual savings in meeting healthcare and long-term care needs. There is more structural or permanent social support in the form of the Workfare Income Supplement and Silver Support. And the Government, recognising the greater risk of economic and job disruption, has introduced income relief for the involuntarily unemployed through SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support, which has been discussed by Members of this House.

Yet employment and income remain central to Singapore's socioeconomic model and social compact. Recent advances in AI pose a challenge to this model. Globally renowned AI pioneers and industry leaders have warned of the possibility of mass job displacements arising from AI. Predictions of a so-called "white collar bloodbath" or a "jobs apocalypse" have stoked public fear even as other commentators have asserted that these fears are overwrought.

Transformative technologies in the past have indeed eliminated certain jobs, but they have created new jobs as well so that we are not all without jobs or leading lives of unlimited leisure.

Generative AI has raised particular concern because it can take over jobs and tasks associated with human skill and creativity, including cognitive tasks such as coding and data analysis and creative tasks such as writing and design. These tasks require skills built through years of education and training and are consequently well remunerated. They underpin many of the good jobs that Singaporeans aspire to.

While we should not underestimate the disruption from AI, there is still time to adapt and respond. That is because the extent of job disintermediation or displacement depends on the speed of technology diffusion, which has historically followed an S-curve.

I filed a Parliamentary Question in March asking whether MOM has detected any signs of AI prompting a slowdown in the hiring of fresh graduates. Indeed, many Members of this House have pointed to this concern. The response I received then, which was reaffirmed yesterday as well, was that employment rates for young degree holders has remained broadly stable.

This may be because the adoption of AI is still in its early stages for many companies here. It takes time for more firms to move from viewing AI as a mere project or productivity enhancement tool to fundamentally re-organising work processes around it. As the pace of AI adoption picks up, however, the benefits to firm productivity and profits will grow, but so too will the impact on jobs.

A related concern that many in this House have also discussed is that in the AI age, profits will increasingly accrue to technology companies and those who own shares in these companies, and less to workers as skills become commoditised.

While we must consider the need for greater social support and new channels of redistribution to keep our society inclusive, we must also continue to equip citizens to provide for themselves through good jobs and incomes.

Some of us may remember what President Tharman explained in an interview in 2015 at the St Gallen Symposium. He was describing Singapore’s approach, and I quote: "It is about keeping alive a culture where I feel proud that I own my home and I earn my own success through my job. I feel proud that I’m raising my family. And keeping that culture going is what keeps a society vibrant."

If we look around the world at how economies have developed, it is clear that the key to success is the emergence of a strong middle class enabled by education and job creation. Many countries with large natural resource endowments have not done well, because their focus has been on resource extraction, benefiting the few, rather than education and skills development, which benefit the many. It is also evident that Singapore succeeded precisely because people are our only resource. Singapore's economic development has been a story of inclusive growth – and that is the path we must stay on.

This brings me to my second point, which is that we must support workers to develop deep domain knowledge, learning agility and career resilience. To equip workers for the AI age, training in AI tools is certainly important. Familiarity with AI and understanding of the strengths and limitations of different AI tools comes with frequent use, tinkering and experimentation. But that, as many in this House have also realised, is only part of the answer. After all, AI tools are supposed to become more intuitive and easier to use over time.

The real value that people bring to jobs lies in deep understanding of domains or subject matter, which means all of us still have to put in the hard yards to learn and avoid "cognitive offloading" by creating productive friction in the learning process, whether in schools or at the workplace. AI can provide the scaffolding and can help personalise learning, but it must not become a substitute for thinking.

The key skill that many have identified is learning how to learn, being adaptable and resilient to changes. This means getting out of our comfort zones, continuously challenging ourselves, getting used to different tasks and work environments, and working in diverse teams.

This is everybody's responsibility: to take ownership of our own learning and career development, leveraging public funding and resources where available.

Employers too have a responsibility. The Singapore Opportunity Index developed by MOM highlights how employers can create opportunities for their workers such as through recruitment practices, career development pathways and job design. By identifying employers with a good track record of supporting career growth, employers will hopefully be encouraged to invest in their workers and help them chart their careers.

The third point I would like to bring up is that we must not only upskill workers for jobs, but also upgrade jobs for workers. As I mentioned in my speech at MOM’s Committee of Supply debate, there will continue to be strong demand for workers in areas such as healthcare and skilled trades, driven by an ageing population and the relative resilience of these roles to AI displacement.

However, such jobs have difficulty attracting Singaporeans as they are perceived to be less prestigious or rewarding, or perhaps less comfortable compared with white-collar office jobs. But the risk is that Singapore will become increasingly dependent on foreigners to take on essential work even as Singaporeans struggle to find jobs that meet their aspirations.

Today, over 40% of the resident workforce have university degrees. Jobs and occupations that have traditionally been regarded as non-degree jobs therefore have to be redesigned to be suitable for a broad range of workers, including graduates.

Pay is only part of the issue. The jobs have to be redesigned to tap on workers' "head, heart and hand" skills, so that they are more engaging for workers and more resilient to AI disruption. This may involve taking on greater professional responsibility, increasing the cognitive, analytical and innovation content of jobs, and creating more opportunities for interpersonal engagement in the jobs. AI tools can in fact support the upgrading of vocational and semi-skilled jobs by augmenting human expertise. By making the whole range of these jobs attractive to Singaporeans, we can avoid structural overqualification or underemployment. Enterprises can do so by centring job design on skills rather than credentials.

My fourth point is that Singapore should build up expertise as a global reference point for skills-first and human-centric job redesign. A skills-first approach means that workers are not pigeonholed by formal qualifications into certain jobs or occupations. Employers recognise that workers, regardless of their starting point, can upskill to meet job requirements. Likewise, the scope of jobs and occupations can expand to make fuller use of workers' skills.

AI is already fractionalising jobs – breaking them down into tasks, some of which are assigned to AI and others to human workers. It is important for job redesign to be human centric so that human workers can still make a valuable contribution, augmented by AI and technology, rather than have processes entirely automated with minimal human involvement.

With agentic AI now able to execute processes that span multiple job roles, it is no longer enough to redesign tasks within a particular job. Instead, organisations must look at redesigning end-to-end work processes. This is a capability that must be embedded within organisations as AI continually reshapes the nature of work. Singapore has the opportunity to set the pace in skills-first employment practices and human-centric job redesign, which will benefit both our firms and workers and is critical for our social compact.

The Institute for Adult Learning’s Centre for Skills-First Practices recently launched a series of skills-first working papers and accompanying roundtable discussions. They attracted much international attention, with participation from experts, policy-makers and industry practitioners around the world.

The impact of AI on work and learning is an issue that all countries and societies are grappling with, and no one has all the answers. It is a fertile area of research as firms and societies seek to adapt and transform. We are in a complex operating environment with no tried-and-tested playbook to fall back on. As one corporate leader I spoke with recently put it: we are learning and adapting mid-flight.

Both learning and job redesign in the age of AI must be iterative and experimental. We need the best minds in Singapore and around the world focused on this. Just as Singapore has world-leading research centres in new technologies like quantum computing, we should build up expertise and experience in adult learning and human-centric job redesign.

Today, there are nodes of excellence across the institutes of higher learning. For instance, the polytechnics and ITE are among the national centres of excellence for workplace learning. The Singapore Management University has set up a Resilient Workforces Institute, while the Singapore Institute of Technology has launched a Skills Assessment and Validation initiative. At the Singapore University of Social Sciences, the Institute for Adult Learning has an Adult Learning Collaboratory and a Centre for Skills-First Practices. With end-to-end expertise from research to translation, the Institute for Adult Learning can serve as a national focal point for adult learning and employability.

Together, we can build up Singapore as a thought leader and living laboratory in the areas of adult learning, career health, human-AI complementarity and skills-first practices. As a global innovator plugged into international networks of cutting-edge research and practice, Singapore can help to shape the future of work in a way that supports both economic growth as well as human flourishing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before us powerfully expresses the commitment of Singapore’s tripartite partners to inclusive development that benefits both workers and firms. This is important because it can no longer be taken for granted that economic growth in the future will be accompanied by full employment and rising incomes. Beyond adapting to AI, our end goal must be to enable every worker to grow, to contribute and to find meaning in work.

The formation of the National AI Council and the Tripartite Jobs Council underscores this commitment. It is a whole-of-nation effort where everyone has a part to play.

Recently, an American journalist approached me to find out how Singapore is addressing AI and its impact on jobs. She noted that many major US corporations are under pressure to slash headcounts to boost profits. Indeed, there are expectations from shareholders and investors that management will replace workers with AI. When I shared with her that Singapore’s priority is equipping workers to work with and alongside AI, she described the contrast, in her words, as "stark" and "inspiring".

With our unique tripartite collaboration and the commitment of all partners, I believe that companies and workers can approach the coming AI transition with resolve and confidence.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.

5.09 pm

Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI can be scary. I recall the first time at work when I received a draft legal submission from my younger colleague who had some content generated by AI, the alarm bells went off in my mind. "Is the content reliable? Am I going to be taken to task by the Court for submitting this?" I was anxious and worried even though the content had been verified and put together with considered "human"-generated legal analysis.

This incident made me recollect what happened when I first joined the legal profession. I would find written memos on my desk with instructions on matters from a particular Senior Partner. When I asked once, whether an email might be easier, I was told that an email was not reliable and that with a written memo, he was assured that I would receive the message. We all know better than to argue with our bosses but eventually, the written memos did move onto become emails, perhaps with the realisation that the email instructions would reliably reach me, even after office hours.

As with each industrial and technological transformation in history, be it the steam engine, electricity, digitalisation with personal computers, connectivity with the Internet and now AI, change and transition always bring with them anxiety and the fear of the unknown. Humans are wired to be untrusting of that which we cannot control – and maybe even rightly so.

With AI, we feel this acutely in Singapore. Many Members in the House have spoken about these concerns and the anxieties felt by Singaporeans from all walks of life. As the adage goes, "change is the only constant". Fear of the unknown is a natural reaction, but we should use it as a galvanising force to re-think old ways, learn new ones and as a result, seize new opportunities and grow.

This Motion is therefore a timely one. It recognises that harnessing AI to grow, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, while AI can be a driver for the next phase of Singapore’s economic development; on the other, if its development and deployment is left unfettered, it can lead to societal ills such as job displacement and widening inequality.

