Hansard, Tuesday, 23 September 2025

1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with regard to the recent Sengkang Green Primary bullying case, what further steps have the Ministry taken to strengthen anti-bullying measures and ensure timely support for both victims and perpetrators, including mental health resources.

2 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider (a) reviewing existing anti-bullying disciplinary and rehabilitation frameworks to render them more robust; (b) augmenting suspension-based punitive measures with in-school structured reflection, supervised work and restorative conferences, instead of home suspensions; (c) setting minimum competencies and staff-training hours to strengthen educators' capabilities to handle bullying; and (d) pilot cluster-level bullying support teams by counsellors/para-counsellors.

3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the framework for determining the extent of disciplinary measures to be taken against perpetrators of bullying incidents that have been reported in primary schools and secondary schools; (b) what are the follow-up measures that are taken to address the needs of victims and perpetrators; and (c) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the effectiveness of the measures.

4 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is a Ministry or cluster level framework in place on how schools should deal with bullying cases; and (b) whether the Ministry encourages schools to share and develop best practices of dealing with bullying cases among themselves.

5 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) how quickly are teachers expected to investigate and take action after a report of bullying has been made; and (b) whether the Ministry’s protocols on bullying are followed throughout the process in the recent bullying incident at Sengkang Green Primary School.

6 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether schools are adequately resourced to prevent the occurrences of bullying incidents in schools; (b) whether there are proactive monitoring and surveillance to pick up early signs of bullying situations; and (c) what further preventive measures can be taken.

7 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the Ministry equip schools and teachers to detect and respond to multifaceted forms of bullying; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure consistency and accountability of all parties across institutions.

8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider adopting more aspects of evidence-based anti-bullying programmes such as intervention teams; (b) what new measures are being considered to further empower victims and bystanders to report bullying incidents safely; and (c) whether there are plans to enhance support systems, such peer support groups, for students affected by bullying.

9 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education how many reported school bullying cases in the past three years involved suspected or confirmed child maltreatment of either the perpetrator or victim of bullying, in light of the impact that a family environment has on a child’s behaviour.

10 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider setting up a centralised anti-bullying unit to support schools to investigate the most egregious cases of bullying and follow up with disciplinary and rehabilitative actions, so as to avoid overburdening teachers; and (b) if not, why not.

11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the established timelines for schools to investigate bullying incidents and to provide updates to the parents of involved students; and (b) what specific measures are implemented to separate the involved students during an investigation to ensure the victim's safety on school premises and prevent fear-based absenteeism or the need for a school transfer.

12 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what resources are available to schools to detect and counter less visible forms of bullying such as manipulation, exclusion and cyberbullying; (b) how does the Ministry support teachers in managing bullying cases; and (c) what measures beyond training are implemented to ensure teachers have the time and resources to address bullying without adding to their risk of burnout.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will address the questions raised by Members on the management of bullying incidents in schools. May I seek your permission to answer oral Question Nos 1 to 12, and written Question Nos 29 on today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. My response will also cover related oral and written questions filed both for earlier as well as subsequent Sittings from Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Kenneth Tiong, Mr David Hoe, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh, Dr Wan Rizal, Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms Yeo Wan Ling1, Mr Foo Cexiang, Ms Eileen Chong and Ms Elysa Chen.

I invite Members to seek clarifications, if needed and thereafter, withdraw their questions for subsequent Sittings.

Sir, recent media and online reports of students engaging in hurtful or bullying behaviours towards others have renewed the spotlight on this issue.

We place a strong emphasis on providing a safe environment in our schools so that our students can learn, grow and thrive. We know that such incidents affect many people. Children who experience hurtful behaviour may worry about their safety and may find it hard to learn and build friendships. Parents love their children and naturally feel anxious and concerned about the children's well-being, whether they have been affected by bullying or have been themselves involved in hurting others.

