President's Speech

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [22 September 2025].

"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Sharael Taha]

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.

1.04 pm

Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address. I seek your guidance as I embark on my journey as a Parliamentarian.

Mr Speaker, in the President’s address, the President spoke about Singapore’s remarkable journey from an improbable beginning to a thriving nation, built by the selfless sacrifice, resolve and perseverance of those before us. As the youngest elected Member, I carry two duties today: to honour the foundations we inherited and to help build the next bound for my generation so that the Singapore story continues.

In my view, the biggest task Singapore faces today is what I call the "Singapore Puzzle": how do we compete in this changing world, without losing ourselves? To hold together what seems to pull apart – racing fast while moving as one, reaching for the stars while catching those who fall. The global tide is shifting, currents are turning fast. As we chart our course through stormy seas, we need an anchor.

The President and the Prime Minister have called for a "we first" society. I agree. This is critical. It will decide whether we succeed in solving this Puzzle. And how we go about it.

And first, we must first know who “we” are. At its heart lies the family – the puzzle piece that anchors us with its web of relationships and gives us a sense of identity. If this piece weakens, so too will every other piece. Our local workforce will decline, our national security will weaken, our communities will thin without intergenerational bonds, and our sense of “home” and national identity will erode. A "we first" Society cannot endure unless we first know who “we” are. Families give meaning to that “we”.

Young parents today are stretched – striving to build their careers, but strained by caregiving responsibilities, costs and the unpredictability of early childhood. The pressure is real. But so too is our ability to ease it. The Government saw the challenge and acted. That is something to be proud of. And this is just the beginning.

This is perhaps the best time in Singapore to start and raise a family – because this Government is listening, learning and determined to act. I will play my part to speak on policies that strengthen families, so that the Family Puzzle piece can maintain its place in the heart of the Singapore Puzzle.

Over the years, the Family Puzzle piece has changed its shape. It no longer fits as before. Working parents face a widening care gap. Technology has rewritten the playbook on raising children. Our seniors seek connections in this fast-changing world. If the pieces do not align, the picture will reveal its fault lines.

Mr Speaker, in my speech today, I will focus on the care gap facing working parents. But the other corners of this puzzle piece are no less important.

First, on the care gap. Many in my generation are young parents or parents-to-be. We grew up in a Singapore that was prosperous and stable. We have been given opportunities our parents could only dream of. We take pride that Singapore consistently punches above its weight internationally. We see no need to compromise.

The world is racing ahead, and so must we. We must move quickly to find our niche in a contested and fragmented global market and adapt our people for new technologies, like artificial intelligence (AI). We must stay competitive and hungry.

But at home, we are stretched – caring for young children, ageing parents and coping with rising costs of living. We are ambitious, but often exhausted. Many still aspire to marriage and parenthood. But the reality of raising a child in today’s Singapore weighs heavily on young parents. Four in 10 cite stress as a main reason for not wanting children.

Young parents today want to be present for their child. Many prefer not to rely on a domestic helper or on the help of grandparents. Others do not have the benefit of these options. This means that young parents are often saddled with heavy caregiving responsibilities.

The problem is exacerbated by the increase in dual income families. Young working parents find themselves constantly juggling. Juggling careers with the unpredictability of childcare and childhood illnesses, the unspoken shame of pumping at work or leaving office in the evening for school pick-ups, the unseen second shift of housework and childcare after work.

There are expectations at work, if parents want to be seen as equal next to their non-parent colleagues. Especially in a competitive job market like ours. Especially in a time of economic change where, as the President noted in his address, workers need to adapt and evolve to stay relevant. Especially in a generation like ours today, where the number of non-parent employees is increasing and parents start to feel more like outsiders, pushed into the periphery.

Indeed, the Family Trends Report 2025 reported a decrease in the take-up of Government-Paid Maternity Leave by mothers, from 79% in 2019 to 74% in 2023. More than one in four mothers do not take more than two months of maternity leave. Do our working mothers feel the need to expedite their return to the workplace, or suffer the consequences?

Another example which is a common experience for most parents: hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) outbreaks happen frequently in preschools. Children can catch it more than once. And when infected, they must be brought home and looked after. But each parent has only six days of childcare leave a year. A single bout of HFMD for a single child can wipe out almost all of it. Add to this preschool closures and other childhood illnesses, coupled with the pressures and insecurities of work and rising costs, and it is easy to see how the early years can become overwhelming.

There is also the omnipresent pressure to live up to society’s ideal of a “good” parent – pouring immense time, energy and resources into securing a child’s future. With technology, AI and rising expectations, that pressure has only grown.

The early years are difficult. And unlike past generations, ours has more choices. Parenthood is no longer the default – there are other options, some of which feel more urgent and important, others feel more comfortable. Do we perceive family as an ideal that looks good on paper, but not a realistic goal or an attractive experience?

Mr Speaker, I am concerned. I am concerned that these sentiments are spreading. The desire to marry is slowly falling across the years. Seven in 10 of our youths feel that it is not necessary to get married or have children in a marriage. These sentiments have crystallised into reality. Our TFR is at its lowest. This is reshaping our society. It affects policy planning in areas like education, housing, health, even national security. But perhaps most critically, it will affect our identity as a nation.

What can we do to arrest this trend? We can further strengthen the bridge between work and caregiving. Singaporeans have consistently told us that career and raising a family are equally important to them. Let us not make them choose between work and family. Let us empower them to thrive in both.

We have made tremendous progress in this area, especially in the last few years. These policy changes will need time to make an impact, and in the meantime, we must continue the progress.

Mr Speaker, I make some suggestions on how we can further strengthen the bridge between work and caregiving for working parents. But before I do so, I want to acknowledge that these suggestions cost money and can exacerbate manpower challenges. Our employers are still adjusting to the new parental leave regime and face an uncertain global market. We do not want to introduce these suggestions at the expense of our businesses. We need mindset shifts from both employers and employees to make the following suggestions work in a mutually beneficial way, and in a way that will last in the long term, and in a way that will not be abused.

And there is something in it for employers too. In today’s competition for talent, family-friendly human resources (HR) policies build trust, retain top talent, and save employers the hidden cost of good people walking away. Dual income families are contributing to our economy, and I believe our young working parents want to be able to do right by their children and by their employers.

I suggest that as we help companies leverage on technology and AI to improve productivity and stay relevant in the new market, we keep the following suggestions in mind.

We can restructure childcare leave to increase incrementally with each child. We can make flexible work arrangements genuinely accessible for both mothers and fathers. We can provide contingencies for common childhood illnesses, with sick bays and medical support where the children are. We can strengthen workplace culture and HR practices so that young parents are supported to thrive both at work and at home. And we can reshape how society and workplaces see parenthood and families – by bringing to light not just its challenges, but the deep joys and meaning it brings. Bridging the care gap will take a whole-of-Government and whole-of-society approach, all of us rowing in the same direction.

Second, let us do more to equip parents with raising a child in this brave new digital world. Technology is pervasive in all areas of our lives and, by extension, our children's lives. As far as child-raising goes, with grandparents stepping back, Google, TikTok, ChatGPT, YouTube and Instagram have stepped in. But the Internet is no wise elder and viral content often outruns accurate advice.

We must help young parents with what they need to make the best decisions for their children – from food choices to schooling, healthy sleeping practices and well-being. In this way, we not only ease their burdens, but give every child the strongest start in life. With the right support, parents can spend less time firefighting and more time strengthening the bonds that matter, with their children and with their own parents.

That brings me to my third point, connecting with seniors.

More seniors are living alone. The number has doubled in the last 10 years. Where do seniors belong in our Singapore Puzzle amidst all these fast-paced economic and social changes? We must not only provide for our seniors physically. We must not forget to connect with them emotionally. Empowering seniors to find their second lease of life will also ease the load on their children as they balance work and caregiving.

We can bring together Active Ageing Centres and schools – seniors reading to children, youths teaching digital skills to seniors, youths inventing interactive games to train seniors' agility and memory, and seniors passing on life lessons that cannot be found in textbooks, lessons especially important in this age of AI.

We can also create opportunities for inter-generational sports. Pickleball, I understand, is popular across ages.

In closing, we are at a crossroads. What the Singapore Puzzle will look like at SG100 depends most of all on today's young parents and those deciding whether or not to be parents. The suggestions raised will come at a cost. We must decide whether it is worth the cost. We, as a society, must ask ourselves: do we want to have children? What does it take for us to build families and have children?

Families are not just a private choice. They are a public good. They shape the strength of our workforce, the resilience of our national defence, the cohesion of our communities and the depth of our national identity. If we want Singapore at SG100 to remain cohesive and stay ours, we must start now to secure the foundation.

Let Singapore be a place where our children grow up with roots to ground them and wings to let them soar. We must solve the Singapore Puzzle together and shape the next bound of Singapore not as bystanders, but as builders of our common future. In Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in my view, the greatest challenge Singapore faces today is what I call the "Singapore Puzzle". How do we compete in this changing world whilst walking hand in hand with our people; how to reach for the stars and chase dreams without forgetting to help the vulnerable?

To solve this puzzle, we must first secure the puzzle piece that is the "family". Once the family puzzle piece loosens, all other pieces will inevitably shift out of place.

The "we first" that the President and Prime Minister speak of, has family at its core.

New parents today face tremendous pressure, having to care for both young and old at home whilst striving to keep up with the increasingly competitive workplace. They harbour big dreams yet often find themselves exhausted. But our generation has more choices. Marriage and parenthood are no longer seen as necessary or default. All the more so when we look at friends who have become parents – exhausted, constantly on the run, barely catching a breath. Just watching them can make one dizzy. Some begin to think it is better to enjoy some peace and quiet. Life is already busy enough without children.

Seeing such pressures, many family and friends advise: one child is enough, or even no children is okay! Gradually, more people choose to have fewer children, or none at all.

I hope we can work together to lighten the burden for young parents. The Government has already taken swift action in recent years, launching a series of policies to support young parents in starting families. This is just the beginning. Perhaps we are now at a stage in Singapore where there is more support than ever before for families to take root, grow, and raise the next generation because our Government is listening, learning and firmly committed to taking real action.

I will champion policies to strengthen families so that families find their right place in the "Singapore Puzzle". I propose that Parliament explore several initiatives.

First, supporting young parents in finding better balance between career and childcare, such as allowing parental leave to increase progressively with the number of children, supporting flexible work arrangements for young parents, exploring how childcare centres can provide responses to common childhood ailments, and fostering truly pro-family corporate and workplace cultures. Second, supporting parents in guiding their children to grow up healthily in the digital and technological age. Third, supporting seniors in truly enjoying fulfilling lives with good physical and mental health, whilst also reducing caregiving responsibilities for their children.

But most importantly, we must engage young Singaporeans to work with the Government, to put our heads and hearts together, work hard side by side and piece together a Singapore Puzzle that belongs to us.

We must confront this reality and seriously ask ourselves: what kind of Singapore society do we hope to see at SG100?

Will it be one with smaller families, fewer people, and shrinking workforce; where elders and younger generations grow distant and the sense of “home" and national identity slowly fades away? Or will it be one where home endures, people remain, where young parents can work with peace of mind and raise their children with joy, where the bonds and responsibilities of family are firmly held and passed on, allowing our familiar Singapore culture and stories to be carried forward, generation after generation, continuing the legacy left to us by our forefathers?

The ones who understand this situation best are our younger generation – those who face these pressures every day. I hope that our young Singaporeans will take part in completing this Singapore Puzzle together. If the younger generation remain un-involved, allowing society to drift away from their ideals and aspirations, then, amid the many alluring choices before us, I cannot be sure that our people will still choose to call Singapore their home. I sincerely invite our youths to join me in shaping our nation's future, to share your hopes and constructive ideas for Singapore, and to make this choice together: to choose Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.

1.23 pm

Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker and hon Members of Parliament (MPs). I am honoured for this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in Parliament in our national language.

Today, I will touch on the issue of mental health and the steps we can take as a society to play our part in caring for and helping one another. In our efforts to care for the mental health of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore, we need to acknowledge traditional beliefs, integrate modern practices and create inclusive discussions so that every individual receives support without going against their religious and cultural values.

However, the issue of stigma and misconceptions about mental illness still exists despite various efforts that have been undertaken to change public mindset. One important step to reduce this stigma is encouraging open conversations and providing integrated mental health services that are easily accessible.

When we discuss with open minds, support one another and respect religious and cultural backgrounds, we will certainly be able to strengthen the mental health of our entire community. I will elaborate further on how we can work together as a society to improve mental health in my English speech later.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): Those shall long live who have mastered the five senses and who stand true to righteousness. This is the sixth couplet of the Thirukkural. The meaning of this verse is, it is important to lead a righteous life through the abstinence of harmful desires that the body, the mouth, the eyes, the nose and the ears seeks. Those who do so will lead a long life, proclaimed Thiruvalluvar.

In order for humans to control these five bodily senses, it is not only important to have physical strength; it is essential for one to have good mental health too. Hence, to live a long and fulfilling life, mental health is of utmost importance.

Today, mental health is of equal importance to physical health. However, in our Indian community, some are shy in talking about mental health and mental illnesses. At times, it is considered a stigma too. In time to come, this may lead to a difficult situation.

Depression, anxiety, loneliness – these are silent ailments. As mental illness is hidden from the outside and the intensity of it increases day after day, it could even take away one's life.

Therefore, as a united community, what we have to do is very clear.

First, we have to come to a realisation that this is a real problem that we have in our society and take it face to face. Next, is to look after one another; our families and friends, and support them. Third, if need be, one should not hesitate to approach doctors, counsellors or seek social resources.

To ask about mental health; and to seek help for it; this is not a weakness – but this is the strength. No one needs to carry the burden of their mental illnesses alone. This is a burden that we could all come together and carry as a society.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion and do so with gratitude to the residents of the West Coast-Jurong West group representation constituency (GRC), especially those in Jurong Spring and Gek Poh, who have given me the honour of serving them and to my colleagues and mentors who have guided me on this journey.

The President in his address has urged us to make Singapore a place where every citizen can have a joyful and fulfilling life as they age.

Joy, however, is not simply the ticking off of years on a calendar. Joy to someone could be seeing their grandchild take their first steps to a parent whose joy is seeing their children smiling and reading. The joy could be within the community when volunteers see someone get up from a fallen position.

Joy is a quiet expression at times. To be joyful, health is important. Physical health is important. But mental health? It is indispensable. Without mental well-being, colours fade and the world's beauty becomes harder to see, even for the most positive of people. How long we live really depends on how well our mind can function.

In this country, we are in the midst of re-working how health is understood and delivered. Health is often described as complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease. I must say much progress has been made in the frameworks where we promote physical health, as seen in the launch and the take-up of Healthier SG.

Mental health also has rightly received attention in recent years. For example, we launched the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy in 2023. With that, we aim to create an effective mental health ecosystem with accessible, high-quality clinical care and a supportive community. Yet, while our frameworks for physical illness are clear, mental health often presents hidden challenges. Let me explain further.