As the Prime Minister pointed out during his Budget Statement, AI is but a "tool". How we harness it and manage its deployment will shape our economy, our jobs, our lives. Our approach to AI-enabled growth, as the Motion states, therefore, must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunities for all. The Motion resonates because it is about putting people at the centre of Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth. Growth must be inclusive and benefit our people. We cannot have jobless growth at all costs.

Sir, awareness of AI's disruptive nature to the workplace and to our workforce is extremely high. The anxieties and concerns of our workers and PMEs across industries are not hypothetical. They are real, even quantifiable. A recent NTUC survey found that more than half of our PMEs feel an urgent need to upskill just to stay relevant. Nearly a third are actively anxious about being replaced. Other studies have shown that half of Singaporeans fear that their roles could be automated, and many are concerned that AI will benefit the bottom-lines of corporations more than it benefits the everyday worker.

Our young graduates entering the workforce for the first time face a daunting reality. As AI automates routine execution, employers are raising the bar, demanding higher-order critical thinking and AI collaboration skills from the outset. Left on its own, the AI disruption could very well lead to unfair outcomes. Organisations and individuals who manage a head-start or transition well, will benefit exponentially, while those who do not, will be left behind.

For years, we have proactively anticipated a disruption like this, by investing and imbuing in Singaporeans the value of lifelong learning and the need to regularly upskill through programmes, such as SkillsFuture. This has put us in a good starting position as we push hard on AI adoption, like the National AI Impact Programme that aims to support 10,000 enterprises and help 100,000 workers become more AI fluent.

However, AI fluency and literacy among the general population is also equally important.

On this I would like to raise two points.

First, you will recollect my personal anecdote at the start of my speech. Fluency with any tool, be it computers or smart phones in the past or AI today, is about building confidence.

Mr Lim Boon Heng, a former NTUC Secretary-General shared with me, his experience with the Government's computerisation efforts in the 1980s. It was a strategic decision at the time, but workers were afraid of computers. So, the Government designed computer appreciation courses that were rolled out by the NTUC, using early Apple computers. Familiarisation with the use of the keyboard and for those who remember, playing games like PacMan. Workers slowly got past the fear and embraced the familiarity. Importantly, the key message must be, this is a tool that can help you do a job, better, faster. Now, that new tool is AI.

While it is vital that we upskill our workers to leverage on the AI tools that are relevant for their respective workplaces, AI fluency and literacy should be a national endeavour that is available in our schools, our Community Clubs and even our Active Ageing Centres.

The idea is to embed AI fluency and literacy as a part of life, be it in creating a simple e-greeting card with an AI tool that creates moving graphics or building a billion-dollar company using bots. Only then can we envision an entire people advancing collectively together in an economy with AI-enabled growth.

If embracing AI is a national strategic move, then we should roll out a national AI literacy and fluency programme for all Singaporeans.

Second, supporting workers to become AI fluent should be more than just providing them with the AI tools and the know-how on using them. We must also equip and afford workers the time and ability to learn how to apply the AI tools in their workplaces.

Getting young graduates past the door, and securing older workers and PMEs in new roles are imperative, but if AI is to transform our economy, we must ensure that our workforce learns effectively through deeper learning while persuading our businesses and organisations to create workplaces and systems that allow our workers to test their new skills, learn from mistakes and improve. Learning must be coupled with building capability.

At its broadest and most pervasive use as a tool, AI can generate content, summarise and answer in seconds. We need a workforce that not only can use the AI tool to obtain these outcomes, but to work with AI as a collaborative partner while applying judgment, reason, creativity and context to drive high-impact value – the human elements.

Prof Er Meng Hwa, in a recent Business Times article advocating for deeper learning, gave the example of Micron Singapore, whose in-house AI upskilling initiative did not stop at awareness but allowed employees to use AI tools to extract insights faster, analyse risks better, automate route tasks, plan projects more effectively and improve decision-making.

How do we persuade more businesses and organisations to devote the time and precious resources to obtain these objectives together with us? Upskilling our workforce to ensure that they have the necessary credentials and knowledge may get them past the door, but it is no guarantee that businesses and organisations will employ and train workers in the way that will build on and optimise their AI capabilities.

This Government has been deliberate in focusing our policies on long-term advancement rather than on short-term gains. I am therefore confident that the AI National Council, led by the Prime Minister, will lay out plans and initiatives on the same basis.

In fact, we already have, within our system, the ability for the Government, unions and employers to collaborate closely to achieve the long-term objective of ensuring that our workforce is effectively equipped with the knowledge, skills, deep understanding and practical application outcomes.

Our tripartite model, where all three partners, having built trust, mutual respect and equal partnership over decades, working hand in hand through this new phase of AI adoption, will help us to ensure that our workers, our businesses and our economy can seize new opportunities and advance together.

Before I conclude, I wish to support the proposal by NTUC Secretary-General, Mr Ng Chee Meng, for the setting up of a market intelligence and foresight system contextualised to the Singapore market. We can appreciate how useful it would be to draw insights from information, data points, analysis and the research of tripartite partners to sense-make for early signals, coordinate responses and provide proactive early intervention, where necessary.

That said, while supporting our workers to retrain and move on to different roles to prevent displacement is important, we should also explore the possibility of using information from the same system to identify how the Government can incentivise AI startups to create new jobs and opportunities for our workforce. For example, it has been reported that AI movie production startups in China are supported with incentives and financial support. They are reported to have pioneered micro-dramas or vertical dramas that is a new entertainment format making waves globally.

Sir, if we are to leverage on AI as the next phase of Singapore’s economic development, we must transform, not only our economy but also the lives of every worker, every Singaporean. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

5.20 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. I would like to thank my NTUC sisters and brothers in this House for coming to support this Motion.

Knowledge workers like PMEs are highly exposed to AI, unlike earlier waves of automation that mostly impacted the rank and file. Many of our middle-income PMEs belong to a sandwiched or under-served group. They are expected to perform like the top but are less protected than the bottom and they face increased competition from foreign PMEs. Mid-career PMEs are sandwiched between younger and older dependents, and cannot afford to lose their jobs. Yet they can take a longer time to find new jobs when displaced due to their higher income and age, often at the expense of a pay cut.

We perceive PMEs as privileged and adaptable, who have resources and can take individual responsibility to upskill and also to cope with setbacks. This assumption no longer holds true. AI is set to both augment and disrupt job tasks across all PME sectors at all levels. We must recognise AI as a transformative technology that has the potential to create new opportunities and shared prosperity but also the potential to widen inequality by concentrating wealth and power at the top, especially if guardrails are disregarded for the broad middle in the race to adopt AI.

To this end, I submit that Singapore’s approach to AI must be human-centred while AI-enabled growth must be worker-centred. This means that we commit to what I call the "3 Es”. The “3 Es” are equitable growth, enhanced protections and engaged workforce.

First "E", equitable growth. When we talk about AI-driven jobless growth, this does not necessarily mean mass unemployment. However, it may mean that the gains from AI may not trickle down to the broad middle. Earlier this year, the Economic Development Board (EDB) announced that the expected number of jobs to be created fell to 15,700, the lowest in at least 20 years, despite having attracted more investments than the year before. This indicates that while we may not see jobless growth, we may well see growth with less jobs. Jobseekers could be competing for fewer vacancies, underemployment could rise and wages could stagnate. Young graduates may find more challenges securing full-time employment compared to before.

Globally, we have already seen a wave of companies, especially those in the tech sector, announce wide-ranging job cuts citing AI as a cause.

Equitable growth means that gains from AI-enabled growth will be shared with workers, in the form of better wages, welfare and work prospects. As a start, we need to raise our standards for what constitutes fair and responsible retrenchment, such as by requiring early retrenchment notifications, supporting unions to negotiate for retrenchment benefits according to industry norms and designing AI grant incentives with conditions requiring employers to demonstrate efforts to meaningfully re-deploy workers whose roles and tasks are taken over by AI.

As Singapore aims to attract the world’s top AI talent to our shores, we must also ensure this builds up and strengthens our Singaporean Core. I ask that the Government encourage reciprocity through programmes, like the Capability Transfer Programme, so that knowledge and expertise flow to our local PMEs. At the same time, the Government can also invest in homegrown AI talent by sending them on training stints to top AI companies overseas through programmes like the Overseas Market Immersion Programme. Bringing in global expertise and developing our own global talent pipeline are two sides of the same coin. Both deepen the capabilities of our local workforce.

Second “E”, enhanced protections. Inevitably, some workers will be impacted in the transition to AI. We cannot leave them to sink or survive on their own. They will need career guidance, financial support and grace to bounce back stronger. I thank the Government for launching the Jobseeker Support Scheme for the involuntarily unemployed workers to benefit from transitional support for up to six months while they train or search for their next job.

The income threshold for Jobseeker Support Scheme is currently set at $5,000 excluding CPF, which would only cover less than 20% of resident PMEs. I hope that the Government will consider raising this threshold to the gross median resident PME income, currently at $8,400 as of 2025, or consider some other suitable schemes of equivalence to address the needs of impacted PMEs. By the same token, the Government can also consider allowing those with HDB housing loans a temporary deferment for up to six months, especially if they are unable to meet the mortgage payments to ease immediate cashflow needs.

Singapore has taken a considered, framework-based approach to AI governance. We are not behind. We are being deliberate. Through IMDA's Model AI Governance Framework, the Cyber Security Agency’s addendum to secure agentic AI systems and voluntary testing toolkits, we have encouraged innovation and responsible adoption.

But as AI moves from assisting decisions to making them, including in hiring, promotion and restructuring, we must keep pace. Other advanced economies have already taken the lead to explicitly classify employment-related AI as “high risk”.

This matters greatly to workers. Will recruitment AI automatically rank candidates with disabilities lower? If HR relies on an AI tool to shortlist who stays and who goes during restructuring, what recourse does a worker have if the outcome feels unfair? Who is accountable in this case – the HR team, the employer who procured the AI tool or the developer who built it?

These are not hypothetical concerns. A joint Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)-GovTech study found that large learning models can reliably guess personal characteristics, like gender of candidate from other data points like hobbies and volunteering, even when resumes are anonymised.

We are fortunate to have passed the Workplace Fairness Act. Its principles – that employment decisions must be fair and merit-based and that every worker deserves fair access to good jobs – should apply regardless of whether those decisions are made by a human or by an algorithm.