For our school leaders, teachers and school staff, these incidents require them to manage disruptive behaviours in order to restore discipline. They have to protect those affected, rebuild a safe learning environment and address and correct those involved in wrong behaviours. They seek to help our students learn from their mistakes while engaging with parents who might hold different perspectives on how schools ought to respond. Our approach seeks to provide practical support to help children learn better behaviour, give parents confidence in school responses and enable teachers to maintain caring and enabling learning environments for all students.

Let me first outline our approach to managing hurtful behaviours and bullying, before responding to the various questions.

First, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a firm stance against all forms of hurtful behaviours, from once-off, insensitive comments to persistent intentional acts of bullying and physical violence. Schools have rules against such behaviours and teach students why these behaviours are wrong.

Second, we recognise that children learn behaviours from multiple sources – home, school, peers, online. Therefore, upstream preventive work involves these parties, and we all need to play a part.

Third, discipline in the context of the school environment is an educative process. Disciplinary measures must help students learn the consequences of their actions. As children have the potential to learn from their mistakes and grow through experience, our disciplinary approach must continue to focus on teaching, guiding and rehabilitating our children, and helping to restore relationships.

Finally, parents and families are key partners. We need to work with them, build a relationship with them so that they can work with us to instill kindness and respect for others through positive adult role modelling, and closer monitoring of children's online activities, especially outside school.

Our schools also work with the community and partners in addressing hurtful behaviours.

Some Members asked about the outcomes of previous reviews. In 2020, MOE conducted a review on the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum. In the context of that larger review, MOE also looked at the issue of bullying. This led to a number of CCE-related enhancements, which were implemented in 2021. Of these, three were relevant to strengthening schools' capacity to address hurtful behaviours and bullying.

First, the CCE curriculum was refreshed to place stronger emphasis on guiding students to be kind and caring, both online as well as offline.

Second, schools established a peer support system in every school, where students are taught how to support one another, be an upstander and look out for those who do not have strong support from their friends in school. So, sometimes, when you go around, you see some of the children with a badge that says "Peer Support Leader", or some other variant of the name.

Third, our schools have designated staff whose work covers areas such as fostering positive school culture, addressing hurtful behaviours and working with parents and the community to guide and educate our students.

I will next elaborate on how these enhancements and other existing measures address bullying and hurtful behaviours in our schools.

Let me start with educative efforts, which some Members have asked about.

From young, our students learn pro-social behaviours through lessons and adult role-modelling in schools. The CCE curriculum and the school environment emphasise values and respect, and students learn to be kind to their classmates, resolve disagreements respectfully and learn appropriate ways to stand up against bullying. Through cyber wellness lessons, they also learn to extend such pro-social behaviours online. In addition, students learn about healthy mindsets, habits and skills to strengthen their mental health and resilience in the face of challenges. Students learn how to respond when they encounter unsafe situations. They are taught to stay calm, avoid retaliation, move away from the situation and seek help from a trusted adult, such as their parents, teachers or school leaders.

Some Members asked about school processes such as anti-bullying frameworks, reporting channels, investigation, parent engagement timelines and disciplinary measures. Our schools have policies and frameworks that send a clear message to students that hurtful behaviours and bullying are not acceptable. These include school rules and consequences for bullying. There are also various reporting channels for students to report bullying. For example, students can report incidents directly or through their friends, peer support leaders, teachers and school leaders, or through online platforms such as emails or online forms. Discipline talks for students are also conducted regularly by schools to communicate their approach to managing misconduct, including bullying.

When an incident is reported, our schools conduct investigations before deciding on the appropriate course of action which includes disciplinary as well as restorative actions. They adopt a tiered approach for disciplinary measures based on the severity of the case. Such measures range from reflection for careless remarks to detention or suspension for more serious cases, and caning for boys in egregious cases. These measures help students learn from their mistakes, reframe their thinking and change their behaviours. For severe bullying that warrants Police attention, a Police report will be made and perpetrators may face legal consequences.