Through Healthier SG, we screen widely for hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes. A simple blood pressure machine, you slap on a cuff, you see a reading above 150, you know that is a trigger for action, right? You would see a doctor to assess it further. Even if it is white-coat hypertension, it is just a sort of guide, you get anxious when you seek medical attention. Similarly, you prick your finger and you see a glucose reading that is more than 15, you panic, and you see a doctor.

But mental health, Members of the House, this is different. A person with early anxiety, with early depression or, perhaps, with a hoarding disorder, may not even realise that they have a problem.

Let me share a story from Jurong Spring that has stayed with me. Not long ago, a resident noticed a food parcel hanging outside her neighbour's door for three days untouched, so she reached out to me, deeply worried for her neighbour. So, with community partners and our agencies, we entered the unit and found not just an empty flat, but one filled wall-to-wall with decades of hoarded items, leaving only a narrow strip of path for me and my volunteers to walk.

The only items, the only items that seemed sensible were a line of bottles: pepper, a bottle of salt, condiments and cooking oil, lined up side-to-side in the kitchen cabinet as if the resident had to hold on to some sort of order in her life. This elderly resident, I came to realise, had a long history of anxiety and a hoarding disorder and the only reason we were able to enter the home to see this state of affairs was because she was hospitalised and had not picked up the Meals-On-Wheels distribution that was hanging on her door for three days.

This story illustrates why mental health is different. It is not just the individual that suffers. Symptoms often are subtle, often noticed by family, friends or neighbours, and sometimes too late. Families are left helpless, not knowing where to turn. Neighbours live in fear or discomfort. Entire communities feel the strain. Volunteers, grassroots leaders and social workers often become the first responders, and they too carry an emotional weight when doing so.

So, Members of this House, unlike hypertension or diabetes or high cholesterol, where objective markers drive treatment, mental health conditions lack such clear triggers for action. If left unaddressed, they harm not just the individual but also create what I call "second victims" and we cannot allow that to happen.

We must bring mental health treatment and screening upstream, just as we have done with chronic diseases.

First, we can consider integrating mental health screening into a wider community health framework just like what we have done with Healthier SG. Just as we screen for hypertension after we are 40, we can use simple, validated point-of-fact questionnaires to pick up early depression or anxiety.

In fact, today, Members and I, we could go Healthhub.sg and just answer nine simple questions from the Patient Health Questionnaire to see whether we have early depression or anxiety. We could go to mindline.sg, interact with the chatbot to see how our mental well-being is like. But some in our community need that additional nudge. They need some for barriers to be removed before they can take action.

Second, just like how we do so in matters in the municipal, we should consider adopting a "no wrong door policy" when it comes to mental health disorders. Often, mental health issues are multi-faceted and require multi-agency coordination and intervention. We already today have Community Outreach Teams (CREST), social service agencies and volunteer networks doing great work. A coordinated platform in our community would ensure that anyone knocking on the door will receive timely help and guidance.

Third, we should nurture safe community spaces where residents and neighbours can share concerns and know that timely help will be available for those showing signs of distress. This can eventually evolve into an ecosystem of trust that can sustain itself.

And finally, I am aware that such interventions do take a toll on manpower and cause volunteer fatigue so we should test these out in a phased and sandboxed approach, refining them with partners before we can scale nationwide.

Just as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes can debilitate, we must understand that so too can mental health conditions and often more insidiously. All of us want to remain healthy in our homes, not end up in hospitals. A life lost because of a missed diagnosis or untreated mental health disorder is one life too many.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to recall an adage from the medical profession which prescribes: to cure sometimes, to treat often, but to comfort – always. Our aim should be not just to prevent illness, but to preserve dignity and to restore hope.

Mental health, we know, is pervasive. Like the wind, we may not see it – but we feel its effect in the homes, in the blocks and the communities that we serve in. Now, before we know it, a gentle breeze may become a storm. We need to own this problem before the problem owns us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

1.36 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this fair, however?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Jeffery Siow.

1.56 pm

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

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

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

1.57 pm

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

1.58 pm

Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Mandarin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.

2.13 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.

2.29 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.

2.46 pm

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Gabriel Lam.

2.58 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Jasmin Lau.

3.13 pm

The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information, and Education (Ms Jasmin Lau): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Motion. I am grateful, but also a little anxious. Anxious – not in a way that paralyses, but in a way that reminds me of the gravity of this moment and the privilege that I have to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.31 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

President's Speech

(Debate on Address of Thanks – third allotted day)

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. First, I would like to apologise to all Members. As you know, there was a bit of a technical glitch in the audio system, resulting in all of us having an extended tea break. Leader.

Debate resumed.

4.42 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, hopefully, everyone is more attentive and energised after that extended break.

This new term of Government marks the beginning of a new chapter in the story of our island-nation. Singaporeans have placed their trust in me and my People's Action Party (PAP) team. They have returned my Government with a strengthened mandate. They have chosen all of us to be their voices in Parliament.

It is now our duty and our responsibility, on both sides of the aisle, office holders as well as backbenchers, to live up to that trust.

President Tharman has set out the challenges ahead and the key priorities for this term of Government. Members have raised many issues in this Debate and also shared useful ideas and suggestions. The Government will study all of your feedback.

Today, I want to take a step back and speak about the larger mission before us. As we move beyond SG60 and as the world around us undergoes profound changes, we must ask ourselves: what kind of Singapore are we building? What kind of future do we want? How do we ensure better lives for our children and grandchildren?

The past 60 years have been a miracle. When our founding leaders embarked on the journey of an independent Singapore, it felt like the most unpromising of startups. They would have been astonished at what Singapore has become today.

From third world to first, we have lifted the lives of Singaporeans beyond the wildest dreams of our pioneer generation. We created opportunities for all and improved living standards across the board. We enjoyed decades of peace and progress, of stability, harmony and unity.

Some now ask, can this miracle continue?

We know the headwinds are stronger. The external environment is more contested, more unpredictable and more challenging for small states like Singapore. Our economy is maturing and our population is ageing, so growth will inevitably slow. Many young people worry that they may not do better than their parents.

In the past, when education levels were lower, securing paper qualifications was seen as a sure ticket to success. Now almost all have tertiary education, and half the cohort have university degrees. So, competition has intensified.

Young people sometimes feel like they are trapped in a relentless rat race – from classroom to the workplace. They also worry that society is becoming more stratified. That the rich and wealthy are pulling ahead, while others struggle to keep up. Social media amplifies these anxieties, triggering constant comparisons and envy.

All this is not unique to Singapore. Across the world, younger people are reporting higher levels of anxiety, and responding in different ways. In China, there is the phenomenon of tang ping or lying flat. In Japan, they talk about hikikomori, not leaving the house. In Europe and America, there is “quiet quitting”, “downshifting”, or the “great resignation”, and so on.

Here in Singapore, we must do everything we can to defy this global trend. We cannot let our young people down. They are our future. My team and I make this pledge to our youths, and to the generations that follow. We will build Singapore with you in mind. We will strive to create more fulfilling lives for you. And not just for a few among you, but for all of you.

We have new ideas and plans to achieve this. Through Forward Singapore, we have set out our shared goals. To keep social mobility alive, so the escalator keeps moving, and everyone has the opportunity to rise over time. To strengthen our safety nets, so that no one falls through the cracks. To deepen our sense of solidarity, so we bridge differences and remain one united people. Let me elaborate on each of these in turn.

First, we will do more to keep the escalator moving and help every Singaporean realise their full potential. We have seen how other societies have become more stratified, increasingly, with privilege becoming more entrenched. In extreme cases, your caste and your social class determine who you are, what you can do and what you can become. Even in meritocratic societies, we see admissions to universities or top jobs in public and private sectors dominated by those from privileged backgrounds.

Governments everywhere try to rectify this. For example, I read recently in the UK, the government announced that civil service internships will be reserved for students from “lower socio-economic backgrounds” – defined as what jobs their parents did when they were 14. So, if you come from a working class family, you get the civil service internship. Otherwise, you do not get the chance.

These are well-intentioned efforts. But they often fail to work as intended. Sometimes, they even create new distortions. Fortunately, Singapore starts from a stronger position. But we cannot stand still. We have to tilt the balance continually and keep opportunities open at every stage of life.

We will invest more in the early years. Because as several Members have highlighted in this debate, opportunity gaps are opening up earlier – due to the advantage that better off parents confer on their children. And if we do not close these gaps quickly, they will only widen. We will expand KidStart and enhance ComLink+ – so that more families get help earlier, and more children gain a stronger footing in life.

We will deepen support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Today, enrolment in preschool is near universal. But attendance is less regular among the children from lower-income families. We will redouble our efforts and work closely with parents, preschool operators and social service agencies to ensure these children get the consistent support they need to thrive. We will not only do more, but we will also take actions across agencies with a more integrated family-centric approach – which several Members also spoke about.

In schools, we will continue to press ahead with reforms. We have changed how the PSLE is graded. It is no longer graded on a curve, as Members know. It is about your own achievement, not about how well you did relative to your peers. In secondary schools, we have replaced streaming with Full-Subject Based Banding. Students are in mixed-form classes. They take subjects at different levels, according to their abilities.

But I know for many parents, education still feels like an arms race. It is the PSLE season now. We all know of friends who are taking leave from work to help their children prepare for their PSLE. When you speak to each parent, they often tell you the same thing: they wish they could cut back on the endless tuition and give their children more space to grow up and play. Yet everyone hesitates to take that step. Why? Because deep down, they worry: what if my child loses out?

So, many families feel they are stuck on a treadmill, running harder and harder, in a bid to avoid falling behind. We must break this cycle. So, why we will do more in this term to reduce the stakes of single exams, to further broaden our definitions of success and to give every child the chance to discover and develop their strengths – be it in languages, sciences, sports, arts or technical skills.

I feel strongly about this as a result of my own personal experience. My friends and I in school did not grow up with family advantages or a head-start in life. But education was our great leveller. It gave us opportunities that we would not otherwise have had, the courage to dream and the chance to pursue our aspirations. I want every parent and every child to feel the same – that education is not a burden, but a springboard. A place where our children can learn, grow, discover their strengths and reach for better opportunities.

But education reforms alone are not enough to accomplish the transformation we seek. Because if employers still cling to narrow academic criteria to judge ability, then the arms race will simply shift from schools to workplaces. Parents will continue to feel that grades are the only ticket to success.

I remember when we had the “Our Singapore Conversation” some years back, someone told us: “I am glad you are trying to make every school a good school, but you cannot succeed unless every job is a good job”. And that person is right. We must change how we hire and promote.

This is not at all an easy task, but we have already started. It means recognising that people have different gifts and strengths. Some may excel in mathematics but not in languages, or vice versa. Others may struggle in written exams, but thrive in practical problem-solving. If we only use general academic results to sort out talent, we will undervalue many capable Singaporeans. We will miss out the many other competencies and intelligences that exist amongst us and that are just as important. So, we are changing.

Take the Public Service, for example. Academic results are no longer the be-all and end-all. They are just one part of the overall assessment. For recruitment, we are using more skills-based assessments. In some roles, we have stopped looking at grades altogether. For example, GovTech engineers are recruited through coding and problem-solving tests and interviews – because what matters is not your paper qualifications, but whether you can do the work. Once you enter the Public Service, how well you do does not depend on your grades or school. It depends on your qualities, your contributions and your performance on the job.

The private sector is changing too. One CEO shared with me: he used to insist on top academic credentials, focusing on school, universities, ticking all the right boxes. But he soon realised that academic credentials did not predict subsequent success in the company. What was more important was the individual’s attitude and mindset – their ability to learn, adapt, and work with others.

So these changes are happening, but clearly there is still a long way for us to go. Nevertheless, step by step we will move more towards skills-based hiring and progression, because what matters most is not where you started from, but what you can do and how far you are willing to go.

Valuing every job also means narrowing the gaps in how different professions are recognised and rewarded. This too is not easy, but we have been working on this for some time, and we too, have been making progress. For example, we have substantially raised the salaries of pre-school teachers and allied health professionals – vital roles that were once undervalued. We will continue to professionalise other skilled trades, including those that are considered “blue-collar” work.

Together with the Labour Movement, industry, and Institutes of Higher Learning, we will create more structured career and learning pathways so that tradespeople and essential workers can advance, grow their skills and be recognised for their contributions.

Pay matters, but ultimately this is not just about pay. It is also about mindset, a whole-of-society mindset. Much depends on how society as a whole views the different pathways that people choose. Let me give you an example.

In the past, parents resisted when their children wanted to pursue careers in fields like sports and culinary arts. Many young people would take a more conventional path first to please their parents, then only chased their passion later. I know of many friends who did that. Today, more parents embrace such choices, because society now celebrates our athletes, our chefs, and our artists. We take pride when their achievements put Singapore on the world map.

So, yes, progress has been made. Yet we all know that there remain vocations where pay is not the main issue. Rather, it is societal recognition and respect that continue to lag behind.

So, while the Government will do our part, the deeper change must come from society. We must move from a narrow meritocracy based solely on grades, to a broader and more inclusive one. Step which we have been making already over the years, but we must continue to move more in this direction. A broader and more inclusive meritocracy that encourages excellence in every field, that values a diversity of abilities and talents, that accords dignity and respect to all forms of work, and to the people who carry them out. That is how we keep social mobility alive, so every Singaporean can rise on the strength of their contributions and will be respected.

The shift towards more pathways to success must be underpinned by a strong and dynamic economy. To be clear, economic growth is not about chasing GDP. It is about uplifting lives and creating a wide range of good jobs and opportunities for all Singaporeans.

We will redouble our efforts to keep our economy competitive and vibrant. This is even more urgent in an increasingly fragmented global economy, with more barriers to trade. That is why the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce and the Economic Strategy Review committees are studying how Singapore can navigate the challenges that have come thick and fast in the past few months.

For the last 60 years, multi-national enterprises have been a key driver of our economy. They remain critical anchors in sectors like electronics, pharmaceutical and finance. We have to keep attracting new investments from leading global companies, so that Singapore can stay plugged into the frontiers of innovation.

At the same time, we must work harder to energise our enterprise eco-system. We want to make Singapore a more attractive place for startups and emerging companies, be it here or overseas. These can be home-grown firms looking to venture abroad, or overseas growth companies seeking a base in Asia. These are the companies that will shape our future success.

And to do this well, we will need a different approach. Because not all enterprises will succeed. Some will fail. And fail spectacularly. When they do, there will inevitably be calls for the Government to step in – I am sure from both sides of the House – from the Workers' Party (WP) and the PAP asking the Government to do more. And perhaps from time to time, we will.

But if we try too hard to shield every company, we risk ending up with more "zombie firms" – propped up artificially, stifling renewal and enterprise dynamism. And that is not the path we want to take. So, we must be prepared for more churn. And we should not only celebrate success stories but also learn to embrace failures and setbacks. Because it is only through constant experimentation that more innovative companies can emerge. The process will be uncomfortable, even unsettling. But it is necessary to create new value, and ultimately to create new and better jobs for Singaporeans.