But while these principles are technology-agnostic, our current anti-discrimination levers have yet to explicitly address how they interact with AI-mediated decisions. As AI adoption accelerates, employers need clarity on what responsible use looks like, and workers need assurance that existing protections travel with them into an AI-enabled workplace. We should close this gap, not with regulations that stifles innovation but with clear, practical tripartite guidelines to ensure the just and fair transition. Singapore's strength is our tripartite approach and we should leverage it.

To that end, I ask that the Government consider the following. First, that employers who adopt employment-related AI be guided to conduct risk assessments proportionate to the level of impact and ensure meaningful human oversight. Second, that HR professionals be supported with training and self-assessment tools to use AI responsibly and identify biasness. Officers involved in data governance and cybersecurity can also update their skills and knowledge in this evolving area as more companies adopt AI that is integrated with enterprise data. And third, that workers be given transparency. They should know where AI is being used in decisions that affect them, what guardrails are in place and how existing avenues of redress apply. And fourth, that we explore going upstream, working with AI vendors and developers to ensure that the underlying software meets some baseline principles of fairness and transparency before it reaches our workplaces. The International Labour Organization has started this journey and Singapore, with our tripartite DNA, can be a frontrunner in this space.

Third and final "E", engaged workforce. Workers master AI and figure out how to embed AI into their workflows, not the other way round. Ultimately, an organisation cannot be run by no workers and AI alone. Simply imposing AI from the top will not produce results and can even create resistance and sunk cost. Workers are end-users and experts in their own workflows. They know where AI adds value and where it falls short. If you want AI to work, you have to ask the people who do the work.

We already have a proven mechanism for doing exactly this – our NTUC's CTCs. CTCs bring management, unions and workers together at the company level to co-design transformation plans, pairing technology adoption with job redesign, skills upgrading and better wages.

Let me share one example which the Prime Minister shared during the May Day rally. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), where our Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) worked with management through the CTC to roll out a Smart Scheduler that could handle multiple shift patterns and cut rostering time from more than 90 minutes to under 15, so that nurse managers could spend more time on other core work instead.

Senior Enrolled Nurse Lilian Teng, 69 years old, who has worked at TTSH for the past 19 years, put it simply: with technology making work less physically demanding, she can continue working effectively for as long as she remains healthy. That is what an engaged workforce looks like.

But company-level efforts alone will not be enough. With the formation of the Tripartite Jobs Council, the Government, employers and unions can now coordinate sectoral transformation with workers at the centre, ensuring that AI training, job redesign and transition support are shaped by those on the ground, not just decided from the top.

Critically, the Tripartite Jobs Council can level up the CTC ecosystem to extend its reach beyond large employers to SMEs that may not have the resources to navigate their transformation alone. CTCs engage workers at the company level. The Tripartite Jobs Council will do it at the national level. Together, they ensure that AI transition is not something done to our workers, but with them. In Chinese, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI is here – and it has arrived fast and with force. But we must ask: when AI generates wealth, whose pockets does it go into? I raise three points.

First, share the cake fairly. AI creates wealth, but that wealth cannot flow only to employers. Workers help bake the cake and they deserve a slice of it too.

Second, if jobs are lost, we cannot leave people to fend for themselves. The eligibility criteria for Jobseeker Support assistance can be broadened, so that more PMEs can benefit and have greater security. We must put up the umbrella before the rain comes – prepare for the storm before it arrives.

Third, walk this road together. The AI transition cannot be decided by employers alone. As the saying goes, three cobblers together are better than a Zhuge Liang. The tripartite partners, unions and employers must work together, only then can we go far, steady and fast.

Share the cake fairly and walk forward together. That is the AI future that belongs to every Singaporean – one that puts people at its heart.

(In English): To conclude, there has been much said about AI as a double-edged sword. This metaphor has been used ad nauseam, but this is not untrue.

AI's impact on the broad middle means that it is a "once-in-a-generation technology" but could also be a once-in-a-generation divider that concentrates gains to those who control AI while displacing the very same workers who helped to design, implement and build it.

Equitable growth, enhanced protections and engaged workforce. These are three principles that must guide us in the way forward if we hope to anchor AI as an enabler in our AI transition in fairness, resilience and opportunities for all, because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Jasmin Lau.

5.34 pm

The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to Members today. There is genuine concern across the House about what AI will mean for our workers. These concerns are real. The Government shares them.

We cannot slow down the development of AI. But we will not leave its outcomes to chance. We will work hard to secure a different deal between the companies that prosper here and the workers whose effort makes that prosperity possible.

Where companies benefit from operating and growing in Singapore, we will expect a fair deal for workers. Not just in words, but in how jobs are designed, how people are trained and how gains are shared. Where public resources and policies are used in support of business transformation, we expect companies to deliver clear and meaningful outcomes for workers.

In my conversations and engagements across the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and MOE work and through the Economic Strategy Review, the same concerns come up again and again. Will my job exist in five years' time? Will AI widen inequality and leave the vulnerable behind? If AI makes companies more productive, will workers share in the gains?

These are not unreasonable fears. They come from people who have worked hard, built up skills and experience over time, and now sense that the ground is shifting beneath them. I will take each of these questions in turn.

First, on whether today's jobs will continue to exist. Let me be honest. Some roles will change substantially. Roles built primarily around repeating the same steps are the most exposed. This is not a verdict on the value of the people who do that work. It is a signal to us in government and to employers that we need to act now and not after the disruption arrives. And act, we will.

But AI is more than just a technological advancement that replaces jobs. At the same time, it is opening up entirely new ways of working and new kinds of roles that did not exist before.

Some academics have described AI as an "invention of a method of invention". It expands the space of problems that can be solved, the products that can be built and industries that we can create. A small biotech team in Singapore can run experiments that would have required a national lab decades ago. A solo founder can ship software that took a hundred-man firm to deliver three years ago.

So, competition sharpens, but the frontier also moves outward. That is why the Economic Strategy Review Committee that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan and I co-chaired, focused on identifying new areas where Singapore can use AI to build a real competitive edge. And the Prime Minister's National AI Council will take this forward.

Members have pointed out the impact of AI on PMEs, as AI automates routine and analytical tasks. The Economic Strategy Review team recognised this, which is why helping businesses and workers proactively navigate the transition was the focus of the committee chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming and Minister of State Desmond Choo.

For displaced workers, the committee studied how the Government, employers and unions could offer more timely help. As mentioned in our mid-term update, the Economic Strategy Review is studying ways to encourage earlier retrenchment notifications as raised by Mr Ng Chee Meng.

On PMEs specifically, the committee recognises that they may face greater job uncertainties and will recommend more targeted support. This includes considering enhancements to the Jobseeker Support Scheme, as Mr Patrick Tay suggested, and tapping on private sector expertise to strengthen placement support for this group.

For workers at risk of displacement, the Economic Strategy Review will recommend practical ways to help them move into more resilient roles with stronger demand. We will identify sectors with sustained labour demand and lower AI displacement risk, and we will work with unions and employers in those sectors to create clear, supported entry points for workers making the transition. We must make these pathways walkable and not just visible.

To illustrate, a mid-career worker in a routine administrative role, for example in data entry or customer service, could be worried about AI displacing him. With job facilitation and reskilling support, the worker should be able to move into a sector where there are roles that build on his existing skillsets. For example, the worker could explore adjacent roles in healthcare administration. This is where we are seeing robust demand given the growth of our population healthcare needs, and healthcare requires uniquely human skills that are more resilient to disruption.

All this requires more than courses. It requires employers, unions, training providers and placement support working closely together, so that workers do not fall through the cracks during transition.

No government in the world has all the answers to this transition and I would be wary of any that claims otherwise. What we in Singapore can commit to is this: we will not wait for perfect solutions before acting. We are starting now and we will adjust our efforts along the way.

Second, on inequality. Members are right to worry. Technologies that amplify capability can also amplify gaps between those who adapt quickly and those who struggle to keep up. As Mr Mark Lee points out, some risks we face are that productivity gains accrue more to those already ahead, while the bottom of the career ladder may face erosion.

Our response is to raise the floor and widen the door. This means starting earlier: building AI literacy into our schools, so that all students develop confidence with AI and not just those who have access to resources.

Currently, every ITE and polytechnic student is already taught AI literacy as part of their course, and we are now bringing AI literacy and safe AI tools into primary and secondary school classrooms. This means that all students, regardless of economic background can learn about AI safely. They can also learn how AI can benefit their learning, such as to help them refine their ideas, and they also learn when they should not use AI.

As Minister Desmond also pointed out earlier today, we are committed to supporting students who may not have strong family or parental supervision and support. While AI literacy in school will give them a good and strong foundation, we must continue to develop partnerships with the community and the self-help groups to make sure the supervision and support continue outside of school.

Learning must continue beyond graduation. From the second half of 2026, all of our IHLs will offer selected AI-related courses at significant discounts for their alumni, for a period of one year.

For workers already in the workforce, Singaporeans who complete selected AI training courses will receive six months of complimentary access to premium AI tools. We will track take-up and usage to see if we need to do more.

Every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, should have the chance to experiment with AI tools and to build fluency.

The third question is the hardest and the most important. Will workers share in the gains? We should be clear: this does not happen automatically. Left on its own, technology can lead to very uneven outcomes. That is why this is not just a market question. It is a question of how we shape norms and expectations in our economy. So, let me set out clearly what we expect.

Companies that benefit from AI should invest in their people, not just in technology. That means training as many existing workers as possible and not just hiring new ones. It means facilitating their employees' access to frontier AI tools, creating communities of practice and incentivising learning and upskilling.

It also means redesigning jobs in close consultation with workers, as suggested by Ms Yeo Wan Ling, so that people can work alongside AI, using judgement, context and experience, rather than treating workers simply as a cost to be reduced. And where roles do change or disappear, it means making a serious effort to redeploy and reskill workers within the organisations before turning to retrenchment.

We are not just asking our companies to do national service. We are asking them to do what is in their own long-term interest. In an AI age, human instinct and intuition will remain key. We all know that when we work with AI, we need to steer it. Ask the right questions and apply judgement as we refine the output iteratively.

It is not one shot. If you do not develop people who understand the context of your organisation and use this knowledge to reinforce your AI systems, you will be left with a very shallow and hollow company in future. If companies here replace humans completely with AI, they will find themselves, in future, to have no competitive edge, when AI is available to all companies. They will also find themselves at the mercies of AI companies. So, what we are working towards, is an approach that best positions our companies for sustainable growth in the long term.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat brought up the need for balanced regulatory approaches that do not disincentivise AI adoption. Indeed, we will not seek to legislate our way to good outcomes. That has never been Singapore's primary approach. But we are equally clear that "voluntary" cannot mean "optional in practice".