When bullying occurs, our priority is the safety of the affected students. Schools implement safety plans for the victims. This could include separating them from perpetrators, facilitating the removal of hurtful online content and identifying peer support leaders to befriend and look out for them in school. In addition, teachers and school counsellors work with both victims and perpetrators. helping them manage their emotions and work towards mending ties and restoring friendships.

Students who continue to experience distress are referred to community resources, such as the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams for more specialised support. I will just pause here to mention that I am using the words "perpetrator" and "victim" in order to shorten the phrases, but I know people might be concerned about the labels that we use – and certainly we are mindful of that – and we continue to see how best we can find the right terms to use both in public discourse as well as in our institutions. So, please bear with us in the meantime.

I would also say, Sir, that parent engagement and partnership are vital. When bullying incidents happen, schools engage parents to inform them about the facts of the incident, work with them on the safety plan and focus on the well-being of the students. The time it takes to investigate each case will vary, depending on complexity. Similarly, restoring and mending relationships and improving behaviour, take time and parents are encouraged to work with schools and give this process some time to take effect. Schools share resources with parents and parent support groups on how to form caring relationships and monitor their children's online behaviour, online activities and tips to support the children in cases of bullying and cyberbullying. I have a printed copy of the "Parenting for Wellness Toolbox" for parents, which is put together by MOE, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). There are some chapters here on, for example, cyberbullying: when a child is the victim, what can parents do? How can they work with the schools? How to notice signs and symptoms that the child might have been cyberbullied both in and outside of school, how to engage in conversation with the children and then, of course, when your child is himself or herself involved in causing hurtful behaviour against others.

Mr Speaker, some Members have asked about teachers training and support for our schools. As part of teacher preparation courses, all teachers are trained to foster positive class culture, address hurtful behaviours and recognise signs of distress. They are supported by key personnel and school counsellors. Our schools use MOE guidelines and resources on what constitutes bullying and cyberbullying, and how to manage these cases. Some schools also work with social service agencies (SSAs) to conduct bullying and cyberbullying awareness programmes for students and training workshops for school staff.

School personnel also regularly review their school-based strategies to manage bullying and share good practices with other schools.

Indeed, improving our framework to tackle bullying is a continual work-in-progress. Members have raised useful suggestions that we will consider as we seek to strengthen our current measures. As I shared on 27 August this year at a dialogue with educators, parents and community partners, MOE had been conducting a comprehensive review of bullying since early 2025. Based on the work done so far, we are now conducting external public consultation on four key areas.

First, strengthening our school culture, environment and processes.

Second, give greater emphasis to values education for our students.

Third, providing more resources and support for our schools and educators and deepening their capacity.

Fourth, enhancing school-home partnerships, the relationship between our teachers and educators, and parents and families.

We are encouraged to have received many constructive suggestions from parents, students, educators, community partners and researchers. These include providing schools with more resources to investigate and deal with cases, involving parents support groups to support parents whose children are involved in bullying, keeping parents informed about the content of CCE lessons so that they can reinforce values education at home and involving peers to educate others on being an upstander – among many other suggestions. We will consider all these suggestions as well as ideas raised by Members seriously, before finalising the recommendations which we aim to release in the first half of 2026.

Our shared goal as an education system and as a society must be an empowering one. We have a collective responsibility to help our children, our next generation, learn how to relate to others, be kind and show respect to others. In this, children model behaviours and pick up values from the home environment, their school environment and the community. Some learn quickly. Some repeat mistakes. Others make new ones. We have some 400,000 over children in our primary and secondary schools, and their daily interactions in class, outside class, outside school.

And children make mistakes. They make mistakes in their academic studies. They may make mistakes when they were performing the co-curricular activities (CCAs). They may make mistakes in their project work. And they may make mistakes in their interpersonal relationships with others, both with their teachers as well as other schoolmates. Some of these could be inadvertent or careless behaviour, lack of awareness or sensitivity. Some of it could be deliberate. And some of it could be a function of their conditions – some may have special needs or other issues that they are grappling with.