So, let me be clear: our focus must always be on the worker, not the job. Companies may fail. Jobs may disappear. But every worker matters, every citizen matters; and no one will be left behind. [Applause.]

In this fast-changing world with greater churn, we also need to offer Singaporeans sufficient assurances so they can deal with the disruptions with a greater sense of confidence and security. And that means making sure that their essential needs are taken care of – quality education, healthcare and housing, for example, must remain accessible and affordable.

Housing was one of the biggest concerns in the last term. Because COVID-19 disrupted construction and the supply of new homes. But since then, we have ramped up supply. Today, there is a healthy pipeline of new BTO flats as well as land for new private properties. There are still concerns around housing, but I am confident the situation will steadily improve with the additional supply. So, we will not only catch up with demand but build ahead of it so there will be more BTOs with shorter waiting times and we will be able to give Singaporeans greater assurance when planning for their homes.

At the same time, we must update our system to reflect demographic changes, especially increased lifespans. I spoke about healthcare at the National Day Rally. And we will have lots to do in this area through Healthier SG, Age Well SG, and Age Well Neighbourhoods. In this term, we will also take steps to strengthen retirement adequacy. We are studying what further moves we can make. In particular, we want to help Singaporeans save more during their working lives, so that they have enough to meet their basic retirement needs for life, for a longer life. And for those who despite their best efforts cannot build up a sufficient nest egg, we will provide additional support so that every Singaporean can retire with dignity.

We will also continue to strengthen our safety nets for those who need more help. For children with special needs, we will provide more support in their education and help make their transition to adulthood and work smoother. For people with disabilities, we will give them more opportunities to pursue their aspirations and lead fulfilling lives. For those who encounter setbacks, we will help them get back on their feet because setbacks are part of life and in Singapore, everyone is due second and third chances. That is why we introduced programmes like the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme. It has just started, but we will make this a far better scheme than the unemployment insurance found elsewhere. [Applause.]

All of these measures are helping to bring down income inequality in Singapore. Our Gini coefficient is now at its lowest in more than two decades. Previously, the Gini was measured only on income from work. The Department of Statistics has since updated the measure to include income from all other sources, like rental and investments. The full data will be published soon. But I will share the headline finding with this House first.

The revised Gini coefficient comes out higher. We are talking 0.38 as compared to 0.36 after taxes and transfers.

We had expected this but what matters more is the trend. Even with the revised measure, the Gini continues to move downwards. So, inequality in Singapore is narrowing. And we are determined to keep it that way.

We have ways to mitigate wealth inequality in Singapore. A large share of household wealth here is tied up in property. So, we have taxes on property, progressive taxes on property and stamp duties on property transactions to ensure those with more contribute more.

But it is not just on the tax side. We also have transfers, wealth transfers for those with less through public housing to help lower-income families own their homes, through regular top-ups to CPF accounts and through new initiatives like the ITE Progression Award, which gives a head-start to ITE graduates who complete their diplomas.

So, taken together, our measures are helping to narrow both income and wealth inequality and we will press on, and continue to innovate in our social policies. So, that at every stage of life, Singaporeans feel assured, supported and confident about the future. So that opportunities and progress will always be fairly shared across our society.

As we work towards a fairer society, we must also accept a basic truth: not every journey will reach the same destination. Even if we succeed in levelling the starting point for everyone, some skills and talents will always be more in demand than others. Some jobs will command higher pay. That is reality.

And that is why those who do better must never forget this: no one succeeds alone. Opportunities do not come from individual effort alone. They come from the broader system – from the teachers who nurtured you, the workers who keep our city running, and the safe and stable environment that society as a whole provides. So, every successful and fortunate person in Singapore owes a debt to the community.

Those who are more successful should therefore contribute more, not just in taxes, but also in compassion and care. Because no taxation system, however progressive, can legislate the spirit of solidarity. That must come from within each of us, it must come from the heart and it must be nurtured by a culture that puts "we" before "me".

That is why I spoke about a "we first" society. It is one that strives for the collective good, not just self-interest; it is one that values solidarity even as we recognise our individual differences. To be clear "we first" doesn’t mean surpressing the "me". It means the "me" can only thrive when the "we" is strong. So, we need to embrace our individuality and help everyone be the best possible versions of themselves. At the same time, we have to look out for one another and lift each other up. Only then can we be greater than the sum of our parts.

This "“we first" spirit of solidarity is not new. This is how our forefathers of different origins, languages and religions came together to forge One Singapore.

And over the decades, through painstaking and patient effort, we have built up this social capital. And today the bonds among Singaporeans are stronger than ever. But we cannot be complacent. And I will share with you findings from recent surveys. They show, for example, that only one in three young Singaporeans had ever volunteered. That more than half said that most of their friends were from the same socio-economic group or race as them. We worry about these trends: because if we know less of one another, if we have less in common, then we risk seeing each other not as fellow citizens, but as competitors, as people from different tribes. And competition can easily turn into envy, resentment and division.

So, we must work harder to create more spaces and opportunities to mix and interact – be it at school, in the workplace, or in our neighbourhoods. It will take the concerted effort of everyone, generation after generation, to make sure that our diversity adds and does not subtract.

Sometimes we overdo it, and the efforts become contrived. The older Members of this House will remember when People's Assocation (PA) started the Community Games back in 2012, it required teams to include members of different races. That was the rule to take part in a community game. But some groups signed up "phantom players" just to meet the quota. The intent was good, but the outcome fell short. And it is easy to look back and laugh at what happened then. But we all know that fostering more of such interactions is very hard to do and at the same time, it cannot be left to chance.

Since then, we have learnt better how to do this. Today, PA organises more sports and activities that more naturally bring residents together, regardless of age, race, or background. We have merged Residents’ and Neighbourhood Committees into Residents’ Networks, so that people from public housing and private property can interact more freely.

And as a Government, we will continue to work hard to build up our social capital, to bind communities together, to connect us each to each, regardless of race, language or religion – and I might add also, regardless of socio-economic background.

At the same time the whole society must make an effort. Singaporeans need to step out of our comfort zone, learn from more other cultures and interact with people from different backgrounds. These may seem like small steps. But over time, they help to strengthen our social fabric. Because trust grows from these everyday encounters – eating together, celebrating one another’s festivals, or simply knowing your neighbour.

There is no doubt that our shared Singaporean identity has grown stronger these last 60 years. In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh said that being a member of a racial and religious group and our identity as Singaporeans are both "equally important".

Indeed, we all have multiple identities and we celebrate these. But we should be clear-eyed about our present realities. In fact, a recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey showed that among some groups of Singaporeans, their religion ranks higher than their Singaporean nationality in determining their self-identity. That is why race and religion, if exploited, can easily arouse passions and tear apart the very fabric of our society. We see this happening in so many other countries and Singapore is not immune to these powerful forces.

In fact, we had a close call in the recent General Election (GE). External elements sought to exploit our differences to divide and weaken us. In one instance, they attacked the credibility of certain candidates because these candidates allegedly failed to advocate the rights of a particular religious community. In another instance, they praised a candidate for arguing against the separation of religion and politics.

But it was not just foreign interference. At home, we also had Singaporeans who exhorted certain groups to vote along racial and religious lines. They said, "Vote for this candidate because he or she is a better representative of your race or religion". Or they compared candidates and said, "Vote for this person because he or she has been a more vocal champion for your race or religion".

These narratives were not just seen online, but they were heard on the ground. And that is why I spoke out then, in the middle of the campaign, not as a party leader, but as Prime Minister, to make clear that race and religion must never be weaponised in our politics. [Applause.]

Thankfully, many Singaporeans rejected the calls to vote along racial and religious lines. They voted for the candidate that they felt was best for Singapore, regardless of race or religion. But make no mistake. Had the election outcomes rewarded those who had pushed people to vote for racial and religious reasons, it would have caused a serious fissure in Singapore society. Other racial and religious groups would have mobilised to protect their own interests in the future elections. This would have jeopardised the harmonious, multi-racial and multi-religious society that took us 60 years to build.

Looking ahead, as elections become more tightly contested, the temptation to play this card will only grow. So, we must find ways to guard against this and have to see how all of us, as Members of this House, can reaffirm our commitment to serve all Singaporeans, regardless of race or religion, and foreswear the use of racial and religious appeals in elections.

Mr Speaker, "one united people, regardless of race, language or religion" is not just a line in our pledge. It is the foundation of our independence. It is the reason why Singapore became Independent. It is the bedrock of our nationhood. Let us all never forget this. [Applause.]

Our unity and the trust we have in one another also depends on how we conduct our politics. The way we debate, disagree and decide as a country. That is what constructive politics in Singapore is about. Our society is maturing and our politics will evolve, too. And so, I welcome the opposition presence in Parliament. In this GE, Singaporeans have chosen to send both PAP and WP Members of Parliament (MPs) here, and both sides have a duty to serve Singaporeans faithfully.

For the PAP, we do not assume we are automatically entitled to govern, just because we have done so since self-government. Our right to lead must be earned, by working hard and delivering results that improve the lives of Singaporeans. Doing well in one election does not guarantee success in the next. Every election is a new test and we must take nothing for granted.

In this term of government, I fully expect WP to keep us on our toes – raising questions, scrutinising our policies and holding us accountable. This is their role as the opposition, and I am sure they will play it vigorously. The WP will try to build up its ranks and grow its presence in Parliament over time, as any political party would. One day, it will want to take over from the PAP as the ruling party, even if it may not say so openly now. That is the nature of political competition.

But in the end, be it the PAP, WP or any other political party, we are all servants of the people. The final word rests with them. And I believe Singaporeans are discerning voters. They will decide which parties deserve their trust, both in Government and in opposition. If any party falls short of the public's high expectation and standards, there will surely be consequences. Privilege given today can easily be taken tomorrow. So, let us all conduct our politics with seriousness, with integrity and with a deep sense of responsibility for the longer-term interests of our nation. And that is how I hope our politics will evolve and our democracy can strengthen over time.

Besides welcoming diverse views in Parliament, the Government will do more to engage and involve Singaporeans outside of this House. As I said in the National Day Rally last month, we do not just want to do things for Singaporeans. We also want to do things with Singaporeans.

So, I invite all Singaporeans to join us, to connect, collaborate and shape our future together. We already have many channels for public consultations. We will continue with all these. But, we will also go further. We will open up new opportunities for Singaporeans to have deeper conversations and engagements. To shape the character of our neighbourhoods and estates, for example. To be directly involved in policy-making, through Citizens' Panels, as one possible channel. And to help set new norms on major issues, like education, multi-culturalism or how we raise our children in this digital age.

In particular, we want to involve our young people. They have energy, ideas and a strong sense of purpose. So, we will give them more platforms to step forward, contribute and make their voices count. This has already started. In 2023, we set up Youth Panels to study issues that young Singaporeans care about. They shared their ideas with me at the inaugural Youth Policy Forum last year; many of their recommendations were constructive and thoughtful and we have taken them on board. Next year, we will launch the second round of Youth Panels and I look forward to more new ideas from our young people.

So, to all young Singaporeans, I say, "We will not let you down. We are building Singapore for you and with you." [Applause.]

And you, too, have a part to play. Work with us to secure a brighter future for yourself and your fellow citizens. Do not settle for anything less. The future is not cast in stone. It is something you create, and we need you, our young Singaporeans, to be the authors of this next chapter; to write what must become your Singapore Story.

So, be bold in chasing your dreams, seize the opportunities before you. There will be setbacks along the way, but you will never face them alone. Embrace the failures as well as the successes. For it is often at the edge of our comfort zones that we learn, grow and become the best versions of ourselves.

Most important of all, remember this: success is not just about what we achieve alone, but what we build together. True fulfilment comes from creating a society where every Singaporean can stand tall and we all move forward as one people. This is what has defined us for the last 60 years, a Singapore Spirit rooted in trust, solidarity and resilience. And it is this same spirit that will carry us into the future.

Mr Speaker, I have set out the broad strokes of a new direction for our next chapter; of a new vision for Singapore. I hope every Singaporean can get behind this shared endeavour. Together, let us build a Singapore that remains a land of endless possibilities. A home where every generation does better than the one before and a nation that continues to shine brightly for the next 60 years and for the generations beyond. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

5.24 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, how can we give our children a better life?

I stand here for the first time because of the people of Sembawang and the generations who came before me, including my own parents, who worked hard so I could have the chance to carry the hopes and dreams of many Singaporeans, especially parents and grandparents, who are quietly wondering, "How will my children cope with the challenges and complexities of tomorrow? Can they have a better life than ours?"

These questions matter because Singapore has never had natural resources to fall back on. What we have always had is people. Our workers, our families, our children.

Our people are our only natural resource. And what we have achieved in the last 60 years is nothing short of remarkable. Today, 100% of our youths are literate and our students consistently top global rankings in education. Our Human Capital Index is among the highest in the world. And more importantly, our people are known not just for being smart, but for being honest, hardworking and resilient. This progress did not come from luck. It came from sacrifice, from seniors and parents who gave up their dreams so their children could have one.

This is the Story of Singapore, where we know that we need to invest in our people, where we know that human capital is our only competitive advantage and where we know this is the only way towards a brighter future. But every generation faces its own mountain.

Today, our children are growing up in a very different world. One filled with screens, stress and shifts. In my conversations with parents on the ground, I have heard real concerns, "My child is doing okay in school, but is that enough? How do I raise them to be strong, kind and happy?"

As a young father myself, I feel these worries too. That is why as a youth volunteer, I had focused my community work on supporting the young – from launching Healthy Plate programmes with a local social service agency, to guiding a group of youth leaders to launching an anti-vape campaign. Because every child matters and we all have a part to play.

Even as we worry, we must remember: our young people are also full of hope. They dream not just of stable jobs, but also of meaningful lives. They talk about AI, sustainability, creativity, not just because these terms sound cool, but because they truly want to make a difference and do something meaningful with their lives.

I saw this passion come alive when I met a group of young entrepreneurs. Yilina and Jay, both business students, are two of the co-founders of Fossa Chocolate. Matthew, a lawyer by training, and Trevor, an accountant, are the owner and manager of All Would Envy. These youths were not confined by their degrees but set out to pursue their passion and built something of their own. When their businesses do well, they will go on to inspire their children and future generations. Proving that in Singapore, if we believe, we can achieve.

That is the Singapore Dream. Not just to make a living, but to create a life of purpose. So, I echo the President's emphasis in his Opening address that we must "foster an outgoing and experimental spirit among our enterprises and people." He further implored us to work together and make Singapore "a society where every citizen shares in the nation's prosperity and every Singaporean has the confidence that tomorrow will bring brighter opportunities and a better life."