Where public resources are deployed, we will ask for worker outcomes. We will work with companies to meet these expectations. Where there are persistent gaps, we will review how our support is applied. We will discuss with our tripartite partners on how this can be done fairly and effectively, in a way that incentivises companies to invest in training, job redesign, redeployment and placement.

If we do this well, we will be able to create and sustain good jobs in the AI age. A good job is not just a job that exists. It is one that allows a worker to progress. It should pay fairly and reflect the productivity gains that technology brings. It should build skills that remain relevant, including as part of routine on-the-job training, so that workers are not stuck doing tasks that are easily replaced by automation. And it should give workers a sense of dignity and agency, not reduce their role to simply following instructions generated by machines.

We have seen that when there is strong commitment, this is possible. At PSA, AI and automation have helped deliver record cargo volumes. At the same time, the company reskilled and redeployed more than 2,000 workers into higher-skilled roles. And they continue to hire thousands more, because they are growing faster than the competition.

To Mr Andre Low, I would say: automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. Protecting a worker can mean being intentional about automating tasks that are repetitive and physically demanding and upgrading the skills of the same worker so that technology can augment his capabilities as he takes on a higher value role.

Even smaller businesses are playing their part. Take for instance our local pawnbroker Maxi-Cash. In the past, a customer wishing to trade in jewellery would interface with a sales advisor, who would pass on their case to a valuer to assess the authenticity of the jewellery. Maxi-Cash enhanced this process by reskilling 25 of their sales advisors to use an AI-enabled authentication system, which can accurately assess the composition of jewellery in just five seconds. Now, these sales advisors can complement the existing pool of valuers, relieving their workload and reducing the customer wait times. This is the kind of responsible transformation we want to see in Singapore as the norm, not as the exception.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the many suggestions and perspectives shared in this House today, from Members on both sides. We may differ on specific policy ideas or on how particular measures should be designed, funded or sequenced. That is the nature of democratic debate, and it is very healthy.

But I believe there is broad agreement across this House on a fundamental principle: that the gains from growth and progress must be shared fairly and broadly with all Singaporeans. This should not be a matter of party or ideology. It is a principle that we must uphold together as Singaporeans.

So, let me say this plainly. If Singapore succeeds with our AI ambitions – and we should never assume success is automatic, because it will require sustained effort, difficult choices, adaptation and perhaps, some good fortune too. But if we succeed, then the Government will ensure that the benefits are widely shared.

The gains must not accrue only to those who already have capital, advantages or access. They must translate into better wages, better opportunities and greater security for all Singaporeans. The best protection for workers is not only redistribution after disruption. It is shaping how gains are created and shared from the outset and ensuring that Singaporean workers retain agency within an AI economy.

This Government has been able to deliver these outcomes over decades of Singapore's development. And we are determined to continue doing so, as we navigate this AI transition. Our policies have never been static. We have continuously adapted, refreshed and strengthened them as circumstances changed. And that discipline will continue.

Ultimately, every Singaporean should be able to look at what Singapore has built and say, "I have a stake in this progress. I have a share in this growth. This future, belongs to me and my family too."

This shared commitment is also what makes Singapore's approach to this transition distinctive. Our strength is not just technology. It is the way we work together, across Government, businesses and unions.

To workers watching this debate, I want to say this directly to you: the Government is on your side, and we are acting before the disruption reaches you, not after. You will not be doing this alone. Our commitment made in this House today is our commitment to you.

To our business leaders: AI gives you powerful new capabilities. But how you use them will define your company's future, and your relationship with the people who built it alongside you. The companies that will lead in 10 years are not those that stripped costs the fastest, but those that built stronger teams by combining human judgement with machine capability.

But I want to be clear about something else as well. Not every business needs to adopt AI, and not every pursuit needs to be seen through the lens of AI transformation. There is real value in things that are fully human created, and that value may grow, not shrink, as AI becomes more prevalent.

When everything around us is auto-generated, optimised and scaled, the things that are not will stand out. The live performance and encore that cannot be repeated. The hand-thrown ceramic bowl that carries the mark of a human hand. The meal prepared with care and craft, not just consistency. The conversation with the calligraphy master who has spent a lifetime honing his art.

I think we will see a revival of appreciation for these things. And Singapore should not just acknowledge this, we should embrace it. Our artisans, our performers, our craftsmen are not swimming against the tide of AI. In a world saturated with AI-generated content, they may find themselves exactly where the world is looking.

Beyond the near-term transition, there is a longer-term question we must answer. What do we need to do now with our education system, to prepare our students for the future world?

We must accept that AI will continue to get better at the tasks which machines do well. All the more, we need to focus on what makes us distinctly human. The curiosity that asks a question nobody has thought to ask. The creativity that connects ideas across domains in ways no training data predicts. The empathy that reads a room, earns trust and knows when the most efficient solution may not be the right solution.

We often call these soft skills. In an AI age, they will become the hard edge of competitive advantage for our people and for Singapore. That is why we will review our education system, to make sure we develop these qualities with the same rigour and intentionality we have always applied to academic excellence.

We must continue to build strong foundations and make sure our students do not become overly reliant on AI shortcuts. Our human brains are muscles that require exercise, and genuine mastery – the kind that holds up under pressure and that AI cannot simply replace – comes from hard work, from practice and from deep understanding. So, it was good to hear Ms Eileen Chong agree with this and we thank her for supporting our approach.

But rigour and exploration are not opposites. The student who has truly mastered something is precisely the one with the confidence to venture beyond it. He will ask harder questions, take on problems without the obvious answers and he will develop interests that are genuinely his own. What we are building towards is an education system that demands both the discipline to go deep and the freedom to go wide. Not just because our students deserve both, but because Singapore's future depends on both.

This will not mean abandoning our standards. It will mean expanding what we count as excellence. A student who asks the unexpected questions, who pursues something deeply out of genuine interest, who can hold two contradictory ideas and work through them – that student is not behind. In the world that we are building, that student may be ahead of all of us.

We are committed to doing this, together with our educators, our parents and young Singaporeans themselves. Because if we get this right, if we develop a generation that is not just AI-literate but deeply human, then Singapore will not just survive this transition. We will be the kind of society that the next era of human progress is built around.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have been honest today about what this transition will demand – of the Government, businesses and workers. Not every path will be smooth. Some will face real disruption and our responsibility is to ensure no one faces it alone. We will make AI work for Singaporeans. And we will ensure that as our economy grows, our workers move forward with it.

But I want to end where I believe our attention must ultimately rest – on the generation we are building. If we develop Singaporeans who are curious, creative and deeply human, people who can ask the questions that machines cannot and earn the trust that algorithms never will, then we will not merely manage this transition. We will define what comes after it. I support this Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan.

6.00 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I begin by declaring my interest as the Deputy Secretary-General of NTUC and the executive secretary of the Singapore Industrial and Services Employees' Union (SISEU), where I am closely involved in supporting our workers. Today, I want to continue to support our senior workers and reflect their concerns in the age of AI.

Let me start by sharing about Mdm Foo, a 55-year-old jobseeker who approached NTUC's e2i for assistance. After leaving her previous job of more than 20 years, she found that the job search process had changed quite dramatically. Even resume writing has changed. Resumes used to be written for people, but she found out that today, they are often screened by machines first. Job applications also moved to digital portals that are not so intuitive for people like her to navigate. So, she felt lost and uncertain.

Mdm Foo's experience is not uncommon among senior workers and reflects their anxieties about changing work processes. For some, AI presents true opportunities. For others, it creates uncertainty and anxiety. And for many of our senior workers, their experiences are shaped by three key gaps that I think we collectively must try to address.

The first is the access gap. While Singapore has made progress in closing the access gap for seniors, smartphone ownership among them still lags behind other age groups. In addition, seniors may have less access to AI tools.

I saw this first-hand at one of the AI workshops organised by my union SISEU for about 90 union leaders whose median age was about 53. While all of them used smartphones, many were trying AI tools for the first time. Understandably, there was some initial hesitation. But with simple, guided use cases, they quickly picked it up and were using AI to generate posters for the union's Family Day and membership campaign. Some even went to the extent to do banners for their families for birthdays and anniversaries.

As we ended the session, many leaders came forward to share with me that they enjoyed the session and now, they realise that it is not so difficult to learn to use AI tools. The only thing they asked for is that they wished the session could be longer and the font on the slides can be bigger for them.

This encouraged me because it shows that the issue is not a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of access and, to some extent, to some of them, it is about confidence, which we can overcome by curating and customising access to AI tools and making time for our seniors to learn and to increase their knowledge.

Second, skills gap. We see a gap in training participation, where MOM's 2025 report found that residents aged 50 to 64 had the lowest training participation rate at 44.5%, compared with about 60% for those who are below 40 years old.

It is easy to tell seniors to go and upskill, to go and take a course and reskill, but in reality, we know that with commitments, with bills to pay, with limited time and energy, taking the first step sometimes is not easy. Many of them, we must remember, have lived through repeated cycles of change and transformation, and may feel fatigued, uncertain or even question the relevance of more training.

These concerns are real. We must make training more accessible for them at a suitable pace, through practical and bite-sized modules, and make AI more relevant to their job skills.

The third is the opportunity gap. Even when senior workers are willing to learn, they may not have the same opportunities to benefit from AI in their actual jobs.

OECD's Employment Outlook 2025 highlights that across OECD countries, opportunities to learn by doing fall with age, where 62% of adults aged 25 to 29 reported such opportunities, but this falls to 45% among those who are 60 and above. In addition, a 2025 Pew Research Centre report found that 73% of workers who used AI at work were aged 18 to 49, while only 27% were aged 50 and above.

This is why we need to work with employers to give our seniors the opportunity to use AI tools and to reap productivity gains in their job. Senior workers bring valuable experience and with AI, these strengths can go even further. I have spoken about this no less than two times in this Chamber.

Research from the Stanford Digital Economy Lab supports this. It highlighted that senior employment in the US has remained resilient and may even have grown with the introduction of AI because they see that seniors bring tacit experience, knowledge and soft skills that enable them to increase productivity with AI.