They learn best through calm correction from adults, reflecting on how they should have behaved, make amends for their behaviour, experience disciplinary consequences and being welcomed back to their social circles with continued guidance and support.

I thank Members of Parliament (MPs) and the public for the care and concern shown for the well-being of our students and educators. Ultimately, we want to keep improving and enhancing our system, addressing the concerns of parents, the workload on our educators and their sense of mission; and of course, addressing the issues that the public raised. We all want the same outcome: for schools to be safe, caring and enabling environments for all students and our staff. MOE will continue to work with schools, parents, community professionals and members of the public as we collectively role model the right behaviours and create the gracious and respectful society for our children to flourish.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing our approach towards bullying. As a parent, when I first heard the news about bullying and how persistent it has been over the past few months, it was extremely worrying. As an educator and someone who believes strongly in mental health, I thought we were on the right track, scaffolding our efforts to make sure that we give the right support to the children.

But being a parent too, and many parents have actually approached me about the concern of whether we are being a bit too soft in our approach, and whether a harder stance would be necessary. As an educator, I also feel that, sometimes as educators, we do not have that empowerment to take extra steps further. Of course, we worry about the effects of us being too hard on our students sometimes, but I think it is a balance.

Having said that, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, parents are often the first to notice the changes in the child when someone goes through a certain phase. And I think we need to have more support. The toolkit provided is actually wonderful. In fact, I have questioned before, how accessible it is for our parents. So, my question is, how do we make use of this toolkit further to prevent and empower parents to help them in their journey in helping their children when they are bullied or, in this case, both sides, whether it is the perpetrator or the victim, I think we need to give the right support for them.

As an educator, I have mentioned before about our worries about being sidelined for taking a harder stance on some students, for example. Is there some assurance from the Ministry, so that our educators can take a harder stance sometimes and balance it, as we approach our students moving forward?

I can see where the Member is coming from, both as an educator as well as a parent. Let me address these questions. First on empowering parents, sharing with them best practices, sharing with them the toolkits – I have explained earlier in my response how our schools already do that and how some of these materials are available both online and sometimes in hard copy. But I think we should spend this quality time looking at how we can further enhance and improve our system to address the concerns of children, parents and of the public, while also making sure that we assure our educators and our school staff who are on the frontlines, teaching, not just teaching academic knowledge, but also shaping, teaching and moulding lives, values and perspectives.

There were some ideas that were given through the review, including the dialogue that I hosted. A parent shared that in the school that her daughter was in, the school would, at the start of every academic year, have some material circulated to every parent, and this is over and on top of what is already being done across most schools and by MOE. This is what we call the community learning network, where we have our educators from different tracks share their best practices with one another, so that we continue this spirit of positive learning on how to manage various issues on the ground as well as in the community. So, that is first, and we certainly would value ideas from the Member as well as other Members on how better we can support parents, work with our schools and with our teachers to manage these issues, whether the child is a recipient of hurtful behaviour, or is the person who affects others through his or her behaviour.

In terms of educators, we have, as I said, a suite of tools that schools can use as a tiered approach, from reflection and learning for mild cases or careless cases or hurtful comments, to more severe punitive measures, such as suspension, detention. And some discipline masters have also shared with me that they make some adjustments along the way. For example, they may find that it is more effective to make the child perform some community work in the school as opposed to just suspending the child and the child does not learn and the child might not see that really as punishment, in certain circumstances.

But all in, when I describe the multi-tiered approach in terms of the severity, if I may use that word loosely, of disciplinary measures, I think we must keep emphasising the fact that these are intended to help the child understand that there are consequences for certain behaviours. Those disciplinary measures must be appropriate to the context and to the children involved, as well as conduce to learn from their mistakes, reflection, restoration of relationships, including mutual apologies or apologies of the appropriate kind and then the children move forward.