I am heartened that the Government has continued to honour its commitment to nurture our future generations with initiatives, such as free childhood vaccines, affordable preschools with childcare subsidies, Grow Well SG to help parents raise healthy children, clear screen time guidelines to protect our young minds, National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy to improve our mental health ecosystem and the GRIT Traineeship Programme to ensure our tertiary students and fresh graduates gain real-world industry experience. These are not just policies. They are building blocks of trust between the state and our people.

But policy alone is not enough. Raising a child and helping our youths to maximise their potential is still a community effort. As a grassroots adviser, I continue to have a soft spot for youth-related topics. In my engagements with our youths, I hear anxieties and insecurities from our students in higher learning and fresh graduates about their job prospects and career options.

So, my Parliamentary colleague, Ms Poh Li San and I are leading a new community initiative to address this issue. Together with the advisers in Sembawang GRC and Sembawang West single member constituency (SMC), we have pulled together our own networks of companies to organise company visits and fireside chats with executives. This initiative is complementary with the nationwide Traineeship programme as it will help youths to get insights on the changes in the job market and also be clued in on the career options they can have beyond their degrees.

This programme is aptly named Slay, or Sembawang Learning and Achievement for Youths, as we want our youths to not just do well, but do well with confidence and style. The programme will launch in the next two weeks and our first company visit is slated for end-October.

I am excited to work with you to secure our future for our nation, for our people and for our future generations. In my term as a Member of this House, I will work together with you to support the young and to build not just a place, but a home where our people and local businesses can sustainably grow and thrive.

In this House, I will focus on three areas: (a) strengthening family support systems: I want to see more community-driven care for parenting and early childhood so that every child can grow up healthily and with the best chance to fulfill their potential; (b) championing youth-led ideas: young people should not just be asked for feedback, they should lead projects and shape the solutions they care about so that they join us in the stewardship of our nation; and (c) supporting our local businesses: small local business owners need room to grow. I will push for simpler regulations, better digital tools and fairer access to opportunities so that our companies will go on to inspire future generations of business owners and entrepreneurs.

These are real areas where we can do better and I intend to raise them here.

As we celebrate SG60, let us remember, it was not just deliberate planning or a stroke of good luck that brought us here. It was the strength of our people. And like in a garden, if we want strong trees in the future, we must care for the young shoots today. That means giving our young the right mix of guidance, trust and room to grow.

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

This generation has both the responsibility and the opportunity to build for the next. Let us build a Singapore where every child can find their way, every parent feels less alone and every senior sees that their sacrifices were worth it, so that one day, when our children stand here, they can say, "We did not just inherit Singapore. We built it together." In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel deeply honoured and grateful to stand here today to deliver my maiden speech.

I come from an ordinary family, and it is through my parents' hard work and perseverance that I have the opportunity to stand here today. My parents did not receive much education, but like many Singaporeans, they believed that as long as their children received an education, they would have a better future.

So, I have always remembered: whilst Singapore has no natural resources, what we can always rely on is our people. Since Independence, our greatest investment has not been in factories, but in our children. In return, our young people have achieved 100% literacy rates, we rank amongst the top in international education rankings and the World Bank has rated us as one of the best countries in its Human Capital Index.

None of this happened by chance, but through the sacrifices and quiet contributions of countless fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, who lived frugally and gave their all.

The challenges facing today's children are different from those of the past. Parents no longer worry about having three meals a day, but about mental health, internet addiction, and whether their children will find a fulfilling direction in life.

During my visits with residents, I often hear such sentiments, "I cannot imagine what the future will look like, and I don't know if my child will be able to adapt."

As a father of three children, I share the same concerns. This is why in my grassroots work, I have always focused on youth and family issues, such as promoting healthy eating, anti-vaping and encouraging children to develop healthy lifestyles.

Because I believe every child matters. Even as we worry, we must remember – our young people are full of hope. They not only dream of stable jobs but also yearn for meaningful lives. They speak of AI, sustainability and creativity not because these jobs are trendy, but because they genuinely hope to make a difference and do something meaningful with their lives.

I know such a group of young people, like the founders of Fossa Chocolate and All Would Envy. They were originally lawyers and accountants, but later chose to follow their own path, pursue their passions, establish their own brands and create something of their own. We need to help these SMEs succeed in order to inspire future generations to face challenges courageously and pursue their dreams. This is the spirit that the new generation of Singaporeans is demonstrating.

I am also heartened that the President, in delivering the address, encouraged us to work together to make Singapore "a society where every citizen shares in the nation's prosperity, and every Singaporean has the confidence that tomorrow will bring brighter opportunities and a better life."

I am heartened to see the Government's support for future generations, including free infant vaccinations, affordable preschool fees, the Grow SG programme to help parents cultivate healthy habits, new guidelines on screen time to protect children's physical and mental health, more policies promoting mental health and family support and the GRIT programme.

These policies are not just about children's academic performance, but about their lives. But policies alone are not enough. The community can also participate and use concrete action to nurture children and help young people realise their potential.

As a grassroots adviser, I continue to focus on early childhood and youth issues. In my interactions with young people, I have heard fresh graduates' anxieties about employment prospects and career choices.

Therefore, Ms Poh Li San and I are leading a new community initiative to address this issue. Together with advisers from Sembawang GRC and Sembawang West SMC, we have pooled our networks to organise company visits and fireside chats with senior executives. This initiative complements national training programmes, as it will help young people understand changes in the job market and help them learn about career options beyond degrees.

Mr Speaker, this year we celebrate SG60. For 60 years, we have relied on our people to reach this day, step by step. We want every child to grow into a hopeful, capable and confident Singaporean. We want every parent to feel at ease, and every grandparent to be proud. Like a garden, if we want strong trees to grow in the future, we must start nurturing the seedlings today. This means giving young people the right guidance, trust, and space to grow. This generation has both the responsibility and the opportunity to build the future for the next. When our next generation stands here, they can proudly say, "We didn't just inherit Singapore. We built it together."

Happy 60th birthday, Singapore. May we work together towards the future. Majulah Singapura. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

5.39 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I join the other hon Members in this House in adding to the chorus of support for the Motion of Thanks.

In his address, Mr President highlighted fundamental shifts in the tides, leading to a far less predictable world. Just in the last month, we have seen protests in Indonesia, UK, USA and leadership upheavals in countries from Japan, Thailand to Nepal and France. Leaders raced to uphold promises, undo the work of their predecessors and bring forth change within a political term, often, an impossible task.

The global and economic order is in transition and people are clamouring to be heard. Compounding this are ongoing conflicts felt not just as remote death tolls beyond our shores but real atrocities which citizen reporters, humanitarian workers and everyday residents stream online. As we travel to work and feed our children at night, these dominate our feeds and we feel the suffering from half a world ago, a stereo split screen like watching two worlds exist at once.

While real-time information promotes compassion, it also magnifies anxiety in our hyperconnected world and there is dissonance within so difficult to reconcile.

All these, amidst the slow yet inevitable backdrop of climate change, no longer a distant march but here in the form of hottest years on record, flash floods, droughts, rising sea levels. Extreme weather destabilises food sources and supply chains, causing scarcity and rising costs.

Our youth faces anxieties about the future they will inherit. Working adults feel sandwiched as they shoulder pressures at work and at home. Seniors confront major life transitions and isolation.

Sir, to navigate through the unknown together as one inclusive society, we must go beyond protecting our borders and resources, to tend to something equally precious – the mental health and well-being of our people.

The well-being of our children is essential. Every child is precious in an ageing society and they are the future of our nation. But they carry a heavy load in the face of turbulent around us and this can manifest in mental health conditions, bullying and self-harm.

With increased digital exposure, our children are subjected to the mercy of algorithms designed to sustain their attention, often with sensational or emotional posts. Trends shift quickly. What our children see today may not be the same tomorrow. Social media also forces our children to grow up too fast. Primary school children dance to mildly risque dance moves ala K-Pop Demon Hunters, chasing likes before they have the maturity to process their own actions.

Coupled with deepfakes and false content, this results in a disorientation of body image and a disjoint in their perception between what is portrayed online and the real world. Over a prolonged period, our children may lack the confidence to navigate the world and feel stressed as they worry how they can keep up with changes, questioning what the truth is.

I am glad that Grow Well SG, a coordinated effort to help our children, was launched earlier this year. I hope that children's mental health screening will also be part of the health plans and I also hope that services by CREST-Youth teams can be expanded to include children under 12. We must start earlier.

Sir, for many youths who are conscious about the world that we live in, the future seems uncertain as calamities increase, leading to a sense of hopelessness that this is the world and the systems that they have inherited. Despite their willingness to take action, some feel wary to create change as an individual, questioning the impact which they can make as one person in the face of bigger nations and corporations.

This Government is taking serious steps to fortify our food supply chains, tackle rising sea levels and develop innovative cooling systems towards heat resilience. Climate change is a wicked problem of the generation. It is important to deepen their knowledge as part of school curriculum and involve them as co-creators to climate solutions and a voice at the table. So, I was very grateful to hear the Prime Minister's speech earlier.

Building accurate understanding and active participation will help move helplessness to agency and foster a shared mission, like Captain Planet.

With a volatile economy and reports of company layoffs, many working adults feel greater stress that is coupled with cost-of-living worries. For some, the need to earn and provide, pretend that everything is okay, results in them pushing past the point of burnout, requiring more intensive and longer treatments. Some are concerned about gaps in their curriculum vitae and stigma by employers, leading to potential unemployment should they take that much-needed step to seek treatment.

For this group of individuals who require time off from work, I hope we can consider some form of interim credits or allowance to help with basic living costs, as schemes such as ComCare often do not apply. To be self-aware and recognise one's need to rest is courage. To commit oneself to recovery is strength.

Secondly, I hope there can be stronger support for their re-integration into the workforce once they are ready. While there are support services such as the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) Job Club, it is unclear how many individuals these services have supported as a proportion of those who have sought help, and the range of jobs available for persons with different qualifications, as well as the progress of the job fit assessment and referral framework by the National Council of Social Servce to ensure a longer term fit between employer and employees with different kinds of conditions.

Worries about the cost of treatments remain a key barrier. Sir, besides MediShield and public subsidies available for the management of mental illnesses under the chronic disease management programme (CDMP), I hope the Government can consider expanding the mental health conditions covered under the CDMP and increase the subsidies coverage for mental health treatments. Recovery is often non-linear, requiring consistent treatment, and the costs incurred for one to receive quality and timely support can be prohibitive. I echo my appeal for the Government to coordinate a framework and improve access to insurance coverage for persons with mental health conditions.

Sir, a study by the National University of Singapore found a gap in parents' understanding of mental health conditions. Under the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy, the "Parenting for Wellness" toolbox for parents was released. How can we work with parents to understand and put this into practice in a bite-sized and practical way, like how I consult Instagram Reels at night to find out whether I have gentle-parented my son hard enough, or could I actually have fed what I fed him at 10 months old.

Can workshops be made more accessible in our neighbourhoods to improve mental health literacy and equip parents to have hard conversations with their children? After all, there is no school of parenting when a child comes into our lives, and as a first-time mom, I will be the first to admit that parents are learning as we become parents too. I understand that the Ministry of Social and Family Development will introduce a new model of support for the health needs of families under the ComLink+ scheme. I urge the Ministry to consider including mental well-being in the updated model, as vulnerable families often face instability and decision fatigue as well as a significant bandwidth tax.

Sir, while Singapore is set to become super-aged next year, Ang Mo Kio is well on its way as a super-aged town with a diverse population of seniors, each with their own life experiences and challenges. We often speak about youths transitioning to the workforce, facing uncertainty, but less is spoken about older adults, who stop work and are confronted with a loss of identity, companions or health, becoming empty nesters or taking on a caregiving role to a spouse. Sometimes, these stressors compound, resulting in harmful or suicidal thoughts among older adults.

One of the most difficult parts of being our people's representatives is sitting in wakes or on the living room floor the morning after or waiting for the ambulance next to a cold canvas in the immediate aftermath. Our seniors have given so much of themselves to see Singapore become what she is today. I only hope that we can help them feel supported as they age. 希望我亲爱的乐龄可以安享晚年.

I call on the Government to consider a targeted strategy in caring for our seniors' mental health. Seniors do not have the same vocabulary to search symptoms online like our youth. We need to think about local neighbourhoods as a community of first responders and equip primary care as a critical touchpoint for prevention, as these conditions first materialise as somatic concerns, such as pains or insomnia sometime.

Beyond the good work of the Silver Generation Office, Active Ageing Centres and the community centres, can we leverage technology and have automated messages regularly reminding seniors of health and well-being support, similar to messages which new parents, such as myself, receive when our babies hurt certain months in age. A text or push notification could remind them that they are not alone. An elderly who would often come to my meet-the-people sessions week after week with a different challenge, once stopped short and said, "I just want someone to know that I am still alive."

More often than not, out of good intentions, we tend to share with our seniors, "It is dangerous, you should not do that, be careful." This deficit approach diminishes their confidence. As we reshape the ageing narrative, I hope we take a strengths-based approach to emphasise to our seniors what they can do.

Finally, carers and caregivers have a crucial role in one's mental health journey, as their companionship and support are integral to persons in recovery. Where the person in recovery was a breadwinner, a carer may step in to take on additional financial responsibility as well as a new role, ensuring medical adherence. A person in recovery and carer's story is one of strength. Especially for ageing parents who care for their adult children with mental health conditions, it is testimony to unconditional love with little respect.

I was heartened with the announcement in Budget 2025, that as part of the upcoming enhancements to the Home Caregiving Grant, the Government will raise the quantum and maximum qualifying per capita household income thresholds for the Home Caregiving Grant. At present, the qualifying criteria is based on someone permanently requiring some assistance with at least three of the six activities of daily living. In this term, I hope the Government will recognise caregivers to persons who have mental health conditions which render them unfit to work too. Such support, particularly for caregivers facing health or ageing challenges of their own would be much appreciated.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, more than 40% of residents in Ang Mo Kio GRC are aged 60 and above. Our seniors possess invaluable experience and the nation's collective memory, having lived through pandemics and global crises. I deeply appreciate our seniors for often sharing their advice while their encouragement lifts my spirits.

Many seniors have shared with me that they feel the pressures of change, such as declining health and retirement, which disrupt their daily routines. Additionally, they experience the loss of old friends and family members who, as they grow older, begin to live farther apart. The resilience they have built over the years has taught them to endure challenges, so feelings of distress are often kept hidden in silence.

As a result, seniors may feel lonely. Some uncles have shared with me their desire to remain active. However, their spirits wane when they are beset by chronic illnesses that require ongoing attention. Sometimes, fading memory or hearing problems can also lead them to withdraw from others.

Sir, we need to celebrate the resilience of our seniors. I am truly inspired, especially with grandmothers who can still work part-time, diligently cook and care for their grandchildren. For our seniors, I hope it will be easier for them to access mental health care so that it does not feel strange to them and we can mitigate their apprehension towards health screenings. Seniors must feel that seeing a doctor is akin to working with a personal coach who can improve their quality of life.