To our senior workers, we understand your challenges and we are with you in this transition. Take the first step with us. Start a course, try a tool, learn from those around you and you can thrive in the AI economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before the House is important. It emphasises that growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all and resolves to equip workers to seize these new opportunities. That must also apply to our senior workers.

NTUC recognises that long-lasting impact is best achieved through a partnership approach and has taken proactive steps through an AI-Ready SG initiative, which focuses on three key areas.

First, training and upskilling workers to address skills and access gaps. To close the skills gap, NTUC LearningHub has developed a comprehensive AI learning pathway, with three different levels for learners with different proficiencies: foundational training to build AI literacy and fluency, intermediate training tailored to sectors or job roles, and advanced training for those in deep tech and who want to develop deeper AI specialisation and capabilities.

I am glad to note that to date, there has been strong interest. Since February 2026, more than 4,000 workers have enrolled in LearningHub's AI courses. I am also very happy that 39% of them are seniors.

Dr Neo has suggested certification of competencies. This is something that the LearningHub has already been doing. For example, it works closely with companies to design AI courses aligned with the Government's skill frameworks and that are tailored to companies' needs. We also partner with industry leaders such as AWS and Microsoft to certify learners' competencies based on industry demands. We will continue to expand this to more sectors and more industries.

At the same time, under AI-Ready SG, we are also closing the access gap by providing union members with subsidies of up to 50% for AI premium subscription tools through NTUC's Union Training Assistance Programme (UTAP). I am happy to also let Members know that in the first of these AI tool subscriptions, NTUC's premium subsidy does cover a range of tools, including coding and agent-based tools such as Claude Code, Codex, Manus and others. I think there are a total of 20 or 21 tools.

We are offering this as part of membership privileges only because we are using the existing UTAP funding model catered for our members' training. But we will continue to review this, depending on the take-up and the interest over time.

We are also partnering sector agencies like the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to develop sector AI training pathways for our union leaders.

Second, we are supporting firms in business transformation and job redesign through NTUC's CTCs. To date, NTUC has formed 3,800 CTCs, embarked on over 900 business transformation projects, benefiting over 300,000 workers.

Let me share another example. I know you have heard many examples over the course of this debate. It is from the Evergreen Group, a local office and stationary supplier. Through a CTC Grant project with the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union (SMMWU), it implemented an AI-powered e-ordering system to automate the ordering process and improve inventory management. With this new system, manual work such as order processing was reduced by about 60%. Workers could focus on higher-value tasks such as managing customer relationships and using data to optimise inventory.

As they became more productive, the company could handle 40% more orders and provide wage increments for its employees. This is what we mean by win-win outcomes – where businesses become more productive and our workers progress with them.

Third, we are improving job matching with new products and services to help workers access good jobs. Let me go back to Mdm Foo from the start of my speech. Through close support from her e2i career coach, she gained a deeper understanding of her skills and the new job market. Her coach also introduced her to NTUC's AI Career Coach and e2i's AI Interviewer. With support and encouragement, Mdm Foo could confidently use these AI tools to sharpen her resume and also practise her interviews before the actual session. I am glad to share that Mdm Foo has found a new role and has gained familiarity with AI in the process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, AI-Ready SG is one example of how we can realise the intent of this Motion. It supports workers to build AI skills, gives them access to tools to apply these skills and works with businesses to improve productivity and create new opportunities.

Looking ahead, we welcome companies and partners to come onboard as we scale our efforts and increase our reach to ultimately deliver better support for our businesses and for our workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, these efforts are important and we are already seeing encouraging outcomes. But the scale of change brought about by AI is also significant, with great uncertainty and anxiety among workers. This is why tripartism, with its proven track record built over many decades of open communication and trust, is critical to this challenge.

Singapore has navigated major transitions before. In the 1980s, when computers first entered the workplace, workers were concerned that these machines could replace their roles in data entry and filing and companies were anxious about costs, skills shortage and disruptions to their daily operations.

But tripartite partners leaned forward. The Government invested in infrastructure and skills, including the National Computer Board, to drive nationwide adoption of IT. Employers stepped forward to transform their businesses with new technologies and redesigned workflows. The Labour Movement drove skills upgrading en-masse, organised workshops and seminars, preparing workers mentally and practically for change.

Because tripartite partners moved together in solidarity, firms became more productive, workers took on better jobs with better pay and Singapore strengthened its competitiveness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Tripartite Jobs Council will be a key platform to realise our shared aspirations for the AI era as laid out in the Motion. It will build on efforts across the Government, employers and the Labour Movement and enable partners to scale outreach, accelerate policy implementation and direct resources so that workers and enterprises can seize opportunities from AI.

The Tripartite Jobs Council will take on a practical and iterative approach. We may not have all the answers upfront, but we are clear that our deep trust built over decades of cooperation and shared goals will allow us to achieve our aspiration of inclusive economic progress. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore needs to harness AI to drive the next phase of economic growth. But more importantly, this growth must be built on a foundation of fairness, inclusivity and resilience for all.

Singapore's tripartite partners – unions, employers, and the Government – have worked closely together over many years, building deep trust that has allowed us to unite and overcome challenges together, no matter what difficulties we face. We will continue to support our workers in seizing opportunities and strengthening their competitiveness in the age of AI.

In February this year, the NTUC launched the AI-Ready SG initiative, actively encouraging workers to learn and master AI tools. This initiative helps them bridge the gaps in awareness, skills and access, so that they are better prepared for the AI-driven economy. As the saying goes, "Opportunity favours the prepared and success belongs to the most persistent." The age of AI is already upon us. I hope that everyone will join NTUC in actively upskilling, learning and applying AI.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, AI is the defining technology of our generation. But we face this challenge with strong foundations built over decades of tripartite cooperation.

To our tripartite partners, let us continue working closely together to help our firms transform and stay competitive, while supporting our workers to remain productive and to maximise opportunities.

To our workers, we will continue to support you to leverage AI.

And to our senior workers, your experience matters and it is my firm belief that it will be an advantage in the AI era. Take that step with us, upskill and learn, including from your younger colleagues and together, we can close the access gap, narrow the skills gap and expand opportunities for all. Because in Singapore, we have always believed that progress must be inclusive, that as we move forward, we move forward together, because every worker matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.

6.16 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me begin by acknowledging what many Singaporeans are feeling right now – uncertainties, anxieties, a sense that the ground is shifting beneath their feet; the world feeling less predictable than what it used to be, with trade tensions, fragility in supply chains, wars in the Middle East and the sharp rise in oil prices.

Closer to home, Members of this House have spoken about something that weighs on the minds of all of our fellow Singaporeans: the anxiety that AI may erode our skills, our experience built up over years or even take over our jobs. This anxiety has been sharpened by news of large tech firms announcing lay-offs attributed to AI adoption.

These are legitimate concerns and we take it seriously. And a change of this magnitude is indeed unsettling. But AI can and will create opportunities that we cannot yet fully imagine. Of course, it will, at the same time, also bring about disruptions that we cannot fully foresee.

But there are, at the same time, early signs that gives us reason for cautious optimism. Recent global surveys show that two in three companies that made earlier AI-driven cuts are already rehiring. Why is that so? Because they found that AI could handle the predictable and the routine, but customers still wanted human judgement, empathy and the genuine connection that AI could not provide.

Let me offer a small illustration of my own. In the preparation for my speech today, my team used AI to help refine the work to me. It surfaced useful references, including our MOM's newly released study showing only about 6% of firms in Singapore have reduced headcount due to AI adoption.

But one thing it could not appreciate was the impact and the anxiety that many, many workers feel. It could not offer empathy, it could not empathise, it could not understand nuance, nor could it generate policy responses that capture the essence of what workers are really experiencing. And this is what no algorithm can replace.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Motion before us makes four commitments. The Government and MOM take each one seriously – all of them as foundations to build on and to go beyond.

Mr Ng Chee Meng spoke about the transformative impact of AI on our workforce. The Government has long recognised AI's potential. Our current efforts build on a strong foundation of work already done in this space. We formed our first National AI Strategy in 2019, well before the introduction of ChatGPT and we embarked on national AI projects in areas such as education, healthcare, logistics, security and municipal services.

When large language models exploded onto the scene in late 2022, making AI accessible and general-purpose, we refreshed our strategies with the National AI Strategy 2.0 in 2023 and developed plans to invest over $1 billion in AI compute capabilities, talent and industry development. And this included establishing AI Centres of Excellence and growing the number of AI practitioners.

As AI picked up speed and interacted with major shifts in our external environment, we convened the Economic Strategy Review last year to sharpen our response. And more recently at Budget this year, we formed the National AI Council chaired by our Prime Minister to drive the practical transformation of our economy using AI.

At every step, we have acted proactively with our tripartite partners to drive concrete action and transformation across the sectors. As a result, while we will walk into uncharted waters into an uncertain future, we can do so with some confidence and we are not totally unprepared.

Various Members have raised concerns over the impact of AI on job displacement and many have also put forward thoughtful suggestions on how we can better support workers and businesses through this transition. We hear your concerns and we welcome the suggestions raised by Members on both sides of the House.

There is, in fact, broad agreement across this House on what we are trying to achieve, which is inclusive growth for all in this AI transition. Where we may differ, is in how we get there. Our approach has always been to invest in our people, keep our workers economically valuable and shape how the gains from AI are created and shared. Rather than dwell on fears, on apprehension, we want to be able to inspire and motivate our workforce to continue to grow.

Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Andre Low highlighted structural threats to inclusive growth. I appreciate the seriousness with which they have engaged on this issue. We recognise the conundrums. The question is: where and how to intervene?

Mr Giam proposed a National AI Equity Fund to pay every Singapore Citizen $500 funded by the companies that benefit from AI. Mr Low similarly proposed a payout for those displaced through redundancy insurance. I recognise the need to strengthen our systems to ensure that no one falls through the gap in this transition. And I agree that the broad sharing of productivity gains does not happen automatically, because markets alone will not guarantee good social outcomes.

Let me be clear. The Government has always known this and has always been acting on it. Both Mr Giam and Mr Low's proposals rest on a more pessimistic premise, that Singaporeans are essentially passive passengers in the AI transition, without agency to seize the opportunities and can only rely on support for a journey they cannot steer.

I cannot hold on and I will not hold on to such a premise. Both your proposals are not empowerment. To me, it is a settlement. Resigned to the fact that mass displacement is inevitable and that the best we can do is soften the blow. We should have more confidence in the tenacity and the adaptability of our fellow Singaporeans.