So, when these are done appropriately, and we leave some judgement to the educators and school leaders, these will help eventually for our children to learn and to grow.

Mr David Hoe.

Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his response. Allow me to say that my three questions come from conversations with various Singaporeans.

First and foremost, it is about disciplinary measures. Could MOE consider moving from home suspension to in-house suspension in school? Reason being because suspension during my time was painful because you do not get to interact with your friends and even if you go to the arcade, you have to be home by 6.30 pm. But parents do highlight to me that with the access of mobile phones today, a home suspension just means that at home, they can play Mobile Legend. This then makes us question the effectiveness of home suspension. So, could MOE consider moving from home suspension to in-house suspension?

The second question comes from the fact about the well-being and the safety of the person that is reporting. Could MOE consider a standard anti-retaliation clause, explicit consequences for post-report harassment and communicate this to students and parents, because what they do know is that for students who report, they are worried that the parents of the person that they reported on will come after them.

And the third point is about accessible channels. I recognise that there are a few accessible channels mentioned earlier, but we wonder whether could MOE consider specifying a minimum bundle of reporting options, such as those mentioned earlier, peer support, online reporting and so on, so that this allows schools to have a common baseline and every child in all schools will know that these are the various tools that they can access, while still allowing schools to retain their autonomy.

Sir, on the first question, as I mentioned earlier, there are a range of disciplinary measures that are availed to our schools. They apply it based on the circumstances and based on the children concerned. This idea of suspension, the feedback that the Member has given to us is also feedback we have received for some children. Suspension from school, sometimes, is also a safety measure to separate the children and ask the child concerned to not come to class, it can be viewed differently. For some children, they feel that this is a consequence that they learn from. For some others, it might not quite have the intended effect because they see it through a different lens and they would not mind being away from school and being at home, and worse, if there is little or no supervision at home, if parents are busy at work. Therefore, our schools also do what you call in-school suspension, where you are away from the class, but you do your learning or do some other community work or service in the school as a disciplinary measure for the actions.

The Member raised two other suggestions. I view them as suggestions and ideas. One, an anti-retaliation clause, another on accessible bundle of channels. I will take it in the spirit, as I mentioned earlier, that the Member's views, as well as those of other Members, will be studied and considered.

There are many Members who wish to ask questions. I will only call on those who have filed Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on this subject. I also request that everyone keep your supplementary questions short so that we can cover as many PQs in the course of today. Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, to what extent is there the close monitoring of the victims as well as the perpetrators after the bullying – on the part of victims, when it comes to adherence to the safety plan; and for the perpetrators, the adherence to any long-term interventions and rehabilitation?

Second is, in terms of the existing review that is ongoing, where does the Minister or the Ministry see as the current gaps that need to be further strengthened and when can we expect these to be announced?

I take Speaker's guidance on short replies. First, close monitoring of the children involved. Well, the schools will do that after consequences are meted out or counselling and other measures are brought into place and depending on the situation, of course, and depending on the impact of the children, the educators, the school counsellors necessary, or sometimes even external agencies like REACH, may be called in and each will have to be customised based on the situation.

In terms of the gaps or the possible areas that we are looking at, I have articulated them in my response: strengthening school culture, environment and processes, greater emphasis to values education, more support for schools and educators, deepening their capacity and enhancing school home partnerships. I mentioned that we hope, by the first half of next year, to be able to roll out a suite of recommendations.

Ms Hany Soh. Mr Louis Chua and Minister Desmond Lee have set the gold standard in terms of their clarifications and replies. Please maintain it.

I will try my best, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Minister, in acknowledging the fact that parent engagement is vital in such situations of bullying. In this regard, I wish to ask how promptly do the schools or the teachers get in touch with the parents? Is it once the bullying incident had occurred, to update the parents at the earliest opportunity, and whether there will be continuous efforts to handhold and work with the parents in addressing the issues?