As a community, we must go beyond traditional approaches and collaborate with various agencies to reach out to seniors.

Places of worship like the Al-Mutaqqin Mosque have started efforts to engage elderly congregants through sharing on health topics and estate planning. These sessions are delivered in practical and sensitive ways by weaving together these topics with religious guidance.

For seniors and those who care for them, even as the seasons of life change, this season can be just as beautiful. Many conditions can be treated if addressed early. Support is always available and many are willing to walk with you, accompanying you in every step of your journey.

(In English): Sir, as we weather international crises and uncertainties, we must protect the hearts and minds of our people. As our only national resource, a healthy population is key to the long-term stability and prosperity of Singapore.

As we celebrate SG60 this year, I am reminded that our story has always been one of people who have stood together and overcome the odds. Indeed, it is a story of "we". Let us bring that same spirit to improve mental health. Every school, a place of nurture and safety; every workplace, a circle of purpose and care; every home, a source of strength and love; every neighbourhood, a compassionate community together. I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

5.55 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, every youth matters. I have had the joy of serving in youth work for 25 years. For much of that time, I thought I understood our young friends. But I no longer think so. The gap of understanding has widened and I do not like it. Their world is far more complex, shaped by pressures and influences my generation never had to face.

I do not have children of my own, though I have many godchildren who I love very much, including some entrusted to me in their parents’ wills, which means, if anything happens to their parents, the children come to me. Their young lives remind me constantly of the responsibility we share for the next generation.

The fight for the health of our youths is not for the fainthearted. Singapore’s Total Defence prepares us for attacks by air, land, sea, cyber and even threats to our social cohesion. Yet, one dangerous enemy is often overlooked – the battle for our youths’ minds and hearts. If we fail to recognise this war, we cannot win it. Today, I will speak on five fronts that demand our urgent attention.

First, vaping deterrence, an alarming trend among our youths. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Home Affairs and partner agencies for their tireless efforts to clamp down on Kpods and vapes. I also thank Minister Ong Ye Kung and Senior Minister of State Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim for addressing our recent Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and for the enhanced penalties announced on 1 September. I also appreciate the balanced approach that allows those who step forward to seek help to do so without fear of punishment.

At the same time, some youth workers have shared that uncertainty remains on whether they will be penalised if they step forward post-1 September, especially for probationers who cannot risk being marked for another offence. If those guiding our youths have questions, it will naturally be more difficult for our youths themselves to come forward with confidence. While swift enforcement is both necessary and commendable, we must also engage stakeholders working with youths, so that implementation is smooth and effective.

If our intent is restorative, which I believe it is, then our public communications must clearly reflect this. I have also heard of secondary school students who were involved in selling vapes to classmates before 1 September. Can the Government clarify whether those who voluntarily surrender stock, not just the users, would also be supported if they step forward?

Deterrence alone is not sufficient. In July this year, I was notified that a primary school boy in Dover was approached by an older youth to buy vapes, a shock to parents. National figures reinforce these fears. Students caught vaping jumped from 800 in 2022 to more than 3,100 each year between 2022 and 2024. Despite concerns raised in Parliament since 2021, the problem has worsened. Education and enforcement were attempted, yet numbers rose, and drug-laced Kpods slipped through.

Before the ban, TikTok videos of youths vaping to music and dance went viral. Vaping became a flex, a social badge. It was normalised online, which partly explains its explosion in popularity. Our Internet-savvy youths also find overseas articles and even AI chat responses, portraying vaping as a “safer” alternative to cigarettes. On social media, it is marketed as stylish and modern, while Singapore’s ban can seem, to them, as odd as our chewing gum prohibition. In the words of a 16-year-old, "Social media’s voice is way louder than the school’s.” Meanwhile, predators continue to adapt. In the UK, youths are already moving from vapes to nicotine pouches and snus. Alarmingly, some websites even advertise direct delivery to Singapore, in open defiance of our laws.

As at 3.00 pm today, I am happy to read that the Health Science Authority and the Infocomm Development Agency have since blocked the said website. I had raised a PQ this past Monday. As guardians of our young, we must stay one step ready and ahead of this battle.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many youths vape not only out of curiosity, but to cope with stress, boredom, relational and family conflict, or academic pressures. If we punish behaviours but ignore distress, we fail our children. That is why the battle against vaping cannot be separated from the broader fight for mental health, which I will return to later in my speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if vaping reflects one form of pressure, another that cuts even deeper into the lives of our young is bullying, whether in the classroom or online. Bullying in schools, both physical and online, compounds the stresses our youths already face. Some victims may not even recognise they are being bullied, blaming themselves as "not enough".

I thank Education Minister Desmond Lee and his team for spearheading efforts to review MOE's approach to tackling bullying in schools. It is worth noting from the National Institute of Education's survey that many students confide first in parents or friends, rather than teachers.

This is not a reflection of our teachers' commitment. They work tirelessly and often go beyond the classroom to support our students. Rather, it shows that prevention cannot rest on teachers alone. Parents and peers must also be equipped, so they know how to respond and whether the student is the bully or the victim.

Several youths have shared that they hold back from reporting bullying, not because they do not care, but because they fear being labelled a "snitch" or a "busybody". This silence allows harm to continue. A larger mindset shift is needed amongst students themselves, to see speaking up not as a betrayal, but as courage for standing for what is right.

I would like to ask: first, will there be standardised training for students, parents and teachers on prevention and intervention? Second, can students report incidents safely and anonymously? If so, how? Third, are definitions of bullying versus mischief clear and when must cases be escalated to parents or MOE?

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO's) review shows that the most successful countries do not stop at passing clear laws prohibiting all forms of harm. They pair those laws with comprehensive interventions: age-appropriate equipping of students; training for every adult in the school environment – teachers, cleaners and canteen staff; strong support systems for victims and active engagement with parents.

Finland's KiVa programme is a strong example. It mobilises pro-social classmates to stand with victims and empowers bystanders to intervene. Closer to home, upper primary students have shared that hearing peers talk about resolved bullying cases is especially powerful. It shows that they are not alone, that help is possible and that change can happen.

Given the dynamics of school bullying, peer involvement is not optional. It is essential to the restorative journey. Singapore should review our anti-bullying programmes to glean lessons from such models and adopt a more holistic approach. One that not only addresses bullies but supports victims and reshapes school culture to protect and defend every child.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if bullying exposes the vulnerabilities of school life, social media magnifies them. Social media today is not just a distraction, it has become a powerful force – shaping identity, relationships and the mental and physical well-being of our young. It influences how they see themselves and how they connect with others, and how they measure their own worth.

An IMH survey in September 2024 revealed that one in three youths aged 15 to 35 experience severe, or extremely severe, depression, anxiety or stress. Among the key drivers are excessive social media use, body image concerns and cyberbullying.

Where a child once found refuge at home, bullying now follows them into their bedrooms through their phones. The home, once a sanctuary, has become another battlefield. This is why I continue to urge delaying social media exposure until at least age 16. Around the world, governments are moving. France now recommends a ban on social media under 15, and other EU countries are exploring similar steps. Could the Government update us on its study of Australia's approach?

A teen once told CNA that social media feels like "drugs under the disguise of harmless entertainment". If vapes harm physically, unregulated social media harms mentally and emotionally. Anonymous comments and unrealistic portrayals of life shape how our youths see themselves and others. Social psychology shows that even witnessing online bullying can cause guilt, anxiety, fear and difficulty in forming a healthy sense of self. Our children live with this daily, even when they are not the direct targets.

In this digital world, families remain the first line of defence. Conversations, clear limits and healthier alternatives matter, even amid work pressures. A child told his parents, "I wish I was your phone," reflecting the longing for their time and attention. It speaks volumes about the need for adults to model well and lead at home.

There are encouraging examples. In Portland, a mother who refused to give her 10-year-old a smartphone revived a household landline. Within months, 15-20 families followed. What seemed old-fashioned turned liberating. Children greeted parents before calling friends, memorised numbers and listened attentively instead of scrolling while talking.

It reminded me of my growing-up years, when picking up the phone meant looking forward to an engaging conversation where you can see the smiles and the frowns of the person across the line, and the pause as a friend thought to respond before they spoke.

A 14-year-old girl shared her gratitude for her mom who restricted her use of social media, having witnessed the constant comparison that left many of her peers anxious. We must not miss this point. Youths turn to social media for connection, entertainment or relief from school and life pressures. That is why our approach to responsible use cannot be separated from supporting their mental health.

Ironically, many youths turn to, as medicine, social media, often deepens the very struggle they try to escape. Just as Healthier SG takes a preventive approach to physical health, we need a national programme that prepares youths for the mental and emotional impact of digital life, in ways that resonate with them.

When asked about school programmes on responsible social media, a 16-year-old replied, "What your friends say is more effective than what the school says." We must change how we engage.

Australia's Mental Health First Aid often described as "CPR for Emotional Emergencies". It equips ordinary people, including youths, to recognise distress and offer immediate support until professional help is available. Singapore could adapt such an approach and enhance peer support.

To protect our youths, I urge one decisive response: legislation to delay social media access until at least age 16. This requires robust age verification, strict time limits and phone-free zones among other measures we must explore. Policy may not change the human heart, but it can draw firm boundaries, reinforce social norms and give parents the authority to say, "not yet".

Mr Deputy Speaker, as we strengthen support for all youths, we must be especially mindful of those who carry sharper and double burdens, our youths with disabilities. I first met this autistic boy when he was 16 and I was in my 20s, which is about 100 years ago. Over the past 25 years, I have been very blessed by this friendship. He has taught me what kindness is, what compassion looks like and what it means to have a childlike faith that never grows jaded. Through him, I learnt to see persons with disabilities with new eyes. My hope is that you, too, will have the privilege to get to know persons with disabilities, not the "hi-and-bye" kind of knowing, but the kind where you share meals, walk alongside them and do life together.

Youths with disabilities face sharper struggles and are two to three times more likely than their peers to experience mental health difficulties. Many retreat online in search of connection, only to encounter comparison, stress, addiction and deeper insecurity. This leaves them carrying a double stigma: disability and mental health.

Gaps also remain in professional understanding. Often, depression in youths with disabilities is dismissed as part of the disability. Autistic youths, for example, may have genuine mental health conditions wrongly attributed solely to autism. When this happens, mental health needs go untreated and may worsen over time. The reality is stark. These youths fight two battles: disability, and the disbelief that their sadness deserves help.

The caregivers, too, shoulder immense caregiving responsibilities and stress. This constant strain directly affects their ward's well-being, deepening the mental health challenges they face.

Having ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2013, Singapore must now ensure that our National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy is fully disability-inclusive through the Enabling Masterplan. I was especially encouraged at this year's 60th National Day Parade, witnessing how intentional the entire parade was, including persons with disabilities and with the sign language thoughtfully woven throughout the programme. This marks the true progress of a nation, one that leaves no one behind.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spoken on four battlelines where protection must be strengthened. Let me close with the fifth front: my vision for our youths in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when I look at our youths, I see courage and compassion. I see them caring for their families, honouring parents, loving siblings and convinced that family is worth fighting for. I see young people brave enough to stand up for their friends and rooted in healthy relationships. I see youths who embrace education as a privilege, ending each day with purpose. I see young people celebrating the success of others and enjoying wholesome fun in music, sports and nature, without coarse joking or degrading remarks. I see them whole in school, home and community, skilled and committed to lifelong learning. I see them recognising that they are part of Singapore's future, thriving in their talents, bold and creative in attempting new things. I see our young friends resilient and brave in uncertainty, building ideas, products and services that help our communities flourish. Above all, I see youths who know that blessing the less fortunate is a privilege, and who treat resources and knowledge as a trust, to be used generously in the service of others.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to preserve, defend and protect our youths is to secure Singapore's future. Our strength lies not in Reserves or capabilities alone, but in young Singaporeans who are tough-minded, yet tender-hearted. Let us act wisely and decisively, for our youths to lead our Singapore into a stronger future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.

6.13 pm

Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my road to this esteemed House has been a long one, but better late than never. Over the last 25 years, ground-up, every house visit, kopitiam conversation and community walkabout has reinforced my belief that Singapore is special because of the resilience and trust of our people.

When I first declined the invitation to enter politics in 1996, I had just become the managing director of an investment firm. I did not know where my heart truly was.

In 1998 during the Asian Financial Crisis, I was asked to retrench staff but refused, proposing instead that senior management take a pay cut to save jobs. Because I stood up for others, I was retrenched myself. I counselled those retrenched at a fast food outlet for weeks and to boost morale, I helped the most important person in my firm – our tea lady – secure a new job, which she kept until her retirement. This painful experience brought me back to the ground.

In 1999, I began volunteering in Aljunied GRC to help those in need, even when I disagreed with some policies. When a strong PAP team was forsaken in 2011, I stepped forward. By then, after walking the ground for years, I knew where my heart truly was. 路遥知马力，日久见人心, or "As distance tests a horse's strength, time reveals a person's heart".

To work the ground, I quit my CEO-level job in 2012. Later, when I tried to re-enter the workforce, I experienced what some Singaporean PMETs face – rejection, uncertainty and the pain of starting over. While I believe in an open economy, we must ensure employment practices that are fair and build up our Singaporean Core.

Once, I remember interviewing candidates for a position. Strangely, they all seemed to come from the same company. I asked my staff to ensure they were kept separate and seemingly, they were pushed out, quietly displaced. Together with my early years as a policy-maker in Government, these first-hand, ground experiences help me empathise and understand the real-world challenges faced by our people.

In Aljunied GRC, we worked hard, day-to-day between general elections, outside of Parliament. When offered the chance to contest elsewhere, I chose to stay and sent my team mate instead. Having contested not once, but twice, facing the opposition’s leadership team, I feel like this is my third term. The Leader of the Opposition and his team know how hard we work the ground. So much so, they coined the term “2-for-the-price-of-1”. Vote the WP and get the PAP for free.

I have had more than my fair share of Aljunied voters who appreciated our groundwork and want the PAP to form the Government, but sheepishly confessed they voted to check on the PAP. It may be one vote. But together, as the Chinese saying goes, 杀鸡取卵. In other words, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

With greater political contestation, we must guard against populist ideas presented by those who do not have to be in the driver's seat. As we can see in many mature democracies, eventually the interests of the country and of its people will be overridden by self-preservation, division and instability. With the interplay of digital media and geopolitics, I ask our hon Members across the aisle to assure us they will reject any external influence on our domestic politics.

Taken together, Singapore voters are rational and want an opposition voice. But I ask Singaporeans to demand from the opposition the same high standards that they expect from the PAP.

Sir, I am here, thanks to the voters of Ang Mo Kio GRC. I also am grateful for the support of Aljunied GRC residents, our activists and volunteers over the years. To our teams now serving in Aljunied and Sengkang GRCs and in Hougang SMC, I say, jiayou!