Redistribution alone is insufficient if workers are excluded from the economy. Singapore's tradition has been to invest in people rather than to compensate them for the circumstances; and that is our true policy tradition, rather than what the Member, Mr Low, had described.

The better use of any surplus generated by AI adoption is to fund accessible and effective upskilling that amplifies Singaporeans' value. And to that end, the Government has spent over $10 billion over the last five years on local workforce initiatives.

The choice before us, Members of the House, is between two very different visions. One says you get a handout and then, with that, a small share of the pie that the machines produce. Whereas, on the other hand, we feel that you deserve to grow the pie with the machines and share in our economic prosperity through good jobs and good wages.

The first vision initially may seem generous, but ultimately, caps and diminishes your broader end objectives. The second demands more from the Government, more from employers and also more from workers, but it treats all of our fellow Singaporeans as capable adults, with futures worth investing in, not as a population to be managed through transfers.

And Members of the House, I believe the second vision is possible, because as AI transforms how we work, some jobs will evolve. Some jobs may disappear, but if we are able to get everyone on the same ship moving together, I believe we will prevail. And as Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling said, it also creates new opportunities for businesses and workers. Our duty and our focus will be to help all of our workers and our businesses to seize them.

So, we should never build the case in this debate on angst and on apprehension. Our approach is not to fear the future, but let us forge the future ourselves, because that is the true Singapore spirit.

We have seen through each wave of technology and economic restructuring with this very spirit, but we are not complacent. MOM is closely monitoring AI's impact on our workforce. Our inaugural survey of the firms shows that AI is currently augmenting, rather than replacing labour in Singapore. Only about three in 10 firms have adopted AI currently, and amongst the firms that have adopted AI, only a small minority, about 6%, reported reduced headcount.

More commonly, firms are redesigning jobs, they are creating new AI-related roles, indicating that AI is changing how work is done, how they are being re-organised, rather than reducing jobs. And seven in 10 firms using AI are already seeing productivity gains.

However, as I have said, we should never be complacent. We must be prepared that as AI adoption gains pace, momentum and scale, the impact on jobs would be greater. And that is why we constantly prepare ourselves.

We have the goal to enable more businesses to succeed. At the same time, where their workers use AI to do better jobs, rather than be replaced by AI. Where their work becomes more fulfilling, more meaningful, not less. And where the benefits of AI are shared between the businesses themselves and the workforce.

For workers seeing a more flexible pace of work, AI can enable new forms of flexible work and fractional work done by small teams or even "solopreneurs". Beyond flexibility, AI can also reshape who participates in our workforce, including seniors, as Ms Poh Li San spoke about. And we will explore how to scale flexible work models through the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment.

Dr Hamid Razak spoke about the hesitation and anxieties he heard from the ground, especially among older PMEs who wonder if their skills still have a place. And Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked for businesses to be better supported. Let me share what Government is doing to prepare individuals and businesses for this transition.

First, we are reforming our workforce and skills support system to deliver more timely and effective support. As I shared after a five-hour debate yesterday on the Second Reading of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill, this formation of SWDA will bring the skills and employment facilitation capabilities of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore under one roof, making it more seamless, more integrated for individuals and employers to obtain the appropriate support.

We agree with Mr Ng Chee Meng that the intelligence that we have in gleaning and harvesting all the data in the SWDA, this intelligence must continue to be built on a foundation of trust, and we look forward to working closely with our tripartite partners to ensure that our assessment of the labour market continues to be grounded and also current. This will be an important part of how we stay ahead of disruption and support workers driven by AI changes.

This includes platform workers facing the deployment of AVs, as Ms Yeo Wan Ling highlighted. MOM and SWDA, they are already working closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and tripartite partners to strengthen transition pathways for these drivers, ahead of actual AV deployment. I want to add that actually, as a proxy, it is SWDA. But actually, it is SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore working closely with MOT currently.

Second, we will do more to improve Singaporeans' AI literacy. Today, there are over 1,600 AI-related courses on the MySkillsFuture website. We will introduce diagnostic tools for individuals to assess their current level of AI readiness and find courses which suit their needs, deliver proven training outcomes that are aligned with employer demand.

From the second half of this year, Singaporeans who enrol in the selected SkillsFuture AI courses will receive six months of free access to premium AI tools. This will help them to apply classroom learning to their daily lives and work. Mr Kenneth Tiong suggested to make this access universal, without condition. That was something that the Government considered carefully. But not all Singaporeans require frontier agent-grade tools. For many, free versions are good enough and widely available.

By tying subsidies to training, we are better able to target those who are more serious about levelling up the use of AI and we help them to make optimal and responsible use of such powerful tools. As Assoc Prof Terence Ho and Mr Alex Yeo shared about earlier on, we hope Singaporeans will tap on the resources available and be proactive in their learning journey.

As Minister of State Jasmin Lau shared, IMDA will also be expanding the TechSkills Accelerator programme to develop AI-bilingual workers, starting with accountancy, legal and HR professionals. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Correction By Written Statement section.] More details will be shared in due course.

Third, to support businesses, I have also emphasised time and again that we have set aside over $400 million for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. I do not want to go too much into it because I believe I have already covered in most of my Second Reading speech yesterday. But Mr Yip asked whether the grants could be tied to worker outcomes conditions. Today, businesses tapping on the Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+), are required to support workforce outcomes, such as wage growth and retention as part of their transformation plan. Later this year, eligible businesses will also receive $10,000 under the redesigned SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit and this can be used to offset out-of-pocket costs for eligible workforce transformation programmes, including those under the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package.

We agree with Mr Mark Lee that trade associations and Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package addresses these issues while ensuring that the workforce is brought along on the journey. Chambers play a particularly important role in connecting firms with the right expertise and resources. That is why we have appointed the Singapore Business Federation and SNEF as anchor programme partners for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package so that integrated workforce transformation support can be brought directly to firms, and we can help to accelerate AI adoption across sectors.

We are also supporting the Labour Movement's efforts to transform businesses and workers. The Government topped up the NTUC CTC Grant by around $200 million in 2025 and extended the grant to 2028. More recently, we worked with NTUC to expand the grant to better support Queen Bee companies to drive cluster-level transformation.

Notwithstanding the fact that I stepped out for a short while to answer a call, I am heartened to hear Mr Ng Chee Meng's sharing of how CTC has helped many businesses transform, while improving the lives of workers. I particularly note his exhortation and his suggestion to further expand the CTC initiative and share his ambition to elevate the CTCs to a tripartite level. We look forward to working with tripartite partners to jointly explore ways to make this a reality.

There are calls for us to go beyond project level interventions, to make a more structural shift in financial incentives for companies to invest in workers. Structural mechanisms, the likes of what Mr Andre Low called for, already exists. Grants, like the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, create direct financial incentives for companies to invest in the capabilities of their workers. We will continue to review and enhance such support as part of the work of the SWDA.

I think all of us should appreciate the importance of supporting enterprise transformation, not as a blanket, boiling the ocean strategy, but differentiated, precise and targeted sector-by-sector, company-by-company supporting their enterprise transformation. Even though it is more tedious, I believe it is also in the long run, more sustainable.

Lastly, we have strengthened transition support for workers who are displaced, so that they can bounce back stronger. The Government cannot protect every job but we will certainly do our best to support and protect every worker because every worker matters.

So, with AI transition, work processes will reorganise and change, jobs will also change and some jobs may get replaced. Going through transitions can be challenging. But I assure all of our workers that you will not walk alone.

We have recognised for some time that we must strengthen our support mechanisms as the pace of change accelerates. This is why we launched the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme (JSS) last year. This is as part of our refreshed social compact under Forward Singapore. The JSS provides temporary financial relief and job search support to involuntarily unemployed individuals. It has made a difference for many Singaporeans, helping them to regain their footing and to return to work with confidence.

Perhaps Mr Andre Low may have some misperception about the scheme. It is not a redundancy insurance because it does not just merely provide a cash payout for displacement. It is a support for re-employment. The JSS supports workers in their re-employment journey. It provides a degree of financial support for the lower- and middle-income precisely so that they do not rush into the first available job that may not be a good fit.

Workforce Singapore compliments the Jobseeker Support Scheme with hands on wraparound support to improve the quality of their job search. And we are cognisant of the fact that prolonged unemployment can harm a worker's longer-term career prospects and that is why the financial support is time bound. It tapers downwards because we believe that the first two to three months when the worker is involuntarily unemployed is when the impact is most felt. So, what we do is we try to raise the level in the initial part to encourage workers, to provide that lift and when it tapers downward, we hope that the workers will be able to find the right jobs for them.

But we hear calls. Mr Ng Chee Meng and Mr Patrick Tay proposed to raise the JS scheme income threshold to better support higher-income individuals. We will look at how the scheme can be improved and we will study this carefully.

We also hear Mr Ng Chee Meng's call for earlier notification of retrenchments to the Government, before employees' last working day, and Mr Mark Lee's reflection of businesses' concerns on this. We want to strike the right balance. Tripartite partners are already discussing shortening the retrenchment notification duration under the ongoing Employment Act review. We, on our part, would like to see notification to the Government happening before or by the last day of work of the affected workers as far as possible, because then this would also enable a timelier employment facilitation support to workers.

To Mr Kenneth Tiong's suggestion on strengthening protections for displaced workers, the Employment Act already provides broad-based protections by establishing procedural safeguards, like notice periods and dispute resolution avenues. This applies to all types of displacements, not just due to AI.

Our AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience and shared opportunity and this is not something that would happen naturally. Mr Vikram Nair asked what safeguards we have to ensure that workers are treated fairly as AI adoption increases. The Government has developed frameworks, such as Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI and AI Verify to establish clear responsibilities for actors across the AI supply chain, giving clarity to AI developers and users on responsible practices, including HR technology solution providers. And Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly pointed out that AI adoption is uneven at varying speeds across sectors, worker segments and businesses of different sizes. Without deliberate effort, the gains from AI could flow to some while others are left behind. In China, the courts have ruled that it is illegal to replace employees with AI purely to cut costs.

Senior Minister of State Desmond Tan and Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari spoke about the work NTUC has done in recent years to equip workers with AI-related skills and supporting workforce transformation. These are exactly the kind of capabilities we should draw on to ensure that more workers and businesses know what support is available and that AI adoption can accelerate across the economy. And this is why we supported wholeheartedly NTUC's proposal to form the Tripartite Jobs Council. The Tripartite Jobs Council will take a coordinated tripartite approach to mobilise enterprises and workers towards fair and resilient growth in an AI era.