I think, many a times, while we acknowledge and understand that resources are lean, and teachers and schools are working very hard in addressing different issues at the same time, it does comes in useful to assure the parents on the progress and hard work that have been undertaken by the teachers and the schools in their best efforts to address the issue.

Sir, when an incident happens, as I said earlier, the first priority is safety. And if a safety plan needs to be put in place, it will be done. That is the first priority. Then, some fact-finding – what happened, who were involved and so on. And in deciding whether and when to contact parents, sometimes, there are one-off incidents in class, where children have an altercation or some hurtful words were said, and the teacher's teaching and the teacher wants to restore discipline, turn it into a learning opportunity and then carry on with the rest of the class. And sometimes, the teachers might then say, it has been addressed between two or three children, one-off, they might then decide they do not really need to get the parents involved.

But sometimes the issue is more serious or if it is a repeat issue, the teachers, of course, apart from tackling safety and then doing some quick fact-finding, will then notify the parents. It is a judgement that the key personnel for student well-being, as well as the teachers and the school leaders have to exercise. Of course, when they notify the parents, they would notify all sides who were involved, in order to tell them what has happened so that they also hear from the school and then, of course, on the follow-up action the school will take. And of course, working with the parents to make sure that the learning points are carried across both in the classroom as well as at home.

Ms Elysa Chen.

Thank you, Minister, for appreciating that children pick up behaviours from home and other contexts. I also like to ask the Minister if he can share what support measures are in place for students who have been identified as victims or perpetrators of bullying who also experience child maltreatment at home? And also, how does the Ministry ensure that teachers and school staff are trained to recognise signs of child maltreatment linked to bullying cases?

My last question: because we understand that each case is varying in complexity, can the Ministry provide an average timeframe for resolution to report to closure in bullying cases that have been reported across schools?

Sir, for children who are either recipients of hurtful behaviour or the actors of hurtful behaviour or bullying, and if it is identified that they themselves were involved in, say, family violence or some family maltreatment that warranted the attention of the social services, then the schools will work with the social services, like the Family Service Centres (FSCs), or other specialised agencies to follow up.

On the second question, the Member is asking for average time, I think, that is very hard to give a clear answer to, because it really depends on the facts of the case, depends on the circumstances and depends on the severity.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, two questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister, in the recent notable cases in the schools, whether the schools or MOE do a postmortem or look-back review to see whether if there were interventions earlier, or could these have been prevented? So, this is the first question.

The second question is, whether does MOE also carry out some of these psychological studies or research, to better look out for the kind of profile of students who are likely to bully others and those that are likely to be bullied, so that it can be instructive for the educators on how to look out for indications and signs that bullying could happen?

Whether schools do postmortem, well, it depends on what has happened. But I am confident that the schools do look-backs just as they share best practices with one another, both within the school as well as across various schools and clusters. Second, I think, the Member is asking whether we look at the background of students or have some circumstances based on social work practices where we look out for possible signs and symptoms.

In our schools, when things arise, they will look into not just the behaviour, but we principally want to look at what is the underlying cause. So, it is not just consequences and then help them to learn. We need to try to ascertain what are the underlying causes that lead to this. If it is a repeat issue, does the child have special needs that may cause them to react in a certain way, for which, certain course of action is needed to support the child? Is it due to poor role modelling, maybe outside school? Is it social media? Do they come from families, as Member Elysa Chen mentioned, where there might be family violence at home and the children then manifest their behaviour in school in a particular way? I think that is the deeper work that not just our educators but also that of the school counsellors. Sometimes, if it manifests itself in long-term absenteeism, our school welfare officers will also get involved. So, these are the two questions.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. One, while I understand, this is a very complex environment in terms of bullying, there is a whole spectrum of it and we do want to give the schools autonomy in terms of managing that because two cases are never the same. But how would MOE ensure that there is some consistency and accountability of all parties, whether it is victim, bully, family or even the educators across institutions, whether there is some consistency, because the Minister talked about best practices. So, in terms of the actual best practice implementation, is there some consistency and accountability across all institutions?