Sir, over the years, I have had the privilege of seeing children grow up in our community. Some were still in school when I first met them at community centres or during house visits. Today, many of them are young adults, newly married, setting up homes and even raising their toddlers.

During my walkabouts, quite a few – showing photographs taken with me stored in their phones – tell me they now live in Buangkok-Fernvale South, the newly constituted ward within Ang Mo Kio GRC where I now serve. It reminds me of our responsibility to ensure that Singapore continues to be a place where families can thrive and where every child can do better than the generation before.

Ultimately, the Singaporean brand of politics must be about making Singaporeans’ lives better. As a small, resource-scarce, accidental nation, we arose out of adversity. Singapore is not the result of populist ideas, but of hard, long-term decisions built on trust between our people and our leaders.

Today, that trust remains the core of our social compact. We must lead with resolve and heart: honouring our seniors, upskilling our people, uplifting the vulnerable, supporting families and inspiring our youths.

Let me talk about the following issues: access to affordable food, unlocking our silver dividend, education to shift from answers to questions and from gross domestic product (GDP) to gross national product (GNP).

Sir, I empathise with Singaporeans who worry about the cost of living. With my late parents’ love-language of food and memories of my siblings squabbling over one fried egg, I want food in Singapore to unite and not divide.

“Affordable food” means different things to different people. Left undefined, it can distort the perceptions of the cost of living. Like many Singaporeans, I am concerned about the rentals, hawker retirements and stall closures. But we must avoid conflating these arguments and be clearer about the cooked food segments that we are talking about. For instance, we can see four distinct parts: one, the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs); two, HDB rented coffeeshops after 1998; three, HDB private coffeeshops sold before 1998; and four, private F&B sector, where you have food courts, restaurants and so on.

Sir, private F&B and HDB private coffeeshops should be left rightly to market forces. However, we should ensure fair tenancy practices and discourage speculative investment behaviour.

NEA/SEHC hawker centres as well as HDB rented coffeeshops should be our social kitchens and community spaces. These two segments are where we must ensure access to affordable food, protect our hawkers’ livelihoods and strengthen our social compact.

More than cost, we should look at revenue. Our food is our asset. Why not re-imagine our hawker culture as a tourism product, with cooking classes, food trails and heritage tours in our heartlands? If we can increase the average length of stay of a tourist just by one day, the multiplier effects on our economy would be significant. We must support also traditional foods which will otherwise disappear in this new economic environment.

In my constituency, I had begun discussing a pilot heritage project to support our merchants and bring more vibrancy to our community with ad hoc work that will inspire our youths and engage our seniors, under my umbrella concept called Community Workfare.

That brings me to the next topic of unlocking our silver dividend. Sir, our seniors are an untapped strength. Many still want to contribute – not just in formal jobs, but in mentoring, caregiving and community life.

At a recent community event, I met Abdullah bin Ali, a retiree who teaches gardening at our Home Nursing Foundation Active Ageing Centre in Buangkok Crescent, not because he has to, but because, in his own words, “If I can stay active and share my knowledge, why not?” Or take Mdm Sandy Goh, who despite her own challenges, has rallied seniors to support food rescue programmes, first with me at Bedok Reservoir and Hougang, and now, in my new ward of Buangkok-Fernvale South.

This spirit of staying active, giving back and finding new meaning is the silver dividend we must unlock, where ageing is not a sunset, but a second spring.

To our youths, our education should move from answers to questions. Sir, a young student recently asked me, “If I can use AI, why do I still need to study?” Exams do not define potential. In this AI-era, it is not the answers we give but the questions we must ask. Are our primary classrooms supporting how children's brains actually learn best?

I recall in my primary school how we were repeatedly drilled for the PSLE. One classmate was always slower to answer and often punished by being made to stand on his desk. It was traumatic for him, and painful for us to witness. He did not do so well in the PSLE. Yet, in later life, he rose to become a respected editor of a major publication. That experience reminds us that one exam does not define a child and one-size-fits-all teaching can sometimes wound more than it uplifts.

Every child learns differently. Brain-based pedagogy is rooted in respect for the learner, that each child’s brain learns through meaning, emotion and connection, not just by rote memory. Many parents will know the helpless feeling, like me, of being unable to solve a math problem alongside their primary school child. Instead of pushing both parent and child to frustration, imagine a system where adaptive AI helps the child practice at his own pace, while the teacher steps in as a coach in confidence.

Our challenge is not to teach more, but to teach differently, supported by adaptive AI tools and teacher-as-coach models. We must invest boldly in every child, because with fewer children, each one matters more. Unlike the repeated refrain of calling for a smaller class size, we should be advocating how we cater to different learning styles and behaviours. Class size, the teaching environment and pedagogy are the derivatives.

If we fail to make this shift, the risk is clear. Affluent parents will move ahead with AI-driven personalised learning outside our school system, while the rest of our children remain in rote-based pathways. That will widen social divides. With AI, do we want an education system that hardens inequality, or one that allows each child to learn with confidence?

For the economic strategy, we should look at GNP instead of GDP. For the past 60 years, Singapore measured growth by GDP, building ourselves into a global hub. I say, for the next 60 years, we should also track GNP. How Singaporeans can benefit directly from growth, not just from home, but also abroad. This shifts from what Singapore produces to what Singaporeans earn.

We should move beyond attracting just foreign direct investment flows to maximising Singaporeans' participation in global value chains. Our economic strategy must not only attract activity to Singapore, but also build pathways for Singaporeans, especially our youths, to participate meaningfully in global value chains. We should encourage Singapore firms to internationalise and count their overseas income as part of our national strength.

Look at the region, look at the world with technology. Singaporeans, we are not confined to our own borders. Our companies, our professionals, our entrepreneurs, all should be increasingly international. By placing more weight on GNP, we shift our focus from the size of the pie on our shores to the larger share that our people can enjoy beyond Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, sir, GDP will always remain a useful measure of our hub vibrancy. But as we look to the next 60 years, it is time we look for growth beyond our shores. From what is produced in Singapore to what Singaporeans earn globally. That is the shift from GDP to GNP.

In closing, sir, to keep Singapore special, we must maintain strong trust between our people and our leaders. And I say across the aisle, Singaporeans must demand the same high standards and accountability as they expect of us. Our President has spoken. It is not what we say, but what we do. More than what we achieve is what we inspire. In this House across both aisles, let us work together to build better lives and livelihoods for all Singaporeans. Let us keep Singapore special. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan. Mr Dennis Tan, you might want to switch on your microphone.

6.29 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): I am sorry about that. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to respond to the hon Member, Mr Lye's comments in his speech.

So, on behalf of the WP, I refer him to our 26 April 2025 statement, that in particular, we the WP are firmly committed to Singapore's secular, multiracial and multi-religious society, and to protecting the integrity of our electoral process, and in particular, we reject foreign influence in our electoral process.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.

Mr Victor Lye: Sir, I thank the Member for his affirmation. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.

6.31 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Mr Deputy Speaker, those of my generation would remember the legendary moment when Arnold Schwarzenegger T-800, Terminator says in a stoic manner, "I’ll be back", before crashing through barriers, or the words of "Hasta La Vista" before shattering the nanobot that was cryogenically frozen. That unmistakable six-note rhythm, "a mechanical man and his heartbeat", evokes an unstoppable force. Today, Singapore stands before such a force, the rise of the intelligent robotics.

In early 2021, I spoke about machine learning, artificial intelligence and the importance of investing for our future growth. This was four years ago, two years before the introduction of ChatGPT. Today, gen AI, Agentic and Predictive AI are prevalent and with some enthusiasm. The important question today is where is the return on invesment for AI? What are AI’s core revenue drivers and contributions to the economy and society? Soon, the world will be moving on downstream to intelligent robotics.

The evolution of the First and the Fifth Industrial Revolution shows the shift from steam-powered mechanisation to intelligent, people-focused industries. The First used steam for manufacturing, the Second introduced electricity and mass production, the Third brought computers and automation, the Fourth leveraged AI and smart technologies. The emerging Fifth Industrial Revolution integrates advanced technologies like AI, robotics, and Internet of Things in a collaborative human-machine environment. Going forward, intelligent robotics will define our future and our quality of life.

The global robotics and automation market today exceeds US$75 billion, set to double by 2030 and reach a staggering US$375 billion by 2035. This double-digit growth, led by manufacturing, healthcare and mobility, is transforming industries.

According to PwC, by 2030, the impact of intelligent robotics could inject up to US$15.7 trillion into the global economy, nearly double the future market size of oil and gas and pharmaceuticals combined. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang predicts that up to a billion human-like robots could help power industries by 2035, collaborating with humans, not just replacing them.

The drivers are clear, ageing populations, shrinking workforces, escalating costs, intense global competition. Worldwide, leaders are channeling resources like R&D, start-up ecosystems, and forward-thinking policies. For governments and businesses, the imperative is simple, invest in intelligent robotics or risk being left behind.

This is not science fiction. The revolution is here. Amazon fields more than 750,000 robots in its warehouses. Walmart has turned its fulfilment centres fully autonomous. Tesla’s humanoid Optimus now works inside factories,

Starship Technologies and Ocado deploy fleets of service robots, autonomous tractors are tending fields, and this very year, Beijing will open the world’s first humanoid robot dealership.

How will these technologies impact our day-to-day life and shape the way that we live and work?

The “brain” and “body”, which is the compute and mechanisation, are converging, robots lift, deliver, cook and even provide rides. There is an exceptional untapped market, where up to US$50 trillion of manual labour worldwide, that is waiting to be transformed. Today, Waymo provides 250,000 self-driving rides each week in the US. Tesla’s pilot robotaxi is now live in Austin. And UBTech will soon be selling home-service humanoids for US$20,000.

But why now? Because technology costs have fallen off a cliff. Light Detection and Ranging, better known as LIDAR, once costing US$75,000, now sells for less than US$200, GPS receivers and proximity sensors now cost less than a cup of coffee. It is a tipping point, suddenly, advanced robotics are not just possible, they are practical and affordable for every sector.

For Singapore, intelligent robotics is a necessity and a strategic imperative, against external shocks, labour shortages and global headwinds. By adopting intelligent robotics, resource-constrained economies like ours are poised to capture the front wave of development. To seize this future, we must secure manufacturing and development capabilities that enable intelligent robotics, such as high-performance processors, sensors, data centers, advanced telecoms, batteries, powering the next generation of solutions.

While we are among the world’s most robotics-dense economies, we cannot afford to be complacent. China, Japan, South Korea, the EU and the US are investing tens of billions to build their robotics and high-tech leadership. We cannot just be a procurer and an implementor of intelligent robotics, we must be at the centre of it. Our answer must be bold, collective, or risk being left behind.

What is the real threat here? With intelligent robotics, how will global and regional economies transform and position themselves? What will most likely happen to these economies?

The most plausible socio-economic model, will have two distinct parts. The first part, domestically, one would see a country building a well-paced, progressive adoption of intelligent robotics, where collaboration between humans and robots, enable augmentation and amplification of capabilities. This enhances quality of life and secures the individuals’ economic value. A balanced socio-economic development.

However, when there is an opportunity to reap the maximum economic benefit in pursuit of national interest, especially for trans-national trade and global economic value chain, outwardly, these economies will organise differently. This is the second part. It is only advantageous to develop an ultra high-performance intelligent machine economy that deploys autonomous, highly effective, efficient intelligent systems that can deliver high quality goods and services. With intelligent robotics, economies can solve, not a dilemma, not a tri-lemma but a quad-lemma of delivering value in terms of quality, cost, speed and creativity. This will become their sharp edge of global competitiveness.

With the combination of these two parts of the model, it will enable a country to excel in inclusive growth and remain globally competitive.

However, the reality sets in when economies compete on this sharp edge, which is amplified and multiplied by intelligent robotics, limited only by the access to clean and renewable energy, and access to raw materials, the most efficient and effective machine economy will eventually be able to out produce in terms of quality, cost, speed and creativity.

Smaller or less developed economies may experience challenges as their industries struggle to compete with larger-scale, more efficient, or lower cost autonomous production. This does not only affect smaller or less developed economies.

History is replete with the disruption of new manufacturing technology. We see the transition of the textile industry in the US in the early 2000s. The Swiss watch industry which exported 30 million units in Year 2000, but today only exports half the units. Many more examples such as Solar, Steel, Wind turbines. Today, we observe how Germany a global car manufacturing and export Juggernaut, ironically, has an increasing trade deficit in the automotive industry, which it used to dominate.

The world will witness growing protectionism, trade disputes and even political backlash as countries struggle to defend strategic industries and societal interests against relentless machine-driven competition. But these efforts will be futile attempts.

How do we ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans are not left behind?

We must stay ahead of the development curve and pursue it with conviction. To secure the future in the machine economy with intelligent robotics, Singapore must act.

First, we must accelerate innovation and strengthen our infrastructure, by doubling national investments in robotics, AI, and secure digital networks, enabling regulatory sandboxes so promising solutions can be developed, tested and scaled right here.

Second, we must invest boldly in our people, expanding lifelong learning, SkillsFuture programmes and establishing new apprenticeship pathways, so every worker, whatever their age or background, can skill up for the machine age.

Third, we must broaden participation, making sure SMEs have the tools to automate, supporting businesses that use technology to uplift older workers and those with disabilities, driving inclusion as the new norm.

Fourth, we must have a strategy to overcome the limiting factor, the access to clean, affordable energy and raw materials.

Finally, we must lead with trust and foresight, setting clear ethical and data governance standards and encourage open innovation, and develop the ability to anticipate and meet new risks.

Thus far, we are progressing well. From the days of coolies at Boat Quay to fully automated container operations at Tuas Port, handling over 40 million containers in 2024. Autonomous vehicles, AI-driven cranes and digital intelligence let us punch above our weight, setting new global standards and future-proofing logistics jobs. At Changi, intelligent robotics will redefine traveller experiences, security, baggage and aircraft turnaround, making Terminal 5 the benchmark for global aviation efficiency.

Our SMEs are transforming as well. Those of my generation will remember Prima Deli, a popular cake shop founded in 1992. It is still very popular today and is better known for its aroma of its freshly made waffles. It grew from a home-grown bakery to a franchise and now a factory that is constantly improving business automation and introducing intelligent robotics. With only 56 workers, this home-grown Singapore business produces more than 90,000 cakes a month, a paragon of punching above its weight and enabling many more to enjoy cakes that are of quality, reasonably priced and much creativity. The ability to tweak the recipes, maybe more dark chocolate but less sugar. This company is ready to scale and expand its operations domestically and regionally, bringing more jobs and opportunities for all. Prima Deli has the growth mindset, and it is all about growing the cake and sharing it.

This is what "we" means. Growing stronger together. And We will build closely with our SMEs and our workers. We will not leave any Singaporean behind.

The road ahead will be fraught with challenges and disruptions. There will be major shifts and displacement of routine and repetitive jobs, the creation of new roles and the reconfiguration of labor market toward higher-skilled and intelligent robotics. Workers will need to build entirely new skill sets, combining practical expertise with digital proficiency and adaptability. Never fear. We will be together on this journey like we have for the last 60 years.