As Assoc Prof Terence Ho noted, AI must augment workers, not replace them. We will leverage SNEF’s business advisors and NTUC's CTCs to help businesses adopt AI in ways that drive growth and enhance job roles, prioritising technologies that augment human capabilities and not replace them. We will harness our tripartite partners' strong links with workers, unions and employers to drive broad-based AI training across sectors and career stages, so that no worker is left behind as AI reshapes our journey.

In those technologies or businesses that have to undergo restructuring, we will work with the businesses to help pivot, upskill and reskill the workers.

We will also pay special attention to students and younger workers who are anxious about AI's impact on entry-level jobs. The IHLs continue to enhance their curriculum to keep pace with AI advancements. All IHLs will offer selected AI-related courses for their alumni at a significant discount for a year, starting in the second half of this year.

Graduates entering the workforce can also tap on MOE's SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes, which combine classroom training with on-the-job training at companies to build both the skills and experience that employers value.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim called for the expansion of youth apprenticeship pathways. We agree. Structured learning must be complemented with real workplace experience. We will continue to work with sector leads, like the Monetary Authority of Singapore and IMDA to support apprenticeships in high growth sectors, learning from our experience from programmes, like GRIT, we stand ready to refine and to expand these programmes, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Singapore has weathered deep disruptions before, from the Asia Financial Crisis to SARS, to COVID-19. Each time, each crisis we came through not because the Government had all the answers, but because workers, businesses and Government stood shoulder-to-shoulder. That is the strength of tripartism.

In many countries, AI becomes a tug-of-war. Workers on one end, business on the other. Progress contested, trust strained. Singapore does not have to go down that road. We work together to make our entire economic pie bigger and make sure that the benefits are widely shared.

To our workers wondering where you stand, there will always be a place for you. Your experience, your judgement, matters more than ever and your commitment to our country, your support through the years, through the decades, we are deeply appreciative. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

To all of our young graduates, your ideas, your drive, matters more than ever. Your enthusiasm, your curiosity, that connect, that curiosity that Minister of State Jasmin Lau talked about just now, matters more than ever and we are behind you.

For all of our businesses, if you are unsure, you are uncertain as to where to start, you do not have to figure it out alone. We will walk alongside with you. We will help you to transform, will help you to compete so that together you can create better opportunities both for your businesses and for your workers.

We will not leave the future of work, the livelihoods of our workers, our Singaporeans, to chance. We will shape a transformation that is inclusive, forward thinking, anchored in real action.

Singaporeans will never be helpless passengers to an AI-driven future, but Singaporeans will be our fellow co-pilots as our AI journey takes flight. And we will move forward in the Singapore way with Government, employers and the unions working together to ensure that our AI transformation creates good jobs, clear pathways for every Singaporean worker towards a better future because every worker matters. With this, I rise in support of the Motion. [Applause.]

6.50 pm

Mr Speaker: In Parliament, we are also adopting and embracing AI as we equip our staff on this journey. Mr Andre Low has a clarification? Leader, please move the exemption first.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: I see a few hands being put up. Please raise your hands again, those who wish to seek clarifications. Mr Andre Low.

6.51 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Thank you Speaker. I have clarifications for the Minister of State Lau and Minister Tan.

My clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau is, I am glad to hear that she has put to me that automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. She went on to define that as being intentional about automating repetitive and physical tasks and upgrading the skills of that same worker. So, I am glad to hear that because that is exactly how I have defined augmentation in my speech.

And she also noted that I use the term automation in my speech as a shorthand for scenarios where a job is entirely fully automated away at the expense of the worker. And this is abundantly clear.

To Minister Tan, he suggested that proposals by my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam and myself, are anchored on the premise that Singaporeans are hapless passengers along for the ride on this AI journey. I would urge the Minister to clarify how he has managed to read that basis into our speeches.

And secondly, I would simply use the language of Minister of State Lau as well, that we do not believe that strong social safety nets, and upskilling Singaporeans and urging them to embrace AI are mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a binary equation. In fact, we believe that strong social safety nets are precisely what will enable Singaporeans to take a risk-taking approach and embrace the opportunities that AI will deliver.

Ms Jasmin Lau: Very glad to hear that we are on the same page. I thank Mr Andre Low.

Dr Tan See Leng: Likewise, I am really glad, particularly from Mr Low that, and I presume, since he is mentioning his name, Mr Giam as well, that they believe that Singaporeans have what it takes to work with the Government, with the unions, with the businesses to chart their own future. So, I thank the Member for that affirmation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Sir. My response to the Minister, yes, I definitely believe Singaporeans have the ability to chart this future for themselves. But the Minister has offered a choice of two visions in his response to my speech; and I thank him for reading it carefully. But I do not agree with his characterisation of my proposal as a resignation to displacement.

The National AI Equity Fund is not about a compensation for failure. It is about providing the security required for assurance and success. And I would like to remind him that the proposal I put forward has actually got two limbs. The first provides a direct stake in our prosperity. The second, which utilises nearly half the fund, is a direct investment in the skills and competencies of our workers. It provides a wage support and technical expertise that companies, especially SMEs, need to conduct on-the-job (OJT) training that is fully relevant to their workers.

And earlier, Minister of State Jasmin Lau said gains from AI must translate into greater security for all Singaporeans. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to ensure workers receive a direct and tangible share of AI productivity gains beyond just more training? Specifically, what is the Government's plan to move from discretionary spending to a structural sharing of AI wealth to protect the economic agency of our workers?

Dr Tan See Leng: I think the straight answer is through real income improvement. For today's Motion, the NTUC Secretary-General will be wrapping up. But in the months, in the years ahead, I have shared that SWDA will have very clear key performance index outcomes, including tying the Enterprise Workforce Training Package, job redesign to specific skin in the game for both the businesses tapping on such grants, to improvement in real wages and career progression for the workers. That is how we envisage the pie to be shared.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I would like to ask two clarifications of the Minister.

First, why does he believe that the SkillsFuture course enrolment is a reliable proxy for seriousness? I have some of my residents who have gone for some of these AI courses; they are not very complimentary on the content of these courses. So, there is a perception that some of the quality of these courses is not as good as it could be.

And second, does the Minister not think that universal supply of frontier agentic tools will create its own demand eventually?

Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Tiong's speech earlier on and where he also expounded on his experience in learning a lot of the cutting edge, I think it was Anthropic Claude, and he mentioned a few of that.

I must say that not everyone, myself certainly, would have his level of expertise when it comes to AI. What we are trying to do is to make it pervasive to bring as broad a segment of our population as possible and tying it to a slightly lower hurdle for them to acquire that confidence, that comfort in using AI.

So, our journey is about ensuring that everyone gets a stable path, covering a pathway devoid of potholes, bringing hopefully everyone to base camp before we prepare to scale the peak. I think I have articulated the vision.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling: Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau. In my speech on job redesign, I had asked for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. And I am very glad to hear that the Ministry has set out expectations of companies that benefit from AI and a vision for good jobs in the AI age. I am also very happy to hear that you have committed by saying that public support will come with worker outcome expectations.

Would the Minister of State be able to share what specific worker outcomes will be tracked and whether job redesign will be an explicit condition of our AI grants, or simply an expectation that companies are just encouraged to meet? And what kind of mechanisms will you be putting in place to track and recognise companies that do this job redesign well?

Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for the clarification. I think this is something that we should discuss together with all of our tripartite partners, whether it is with unions as well as business leaders, to make sure that any of our grant and support schemes do not end up making things even harder for companies that want to transform.

But yes, this is the direction that we are committed towards and we should discuss this further in the coming months.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Mark Lee: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Kenneth Tiong. I believe my speech has put forth my concerns about advancing mandatory notification for businesses. I would like to clarify on his proposed 90-day mandatory notice for AI-driven role elimination.

In practice, AI transformation is often gradual and task-based, with roles evolving through redesign, augmentation and changing workflows over time rather than a single identifiable point of elimination. Even in my own company, it starts at 10% of tasks being automated, then 30%. And it is merged with another function; then, the scope changes. The issue is therefore operational reality and definitional ambiguity.

So, could the Member clarify how companies, especially many of our SMEs, are expected to determine when this 90-day notice should formally commence? Would the Member also agree that if definitions are too rigid, firms may avoid gradual redesign altogether and may instead move towards sharper restructuring exercises, which may ironically worsen outcomes for workers, and another possibility that this might even inadvertently cause slower AI adoption and weaken business competitiveness?

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: To the extent that there is a court jurisdiction as was the case in Hangzhou in China, I think that there can be made a point to determine whether something is substantively AI-driven redundancy or not. I think in practice, it will probably depend on the composition of tasks that are automated as well as things that perhaps when the employer pays a lower effective remuneration for. But that is why it is very important for there to be an adjudicative process, as I have pointed out in my speech, for workers to be able to better challenge some of these concerns.

Of course, I acknowledge that some of these things may introduce friction for businesses. I certainly do not deny there is a trade-off. But if we do believe that there is this potential for AI to foster very rapid employment changes, then certainly, I think we should err on the side of caution.

Mr Speaker: Can I invite Mr Ng Chee Meng to do your rounding up speech?

7.03 pm

Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have debated and supported this Motion with such conviction.

All Members recognise that AI adoption is not optional. If Singapore is to stay competitive, both enterprises and workers need to raise AI fluency to seize new opportunities. There is also a clear consensus on the transformative potential of AI and on our collective responsibility to manage its impact on our enterprises and our workers.

As Minister Tan See Leng and Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau have pointed out, left to the market, AI growth may not automatically benefit workers. Members like Mr Yip Hon Weng warned about an outcome where some workers gain but others risk falling behind.

I am therefore glad that through this Motion, the Government has affirmed that it will not leave outcomes to chance, but will shape the direction of AI growth deliberately and I look forward to the measures that will be unveiled through the Economic Strategy Review report.

Mr Speaker, Members raised ideas that deserve serious consideration.

In my opening, I put forth four practical moves: first, building market intelligence and foresight for an AI-enabled economy; second, enabling enterprises to transform with AI and to do so in a way that benefits workers; third, enabling workers to seize new opportunities; and fourth, enabling displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence.

These are no-regrets moves – practical, grounded and effective. They lay the foundation for AI growth that translates into good jobs and better prospects for our workers, guiding how AI is adopted, how work is re-organised and how workers can move through change with support and dignity.