And second, while it is extremely difficult, what training or help is given to both students and teachers in terms of early identification of bullying cases? It is extremely difficult in some cases, but is there training or support given so that there could be early identification and therefore, early intervention?

First, as I mentioned earlier, there is an MOE framework, the School Bullying Management Guidelines that is issued to schools where they set out some guidelines for schools in order to help them implement their measures effectively in school. There is a community learning network – sometimes, it involves the discipline masters; sometimes, school leaders for different topics, they also have these learning networks for various subjects as well and CCA and CCE, and so on. So, when it comes to managing hurtful behaviour, bullying in schools, there is also such a network among teachers as well as key personnel who are involved in our schools in handling these issues.

Second, is that training and help for early identification that would apply across the board in the school, from school leader to educator to counsellor and school welfare officers to our students. A lot of it is enmeshed into our CCE classes that bring across these points in an age-appropriate way. For example, in primary school, lower primary, we teach them about friendship: how to make friends, how to maintain friendships, how to be kind, caring and sensitive to one another. And as you grow a little bit older, it will be a bit more explicit about hurtful and bullying behaviours and then how to be an upstander, how to respond appropriately and how to look out for cyberbullying, and so on. So, that is for the school at large.

Then, of course, we have peer support leaders and that was a result of the 2020 major CCE framework review. Peer support leaders do not just deal with bullying and hurtful behaviours, of course, they are there to help students who have difficulty adjusting, new students who have come in, primary one students, help to keep an eye out for other students who might run into difficulties or may feel down and of course, to look out for early signs of bullying and then trained to report to an appropriate adult, including a teacher or a counsellor.

Ms Joan Pereira.

I have got two supplementary questions for the Minister. For cases of cyberbullying, what is the status of the Ministry's work with relevant authorities and online platforms to take action on cyberbullying incidents or content? And my second question, do these include quick-response channels that will allow the rapid take down of bullying content posted online?

Well, I mentioned earlier that there is some material that is put out for parents, for the community and, then, internally for the school community, guidelines and even some case studies on how to identify, deal with cyberbullying incidents involving children in schools. I understand that the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore has legislation that might give them powers to require takedowns. That is, of course, asking the platform to do so if there is a threshold met.

But at the school-level, if it is one child posting about another child, then it will involve, at the school-level, asking the children concerned to take it down as part of the resolution process.

As for quick-reporting channels, I believe that I mentioned earlier that some schools have online forms, contact arrangements and reporting channels for them to report bullying, including cyberbullying.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Speaker, I go to the question that I filed, suggesting the set-up of a centralised anti-bullying unit to support schools to not only investigate the most egregious cases of bullying, but also to follow up with disciplinary and rehabilitative actions with the key purpose of avoiding overburdening our teachers. And I would just like to ask the Minister if that is one of the specific measures being considered under the review?

I thank the Member for his suggestion and again, in the spirit of what I mentioned earlier, we are conducting a review and we certainly take Member Xie Yao Quan's suggestion into serious consideration. If I may share, during our engagements, we also received a similar suggestion. Our teachers are there to teach, but when incidents happen, they want to restore discipline so teaching can continue.

But even in dealing with these bad behaviours, as I said, children make mistakes on their academic work, project work and there is corrective and remedial action needed from a pedagogical point of view. But also when it comes to certain behaviours that they manifest in the classroom, in trying to restore classroom discipline, it is also a teachable moment for the students.

Having said that, when matters escalate or if it is more serious, key personnel in the school may be involved. School leaders may be involved and sometimes, even beyond the school if a matter is more serious, including the Police or the superintendent, zonal directors or even headquarters itself.