Just like how Tony Stark in Iron Man was hammering away, together, the first Iron Man suit in a cave with nothing but scraps, Ironman's journey has always symbolised resilience, adaptability and imagination. As new threats emerged, so did the need to reinvent. He created the Mark V "suitcase" armor, a portable suit designed for rapid deployment, and later, the Mark L nanotech suit, which could materialise weapons and tools on demand, adapting to dynamic threats in real-time.

At every step, Iron Man did not retreat from complexity, but upgraded in response to it. The turning point came when he embedded J.A.R.V.I.S., an intelligent AI co-pilot, into his suits. No longer just metal and wires, the suits became an extension of both man and machine, working in seamless collaboration to solve problems faster, smarter and with greater precision.

This spirit mirrors Singapore's own path from survival in scarcity to building a nation that reinvents itself at every junction, always with the future in mind.

Just like that iconic scene from Terminator 2, where the machine descends into molten steel with a final resolute thumbs-up, it was not just an ending, but a symbol that the partnership between man and machine, forged in trust and sacrifice, can be one of hope. That is how we must face our future – not fearing the technological disruptions, but advancing with it, together. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Choo.

6.47 pm

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Desmond Choo): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Motion of Thanks to our President. Every one of us knows a family sitting around their dining table, talking about the future. They see the headlines about global instability, about AI changing the world, and they worry.

They ask the quiet questions we all ask. In a world of such turmoil, is my family's future secure? In an age of disruption, is there still a place for me?

These are not abstract questions, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are real. They are heartfelt. The President's address gave us an answer. It was a confident, resounding "yes". And the reason for that answer is the very anchor of my speech today.

It is our nation's secret weapon – our unique ability to pull together when the world is pulling apart. Tripartism, our model of unity, is more than just tradition, it is our answer to the future. Singapore's unique brand of tripartism – the collaboration among the Government, employers and unions – has long been the bedrock of our industrial relations and a key competitive advantage. At its core, tripartism is founded on a shared conviction to strive for industrial peace with justice.

In the early days, our founding leaders stood at a crossroads. The world told them that for a union to be effective, it must be adversarial, locked in a perpetual struggle with employers and the government. It must at least be seen to be independent.

They saw other nations crippled by this very conflict, caught in a zero-sum game of strikes and standoffs, where for one side to win, the other had to lose. In such a game, they knew a small nation like ours could never win.

Our Pioneers chose a different path. A harder path, but a better path.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in 1969 that "the unions of Singapore are not here to fight against management. They are here to work with management, to ensure that we survive, grow, and prosper together."

Tripartism is not a zero-sum game. We believe in being partners of progress, not partisans in conflict. This philosophy of fair play and gain-sharing remains our compass – pro-worker, pro-business and pro-future. This partnership is built on more than just economic pragmatism. It is built on a shared moral conviction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the President challenged us to question deep-seated assumptions about what constitutes valuable work. This speaks to the very soul of our Labour Movement. It is a promise we keep towards our lower-wage workers, from our cleaners to our security officers, like what labour MP Melvin Yong had said too.

For years, these workers had worked hard but saw their wages stagnate. They worried about their families' future. Today, because of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), they are not just earning a better wage. They have been trained to be more productive and could take on better jobs – a team supervisor, for example.

The PWM did not just give them a bigger paycheck, it gave them a new sense of pride, a new set of skills and a new answer to their worries about the future. That is the soul of our movement. We do not just talk about dignity. We build pathways to it, one worker at a time.

The success of this model hinges on mutual trust and respect fostered through consistent engagement and a shared commitment to national interests.

Our reservoir of trust was not built in times of ease. It was forged in the crucible of crisis. From the 1985 recession, when unions accepted wage cuts that were later restored, to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with its "cut costs to save jobs" philosophy. During COVID-19, our tripartite partners showed they were willing to make difficult decisions for the greater good.

For example, instead of implementing layoffs, DBS Bank worked closely with DBS Staff Union to assure workers, to sustain business continuity and career resilience, hiring more than 2,000 people, including 1,000 new roles for fresh graduates and mid-career PMEs pivoting into technology roles.

This spirit of "we first" is the bedrock that allows us to face today's challenges with unity and confidence. Mr Goh Chok Tong once said, "We can never take tripartism for granted. It is a precious asset that has taken years of trust-building."

This reservoir of trust is what enables us to face new challenges today – global instability, trade wars and the transformative impact of AI. In a turbulent world, Singapore's stability and predictability are rare advantages.

Our unionists are at the core of this effort. The 1969 Modernisation Seminar set aside confrontation for collaboration, a turning point that enabled decades of progress. Likewise, today, union leaders prepare the way for transformation by serving on the boards of economic agencies, on national task forces, and in Company Training Committees, aligning workers' training with business transformation.

When they walk into those tough negotiations, they do not just bring charts and figures. They bring the stories of our people with them. They are the ones who can look a CEO in the eye and say, "Let me tell you about the family that is struggling to keep up with their bills."

They bring the reality of the coffeeshop into the conference room. They mobilise the ground in support of national strategies, thereby increasing our chances of success.

In difficult conversations like the annual National Wages Council negotiations, our union leaders keep us honest by reflecting workers' anxieties about the cost of living, and by advocating for fair gains-sharing and just transitions.

This insider role allows unionists to shape policy for the better, not just criticise from the sidelines. Every time a unionist helps a retrenched worker find a new job, they are not just finding a salary, they are restoring a person's dignity. Every time they ensure fair gains-sharing, they are strengthening our social fabric.

They are the guardians of fairness, the champions of opportunity. They are the ones on the ground, every single day, building the "we first" society the President spoke about, one worker at a time.

This reflects what Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said, "Our unions are not afraid to speak up for workers, but they do so in a constructive spirit, with the long-term interest of workers and the nation at heart."

We have seen this in practice. Earlier this year, the Union of Security Employees (USE), which I advise, weighed in on Certis' policy requiring its frontline workforce on medical leave to share their live location. Following our engagement, Certis agreed to stop the practice and brought in USE to strengthen communications and workplace practices. At the same time, the union supported Certis' technological transformation through the CTC Grant, enhancing both company productivity and workers' wages above the PWM increases.

As each new generation of leaders emerges, so must new understandings of how we work together to bring Singapore forward.

We were heartened when then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong joined NTUC to launch our Workers' Compact in 2023, declaring that NTUC is the most important partner of the Government. That statement touched the hearts of our unionists and signaled clearly the 4G leadership's commitment to this partnership.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

NTUC will continue to support the PAP Government in securing growth, futureproofing our workforce and addressing new needs that arise. Our support must be anchored in a shared commitment to the welfare of our workers. We treasure our duty as our workers' keeper. This means there will be times we disagree on the path forward. It means having the courage to tell the Government when a policy, however well-intentioned, will hurt our workers on the ground.

We will continue to be unabashed in our feedback, because true partnership is not defined by the absence of disagreement, but by the strength to work through it to find the best outcome for Singapore and Singaporeans.

And the challenges will be tough. The President outlined the immense change brought about by AI. In some countries, this has predictably caused deep anxiety as workers see jobs being shed almost daily.

Mr Speaker, our hallmark tripartism is what enables us to face the great challenge of our time – the transformative impact of AI.

Let me take some time to share about a man I met recently at a job fair. This job fair happened after a retrenchment. We will call him Alex. He was at a job fair and I was there to see how I can help them find a job. At the scene, you could see good people wrestling with uncertainty and disappointment.

Alex was retrenched after the wave of digitisation and AI changed the business landscape. Alex is in his early 50s, but he has got the energy of someone half his age. I spoke to him. He told me his story, which I cannot shake.

He said, "I knew this day was coming." For 10 years, he saw the world changing. So, he did what he was supposed to do. He took courses. He earned diplomas on his own time. Certificates. After long days at work. He tried to get ahead of the curve. He played by all the rules. But it was not enough. He still could not find a safer job, a growth job in the company. He did everything we ask of our workers, yet he felt like he was running in place, on a treadmill. And as he spoke, I could hear the one thing that chips away at a person's soul – the feeling that your hard work does not count anymore.

Alex's story is not just one man's story. It can be the tripartite story. It can be the Singapore story. It is the story we have to write the next chapter for, right now.

Because this wave of AI is not just another technology. It is a force that is asking us a fundamental question: what kind of economy or country do we want to be?

Do we want to be a place where technology creates a world of winners and losers, where hardworking people like Alex get left behind? Or do we want to build a future where technology serves all of us, where innovation lifts everyone up?

I think the answer is clear. But it will not happen on its own. It requires a choice. It requires a new commitment.

That commitment must start with a skills-first approach. It is a promise that what you do matters more than the piece of paper you hold, that your potential to learn is more valuable than the credential you have. It is a promise that if you put in the work, like Alex did, it will lead to somewhere real – a better job, a better wage, a better life.

For employers, it means shifting focus from paper qualifications to practical capabilities. It is about hiring, rewarding and promoting based on what an individual can do and learn, not just what their qualification says. It is about being intentional in our training. Workers such as Alex should not have to train fruitlessly. It is about involving the worker in building the transformation plan together.

For workers, it means taking ownership of your career health, continuously building new competencies and staying agile enough to pivot to new roles.

The Labour Movement is fully committed to working on this approach with our tripartite partners. Our mission has always been to protect our workers through every economic wave, and the age of AI is no different. We do have a successful Singaporean model to follow.

Imagine being a prime mover driver at our port for over 20 years. You take pride in your job. Then one day, you hear that this thing called the automated guided vehicle (AGV), a robot, is coming to do what you do. Mohamed Rahaizad Bin Hassan, a prime mover driver was one of those faced with this reality.

In many places around the world, that is where the story ends – in conflict, strikes and lost livelihoods, like the paralysing port strikes we saw in the US in 2024. There, the International Longshoremen's Association saw automation as a threat to be fought. They launched a strike across US East and Gulf Coast ports.

But in Singapore, because of the deep trust between our Singapore Port Workers Union (SPWU) and PSA, we chose to write a different ending. Years before the first AGV was put in operation in Tuas, they sat down together. They mapped out every affected job. They planned a journey of reskilling. The driver was not replaced. He was upskilled.

Today, Mohamed Rahaizad is an Operations Supervisor with better working life and wages. And AVs are making our ports more productive than ever. We turned a story of fear into a story of opportunity. This is the power of our partnership. The power of tripartism and trust.

Thus, we have clear principles to follow in the incorporation of AI and automation. It is to be transparent, be fair, be worker-centric.

First, tripartite partners must work closely together to chart a common path. That means being transparent in the transformation and involving the unions and workers to forge a transition pathway. Second, workers must be given fair gains from improvements in productivity. Quite frankly, a world in which only shareholders and a select few benefit from economic transformation is neither desirable nor sustainable. Third, we must be worker-centric to adopt a just transition for Singapore and the Singaporean worker. This embraces a "we first" mentality and culture and put it to work.

At the heart of this AI transformation are our people. Let us commit together to building a future where technology serves humanity, where our companies thrive and where every worker can look ahead with confidence and dignity. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In today's turbulent world, AI brings many impacts and concerns. Singapore's ability to survive and thrive depends on our unique tripartism between labour, management and Government: the Government, employers and unions working hand in hand to overcome difficulties together.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, unions are not here to fight management, but to work together with management to ensure that we survive, grow and prosper together. In past economic crises, we chose to put "country before self", which brought us today's stability and prosperity.

Facing the transformation brought by AI, unions will not leave workers to fight alone. NTUC will continue to accompany every worker, upgrading skills together, protecting employment and sharing benefits fairly. As long as we uphold the spirit of "greater good" and stand shoulder to shoulder, Singapore workers will surely weather the storm and welcome a brighter tomorrow.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow labour MPs have also shared the various concerns about the key issues that must be dealt with to support workers in this term of Government. Let me highlight two other areas of focus.

First, supporting our youth and future workforce. Our unionists have gone down to many campuses to meet with our young Singaporeans. Just between April and July alone, the NTUC engaged 12,000 youths across our Institutes of Higher Learning. We heard their anxieties about skills gaps, weaker hiring sentiment and AI’s impact on entry-level roles. Their anxieties are real and we must double down to support them.

To complement the Government's GRIT programme, NTUC Youth is equipping young jobseekers with job search skills, networking and mentorship, while e2i expands targeted career fairs. We must also consider expanding our SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowances to younger workers. In addition, we must broaden and expand upon Career Conversion Programmes to equip them for AI and sustainability-related roles.

Second, managing economic restructuring. Restructuring must always prioritise workers' well-being. Past lessons, such as the Public Transport Tripartite Committee's approach during the bus contracting model, show how deep engagement safeguards jobs while enabling transformation. For example, in the transition to the bus contracting model, the Public Transport Tripartite Committee developed a "two-envelope" bidding system that ensured operators bidding for routes commit to consulting unions and safeguarding workers' well-being as part of their proposals. In addition, the Land Transport Authority and National Transport Workers Union engaged extensively with 5,000 workers then. We look forward to renewing this to better our workers' livelihoods and welfare, 10 years into the bus contracting model.

Thus, in managing the impact of economic restructuring, we must make it a priority to take care of workers who will be impacted and ensure sufficient lead time for planning and outreach to assure workers on their concerns. Today, as co-chair of the Economic Strategies Review Committee No 5, I am working with Minister of State Goh Pei Ming and our tripartite partners to ensure workers receive sufficient lead time, planning and support in every restructuring process.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the world will not get any calmer. The forces of disruption will not slow down, but we have something special here. Something tested in crisis and renewed with purpose. A belief that we are all in this together. So, this is our common path. In a world that is dividing, we will choose to unite. In a world of gridlock, we will choose to build. In a world of anxiety, we will choose to create hope. Our model of tripartism is not just an asset, it is our identity. It is the belief, passed down through generations, that we can adapt, we can transform and we can emerge stronger, so long as we do it together as one united people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

7.06 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, President Tharman's address at the Opening of this Parliament underscored an urgent need for unity and shared responsibility, rooted in trust, transformation and resilience for Singapore and Singaporeans to thrive in a complex and fragmented world.

In my speech today, I will speak on two points that President Tharman highlighted in his speech: a more pronounced need for unity; and a strong economy – the need to transform and innovate to enhance our value as a trusted hub to ensure opportunities for all Singaporeans.

For Singapore, our people and the ethos of unity and progress for all, regardless of race, language or religion is the cornerstone of the success of our improbable nation these last 60 years. Our leaders have been intentional in forging our unity while celebrating our diversity through integrated housing policy, education, meritocratic governance, shared values and long-term stewardship. But Singapore's unity and identity is not static. It is changing, shaped in what is happening in our everyday life in Singapore and globally.