Let me draw on Members' contributions and address them.

First, on intelligence and foresight. Workers and enterprises need more than information. They need trusted intelligence put directly in their hands, so that they can navigate this transition with clarity, not anxiety. I thank Mr Alex Yeo, Ms Poh Li San and Ms He Ting Ru for supporting this proposal.

Ms He Ting Ru highlighted the need for Singapore-specific research so that we know the impact of AI disruption on our more vulnerable workers. Mr Alex Yeo pointed out that such intelligence could also help us identify where AI is creating new jobs and new industries so that the Government can move early to incentivise AI startups and enterprises to generate fresh opportunities for our workforce.

Assoc Prof Terence Ho likewise underscored the need to deepen local research on how AI is reshaping work to inform our responses and to position Singapore within global research networks on human AI complementarity.

Within NTUC, we have begun contributing to this work through our Labour Alliance co-laB (LAB), a research community we formed with academics that brings together experts across our IHLs. Working with our tripartite partners, LAB seeks to translate international best practices into insights grounded in Singapore's labour market realities so that researchers, adult learners and human resource practitioners alike can have an earlier, clearer basis to act on AI transformation.

Second, on enabling enterprises to transform with AI. Mr Mark Lee spoke about enterprises' need to transform to stay competitive, making the important point that enterprise and workforce transformation must move together. Mr Yip Hon Weng reinforced this – that the real constraint is not the technology, but workforce readiness, and we must move from AI adoption to AI fluency, with clear accountability for worker outcomes. Mr Gerald Giam had a proposal to support employer-led on-the-job training model so that employers, especially SMEs, are incentivised to train and retain workers. I acknowledge and support the objectives behind these proposals. It is precisely what our CTCs are doing – supporting firms to embark on transformation through structured projects that embed worker training and outcomes.

I thank Minister Tan See Leng for supporting NTUC's suggestion to further expand the CTC initiative. What we must now do is to deepen it, scale it and focus our efforts on AI across more businesses and sectors.

Mr Mark Lee called for a clearer enterprise "front door" so firms, especially SMEs, are not slowed down by having to navigate multiple schemes and processes. He also suggested that trade associations and chambers could become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors.

This is exactly what the Tripartite Jobs Council is setting out to do – to consolidate tripartite partners' various capabilities under one roof to better serve out our enterprises and our workers. I am glad the Government has supported NTUC's proposal to form this Tripartite Jobs Council.

Third, on enabling workers to seize new opportunities. Mr Alex Yeo made the point that equipping our workers requires building capability and confidence at the workplace so learning translates into deeper skills. Mr Kenneth Tiong highlighted the importance of providing our workers access to AI tools. Dr Neo Kok Beng suggested that we define competencies for the AI age and validate competencies through certifications. I note these suggestions.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Vikram Nair also made the point that job redesign if done well is the key to ensure that AI creates opportunities and pathways for our workers to grow. Dr Hamid Razak spoke for the PMEs, residents and parents carrying this anxiety about AI not just for themselves, but for their children. Indeed, AI-relevant pathways must be tied to job redesign to provide a smoother transition for our youths and PMEs.

Several Members have raised concerns about our young graduates. Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms He Ting Ru and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted that fresh graduates face challenges not just in finding good jobs, but in accessing the foundational entry-level roles where they learn to become professionals.

NTUC supports the Government doing more to provide wage supplements if indeed there are wider signs of labour market weaknesses. But should this be done too early or too broad a scale, then, employers may not have the right incentive to pay the full wages. This is also why good research and understanding of the labour market is needed.

My fellow labour Members of Parliament – Mr Desmond Tan, Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Yeo Wan Ling – spoke up from our unions' perspective. Their asks – that productivity gains are shared, that workers are supported through transitions and that workers are given a genuine voice in AI adoption – exemplify what the Labour Movement stands for in this renewed tripartism in the AI era.

Mr Yip Hon Weng called the Government to establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes to ensure that public funding goes towards worker outcomes. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. Mr Andre Low made a similar point that we need accountability mechanisms to ensure that our investments in AI are ensuring augmentation, not automation. In response, Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau shared that the Government's commitment that where public support is given, the Government will expect companies to make the effort to support worker outcomes.

Mr Saktiandi, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted how AI can cause an uneven impact on jobs as well as uneven benefits across different worker groups.

Members also highlighted segments of workers who may require additional attention. As Mr Saktiandi and Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, caregivers and vulnerable workers may have unequal access to AI tools and training. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms He Ting Ru spoke about the need to support women. Gig and Platform workers, as Ms Yeo explained, must be consulted. Their lived experience is critical input as work evolves with AVs and AI. She also called for clearer visibility on the national AV deployment timeline so platform drivers can plan transitions.

I also thank Ms Yeo, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Fadli Fawzi for speaking up for our skilled tradesmen. Amidst AI disruption, we must do more to equip them in AI fluency and build sustainable and respectable career pathways so that they have better work prospects and wages.

Senior workers, as Mr Desmond Tan spoke passionately on, may face more challenges in keeping up with AI disruption and require dedicated support.

I fully agree with Members that we must be alive to the needs of specific segments of workers mentioned. I echo Mr Saktiandi's call for sound policies to shape the trajectory of our AI growth so it benefits workers and citizens and remains inclusive.

As Ms Poh Li San rightly reminded us, AI also has the potential to augment our workforce and reduce reliance on foreign labour, unlocking the human bottleneck that constrains many businesses today.

On the fourth move to enable displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence, Mr Patrick Tay called on the "3 Es" – equitable growth, enhanced protections and engaged workforce. He calls to raise the Jobseeker Support scheme eligibility to the PME median income – around $8,400 as of 2025 – and to provide earlier notification of retrenchment. These are in line with the moves I suggested in this House too. These are specific, actionable asks that will make a real difference to blue-collar workers and middle class PMEs alike.

Mr Andre Low questioned whether the JSS is sufficient and proposed a redundancy insurance scheme instead. NTUC’s position is clear – our focus is on ensuring the right support to help workers bounce back. NTUC is not wedded to any particular form. We will work closely with tripartite partners to innovate, as we have done before. That is how we have come up with Workfare, Progressive Wage Model and now the JSS. Our shared aim is to make the JSS even better, so we can better support our workers, especially our PMEs.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also made the important point that we must rigorously track the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures to support workers who face disruption, especially the financial runway for displaced workers.

I also thank Mr Sanjeev Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms He Ting Ru for highlighting the potential of AI to cause harm to our workers, such as how AI may intensify workload and introduce risks of discrimination in employment decisions. Ms Eileen Chong suggested also to legislate the right to flexible work arrangements.

The Labour Movement takes these concerns seriously. We will work with tripartite partners to study these issues, building on the Workplace Fairness Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements.

Members have also surfaced other ideas to contribute to the Motion. Mr Saktiandi suggested for the Government to be the "first customer" of useful AI tools and solutions to facilitate broad and widespread utilisation of AI. He also highlighted the need to calibrate data-sharing frameworks and ethical guardrails. Ms Poh Li San spoke about ethical use of AI in society, to ensure that it is used as a force for good and not for criminal and harmful exploits. Ms Eileen Chong and Mr Fadli Fawzi spoke about the need to address the impact of AI use on our students, and the impact it might have on our cultures. These important issues deserve separate, careful study and consideration beyond the remit of this Motion.

But I thank Members, everyone, indeed, who have spoken up and contributed to this Motion. I really appreciate the conviction and the commitment expressed for the workers and the enterprises, for us to create the biggest possible pie for Singapore. I also want to thank tripartite partners who have been on this journey every step of the way: MOM, SNEF and all our different partners.

Mr Speaker, with that, let me close – after seven hours and 18 minutes. I am deeply appreciative, finally, of Mr Sharael Taha's sharing of his experience with labour movements overseas, and his insight that a lack of tripartite trust in their system prevents innovation and change even when this change is most needed. I thank him for highlighting the uniqueness of our tripartite model, where our unions not only protect workers, but focus on keeping them relevant, employable and ready to seize opportunities.

Our tripartite model works because it is based on trust. Even among our own tripartite partners, when there are different views and priorities, we evolve our conversations. We work through differences to find win-win positions that are in the best interest of Singapore and our workers. It is not about labour versus capital, workers against employers, or one group advancing at the expense of the other. Transformation in the AI era can be win-win, and our tripartite model in the AI era will ensure this.

AI is fast-evolving and we do not have all the answers today. Its full impact on jobs and businesses will continue to unfold. We may not agree with every "how", but we must set the right direction, and at the same time, know with humility that we are innovating and experimenting with pathways forward in this era.

We have forged a firm commitment – to keep our workers and enterprises at the heart of national efforts to seize new opportunities brought about by AI. And in this Chamber, now it sends a clear signal to every worker – blue- and white-collared alike – this House stands with you.

With this House standing united, I am fully confident that we can strengthen our plans and responses at this stage of the AI-enabled growth. Together with enabled enterprises, we will forge "Tripartism in the AI-era" for win-win outcomes as we have done before – in Singapore, for Singaporeans. Not AI instead of workers. But AI that works for workers. Because in Singapore, Every Worker Matters.

Mr Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support the Motion as it stands. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

7.21 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide.

First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT. While the CTC grant can support training fees and process redesign, its primary lever still remains project-based capital expenditure. It does not provide the aggressive six-month salary subsidy required to derisk the transition for an employer when a worker's productivity temporarily drops because of intensive AI training. And many SMEs currently lack the internal capacity to design effective structured OJT, so my proposal provides the necessary, what we call, "design brains" through a dedicated pool of expert OJT consultants to ensure that the mastery that they achieve is both practical and is not just administrative.

Mr Ng Chee Meng: I note the intent of the OJT and agree with the objectives behind the proposal, and it will be studied, considered in our NTUC's work, even as we chart possibilities in career counselling for the youths, and do possible pathways to innovate with the IHLs in career guidance and matches into internship and other possibilities.

I will note the point raised and see if we can fulfil the intent, while maybe have variations on the specific pathways.

7.23 pm

Mr Speaker: I do not see any more hands and indeed, after 24 speeches and over seven and a half hours, let me put the question to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House –

1. Recognises the transformative power of new technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to drive Singapore’s next phase of economic development;

2. Emphasises that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all;

3. Resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and

4. Affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters." – [Mr Ng Chee Meng]