So while vital, forging our unity today is no longer just around integrating and celebrating our diversity of race, language or religion. Our population is ageing. Our society is more diverse and younger Singaporeans are voicing new hopes for fairness, autonomy and purpose. Digitalisation is reshaping our daily lives. Differences in access can result in who gets access to services, whose voice travels, and what "truths" feel credible. Hence, people may end up living in different realities even when they are under the same space. Personalised feeds cluster people into like-minded bubbles, reinforcing beliefs and isolating them from shared facts, where information we consume fragments our shared realities.

These changes are deeply personal. They shape how we see ourselves, how we relate to one another across age, income, race, religion, cultures and education. People are experiencing Singapore differently. Some feel secured and heard, others feel left out, or unsure where they fit in. If we do not respond to these lived realities, unity becomes fragile not because we disagree, but because we stop feeling part of.

So, how do we move forward together? We need to refresh our social compact. This means rethinking the roles we each play. Government, employers, individuals and building a culture of shared responsibility. It means designing policies that reflect real lives, not just averages. Designing for lived experience and not just aggregated outcomes. And it means ensuring that opportunity is not just promised but felt.

We must design systems that are truly inclusive. Housing, education, work, digital platforms, they must work for everyone across life stages and backgrounds. We need to support transitions, whether it is a mid-life career shift, a young person finding their voice, a first-time home owner getting a flat or an older adult staying connected.

It is not sufficient just to take feedback. We must create space for real dialogue. Not just consultation, but co-creation. We need platforms where people can speak honestly, listen deeply and shape the future together. Trust grows when people see that their stories matter and that their feedback leads to change.

Let me give you a small example from our community in Changi Simei, what we call VIASTA!. What began as a simple idea to activate the under-utilised space under the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) viaduct to promote residents' well-being has blossomed into a vibrant festival. Residents did not just give their feedback but worked together with grassroots leaders, community partners and agencies, research and design teams from Singapore University of Technology and Design, SingHealth and Changi General Hospital to co-create, design and transform the space under the MRT viaduct near Simei station.

From booths and programmes run by residents, seniors and youths, students and teachers from our schools and tertiary institutions, hospital and healthcare professionals, kopi chat with the Police and movie under the stars, VIASTA! has become a celebration of shared ownership and provides a space that comes alive to benefit the well-being of our residents in Changi Simei.

Although the process required several months to collect residents' feedback and collaboratively utilising AI to visualise the desired VIASTA!, it enabled meaningful participation from both residents and stakeholders. They could see their ideas come to life. This approach ensured that all perspectives and expertise were incorporated, fostering an inclusive environment for co-creation and effective decision-making. We now have had three iterations of VIASTA! in the last one year, where residents, community partners and agencies came together to bring VIASTA! alive. The fourth VIASTA! is scheduled for November this year.

On a national level, Forward Singapore provided a platform that brought together citizens, employers, communities and Government to co-create policies that reflect evolving aspirations around work, family, education and purpose. Given the volatility as well as the fragmented and fast-moving world we face, we need to continue to have such platforms and I am very heartened to hear Prime Minister Lawrence Wong talk about this deeper engagement, deeper engagement with Singaporeans to be able to co-create policies together.

Some may pooh-pooh. Some may actually say, "That is too hard, it takes too long."

But I think that it is worth the effort and we have seen the policies from Forward Singapore, ideas and feedback from Singaporeans coming to life in our policies already today and I encourage every Singaporean, especially our young, but every Singaporean to really make the effort to come forward and be involved. Unity in Singapore has never been about sameness. It is about shared purpose. And that purpose must evolve as we do, grounded in empathy, trust and courage to change together.

Let me touch on the point of the need for a strong economy. If we want growth, we do need to have a strong economy to attract talent and investments. With the current uncertainties and structural shifts that are affecting Singapore, we must support the efforts that Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong has shared about refreshing Singapore's economic blueprint and keeping Singapore's economy strong and resilient by enhancing Singapore's value as a base for leading firms, a key global business hub and a vital connector to the global economy. The strength of our economy lies not in discrete moments of growth, but in sustainable progress. This will then lead to opportunities for businesses and the creation of jobs that are relevant to the new world order. But more importantly, strong sustainable growth will create quality and meaningful jobs for Singaporeans.

Economic growth is not just about numbers. It is about people. It is about giving every Singaporean that chance to thrive, to contribute and to shape the future we share. Technological disruption is accelerating workforce transitions, creating both opportunities and anxieties, affecting opportunities for our young and matured workers.

This brings me to the point on what do we do to ensure that businesses contribute to developing an empowered workforce that is ready to seize the opportunities and create jobs. The Ministry of Manpower's strategic plan to build a future-ready workforce by encouraging a skills-first approach to hiring will help unlock new talent pools, giving individuals a fair shot based on their skills. Supporting companies to create rich career pathways within their organisations, and I repeat this, within the organisation. As they transform, it is important to help retain and stretch our talent, to help them grow and allow them to thrive with these changes.

To drive the transformation of the workforce from within the organisation, I am glad that the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development will support the uplifting of human resources professions and the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package will seek to ensure that the technology becomes a tool for inclusion and not displacement.

But as we look ahead, we need to take one step back and ask ourselves if we can take a larger view of the whole system and not just specific segments, such as our young graduates, mid-career or matured workers. Is there a better way to achieve our desire of an empowered and future-ready workforce?

How can we bring our learning systems to support our people to be work ready?

I have spoken many times in this House that Singapore must grow and have opportunities to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs and I believe having meaningful work gives Singaporeans confidence not just to make a living which is very important but also to feel included and to have a sense of purpose, belonging and commitment to the community and to the nation.

We must ensure that every Singaporean, regardless of age or background, or where we start, can aspire to seize these opportunities. That means investing in skills, supporting career transitions, designing workplaces that are inclusive and progressive. It means refreshing our economic blueprint to stay nimble in a complex world – so that growth uplifts and not divides.

So, how can we wholistically rethink our learning systems in an age of rapid change, and disruptions? Our learning system today is front-loaded and segmented. Internships help to mitigate with opportunities for industry exposure. But how can we build an ecosystem that supports and empowers our workforce to be work ready?

I think apprenticeship can prepare our young for work and cultivate lifelong learning. By combining work exposure and integrating it with the learning in schools, it may serve as a means to develop a workforce that is adaptable and inclusive. It offers not just skills, but purpose – through real-world experience, mentorship and meaningful contribution. To unlock its full potential, employers must step up earlier, much earlier in designing pathways with schools, offering industry exposure before graduation and guiding young talent from the start. This early engagement strengthens the bridge between learning and work, aspiration and opportunity.

By embedding structured, hands-on learning within real-world settings, apprenticeships also offer a scalable pathway for mid-career transitions, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and inclusive talent development. Strategically, apprenticeships embed adaptability, deepen knowledge transfer, and foster lifelong learning. They do not just fill jobs. They have the potential to renew industries, empower individuals, and help Singapore stay agile in a fast-changing world.

Mr Speaker, unity and opportunity are two sides of the coin. When we build stronger bonds and access to opportunities, we deepen the sense that this country is worth investing in – not only for ourselves, but for one another; a Singapore that we are proud to call home. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

7.18 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law, and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Fellow Members, thank you for hearing me out. I would try to make this worth your while. I furiously cut out some two paragraphs worth of content but the substantive points remain.

Today, I would like to speak on a hidden social issue in Singapore. It is an issue that many find uncomfortable to speak about but increasingly lurks in the shadows for some: addiction.

Addiction knows no boundaries. It can affect a person of any age, class, background. Addictions destroy relationships, break up families, consume lives and we are battling addictions of different forms. Kpods need no introduction. There are those who are addicted to gadgets and smartphones – gaming, excessive use of social media, doom-scrolling – and others like binge-eating, gambling and alcoholism complete the gamut of addictions afflicting modern life today.

What I would like to focus on today, however, is the serious and emergent threat or trend of sexually compulsive behaviours, one that is often facilitated by technology. I look at this through the lenses of two broad archetypes. First, the invisible, and perhaps more insidious non-offending compulsive behaviour like addiction to pornography. Such addictions silently chip away at an individual’s productivity and positive relations in his or her life. And second, offending behaviours such as voyeurism, upskirt videos, acts which cause significant harm to victims and carry serious legal consequences.

I visited the We Care Community Services recently. We Care is the first non-denominational, outpatient addiction recovery centre in Singapore. They shared with me that the referral of sexually compulsive behavioural cases to them rose sharply in recent years: 198 cases in 2024, compared to 115 in 2020. And in the first eight months this year alone, there have been 142 referrals, and We Care anticipates that the total number of referrals for 2025 will exceed 200 for the very first time.

At the same time, statistics from the Police show that the number of voyeurism cases, which include upskirt offences, increased from 476 cases in 2023 to 519 cases in 2024 last year. The number of “outrage of modesty” cases increased by 21% from 666 in the first half of 2024, to 807 in the same period this year.

The statistics are worrying, to say the least and two questions come to mind. First, are we providing sufficient avenues and options for treatment and early intervention? Second, what preventive measures can we take before such addictions take root in our society?

To be sure, Singapore has in place an ecosystem of support for those battling different addictions. The National Addictions Management Service at IMH, the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association and the National Council on Problem Gambling are familiar go-tos.

There are also ground-up efforts: We Care Community Services which I have earlier referenced and One Hope Centre, which helps addicts recover from gambling, sex and pornography addiction; and there are also private clinics that provide support for addiction treatment.

Yet, challenges remain.

First, it does not help that addiction is traditionally viewed as a moral failing or a lack of willpower on the part of the addict. Due to stigma, addicts would hide their struggles and avoid seeking help, for fear of being judged or for bringing shame to their families. Often, by the time help is sought, the addict is in crisis as the addiction would have by then already spun out of control.

The staggering level of stigma associated with such deeply personal challenges would also mean that it is extremely difficult to size up just how pervasive this issue is in our community. For every addict that comes forward to seek help, just how many remain in the shadows? No one knows. But given prevalent societal norms and attitudes, the hyperconnected lives that we lead and the ease of access to explicit materials online, it would only be fair to assume that what we are seeing in reported statistics is but only the tip of a large and deep iceberg.

There is good scientific evidence that addiction is not as much a personal failing as it is a chronic, progressive and relapse-prone illness that affects an individual both physically and psychologically. In the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, the World Health Organization defines compulsive sexual behaviour disorder as an impulse control disorder. It is an illness for which there should exist a structured medical treatment plan.

We Care runs a Non-Contact Sexual Offending therapy programme, combining individual counselling with group work to support individuals struggling with compulsive sexual behaviours. The programme helps participants understand the causes and consequence of their behaviours, address underlying psychological factors, and develop healthier coping skills to break the cycle and prevent re-offending. Client testimonials and outcomes from this programme show that a structured program is key to helping an addict recover and re-build.

So, can we as a society accept that addictions of this nature is an illness needing proper treatment? And across our healthcare landscape, can an addict receive adequate and affordable treatment from diagnosis to full recovery in a structured manner?

Like other chronic medical conditions, prevention is always better than cure. But any course of action begins with the admission, “Yes, we do have a problem.”

Steps can be taken to arrest the problems before they even start. We Care shared that many clients learnt about sex from online sources including pornography at a young age. Such early experiences shaped undesirable sexual scripts that emphasise availability, instant gratification, objectification. Early exposure to online pornography is also a common risk factor for sexual offending.

The response to this cannot be outright bans, but we can introduce age-appropriate addiction and media literacy programmes in schools and in the community, to inoculate our young ones against such risks.

As an Asian society where conversations on topics such as the birds and the bees are generally still avoided at home, we are at risk of delegating parenting responsibilities to peer groups, or worse, shady Internet sources. Addiction expert Gabor Mate theorised, and I quote, “how a lack of healthy adult guidance and unresolved childhood trauma and frustration can lead youths to seek out peer groups for their moral compass, a poor substitute for natural parental guidance.”

But I will be one of the first to admit. It is not easy. As a dad to a five-year-old boy, I often ask myself, how or where do I even begin? My parents did not quite have those conversations with me when I was younger. But hard as it may be, we must equip parents with the language and the tools to talk about these and other sensitive topics with their children at home.

Our homes must be safe harbours where our young ones feel comfortable enough to talk about anything under the sun. Families must be the default go-to as our young ones take on adulting and life’s many other challenges. Parents must meaningfully engage in our children’s lives, debunk myths purported by wayward sources such as pornography, and be their role models, as our young ones seek out the true north when calibrating their impressionable moral compasses.

Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence once again as I digress into some personal sharing. Like many Members in this Chamber, I run a tight schedule day-to-day. What little leisure that remains come in the form of post-midnight Netflix binge watching. I recently clicked on a title that appeared on my "recommended" list, Adolescence. The series initiated me to the world of incel, manosphere, red pills. I watched all four riveting episodes in a single sitting. Quickly realised I made a subpar choice for leisure and relaxation. But what an educational and eye-opening tour-de-force Adolescence was in framing and illuminating some gripping challenges that youth of this generation faces.

So, for several sleepless nights after Adolescence, I thought long and hard about how I might broach these issues with my son in a few years to come. I took heart in practical parenting tips I had received some time ago, which I thought offered good lessons. Where and when might I talk about sensitive topics with my little one? That was my question some time ago. The reply was “Consider a long drive!” That way, the setting is relaxed, father and son need not meet eye to eye. And when things get too awkward, turn up the stereo; and a few tracks of K-Pop Demon Hunters should help smooth things over. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Addiction knows no borders. It can affect people of any age, social class and background. Today, I want to focus on “sexually compulsive behaviours” brought about by technology. Whether it is non-criminal behaviour, such as browsing pornographic websites and becoming addicted as a result; or criminal behaviour, such as voyeurism or upskirt filming, the statistics paint a worrying picture.

Addiction is generally viewed as a moral failing or lack of willpower on the part of the addict. Feeling shamed, many addicts try to hide their struggles and avoid seeking help. They fear being judged or bringing disgrace to their families. Usually, by the time they actually seek help, addicts are already deeply trapped and their addiction is beyond control.

Addiction is a chronic, progressive and easily relapsing disease that causes many negative effects on an individual's physical and mental health. Regarding this issue, how should Singapore adopt better preventive measures in our communities?

And how should we help our families mould themselves into a safe haven? We have only one ultimate goal: to let the younger generation feel the warmth and love of home, to let them deeply understand that when they encounter problems like addiction or other sensitive issues in life's marathon, their families will never discriminate against them or judge them.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, let us do better. Let us confront the issue of addiction openly. Let us not shy away from uncomfortable conversations but normalise safe, constructive dialogue, especially with our children. Let us work together to strengthen our support ecosystem so individuals suffering in silence feel safe to emerge from the shadows to seek help. With better understanding and support all round, we can change attitudes and help those who are suffering in the clutches of addiction recover and rebuild. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

7.32 pm

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua, like you, I also saw Adolescence, very impactful and meaningful movie. I think, like you, I saw it all at one go. It was so riveting. Mr Sharael Taha.