There was a suggestion, as part of the review that is ongoing, that we bring in experts with knowledge in restorative practice, or RP, for instance. And, of course, we have to study this carefully, because if we bring these people in, they will have to then integrate well with what is happening in our schools. The teachers on the ground know the children well and also understand the dynamics. If we bring in an external party, they have expertise, but they will then also have to go through a certain get-up in order to understand what is going on and to build the relationship with the school, educators and staff as well as with the parents. So, certainly, we will study it seriously.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions raised by educators. Could the Minister share what safeguards are in place to prevent over-reporting of false positives that may overwhelm teachers and dilute attention from serious cases? And secondly, in strengthening anti-bullying measures, how does the Ministry strike a balance between protecting victims and helping students build resilience to manage everyday small disagreements or teasing that may not amount to bullying?

May I just ask the Member, I did not quite catch the first question: over-reporting that overwhelms the teachers? Perhaps the Member can clarify. Sorry, I did not catch that.

I mean, for small issues or incidents that may not be considered as bullying, but students report it to teachers and teachers may be overwhelmed by some of these small incidents.

I understand where the Member is coming from. I think, sometimes you can never get it perfect because so many children are involved and we have this network of peer support leaders as well, and all our children are encouraged to report if there are issues that they face. They are not feeling good, or they see some other classmate in difficulty or they see some behaviours, they will report, because they look up to the teacher as someone whom they respect, as a figure of authority, someone whom they know and trust, and the teacher will then exercise judgement.

I do not think there is a particular policy you can put in place to get children, including primary school children, to calibrate it to the right level. But we are mindful, ultimately, of the demands on our teachers. They are prepared to work hard, but there must be clear purpose and meaning, and helping our children learn the right values and the right behaviours, and building resilience in them is important, comparable to what they are teaching in terms of academic subjects. These lessons in life, these life-skills are, perhaps, even more important. So, our teachers will not shy away and will use these as opportunities to try to turn it into a teachable moment.

The Member is right. I do not think we want to give people the impression that we do not want to overprotect our children because we want them to be resilient. It is a careful balance. We want to arm our children, put processes in place so that the school can be and continue to be a safe, conducive environment for learning, not just academic learning but also learning of values, behaviours and team work and so on – all the 21st Century Competencies that we think are important for our children to take away into life.

And yet, when you have behaviours and interactions, and as I said, there are 400,000 primary and secondary school children, plus minus, if you add the whole system together, ITE, polytechnics and universities, half a million. And the number of micro interactions is huge. Really, these are people-to-people relationships and you want a certain degree of resilience, being able to just brush it off and say, "Well, this person, I understand, may have had a bad day".

But there is a threshold that is not a bright line that is crossed, when that becomes toxic, when that has an impact in a negative way, and when we say we step in, it does not mean we overprotect. It means we step in to prevent further harm, look at what has happened and make sure that those involved learn, including people who are at the receiving end of the bullying behaviour, to also learn how they can better protect themselves and also understand the spirit of forgiveness.

Dr Charlene Chen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether schools, or staff in schools, are penalised for bullying cases happening in schools? And if so, whether such practices may inadvertently incentivise cover-ups, and more importantly, hinder MOE's efforts to send more resources to support these schools. A second question would be, if no, are there any reasons to believe why cover-ups could happen?

I am not aware that there are such penalties for schools or educators if a bullying incident happens in their class or in the school. I cannot believe there is, though I would certainly go back and check. When the Member mentions cover-ups, I think it is best to look at specific cases that we can then examine and investigate, if necessary, because it is a serious allegation.

Ms Eileen Chong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for touching on MOE's upstream preventative measures and approaches. My supplementary questions actually pertain to this. I am very heartened to hear about the enhancements that have been made to the CCE since 2021 and I would like to ask if the Minister could elaborate on how the Ministry actually evaluates the effectiveness of some of these changes made, especially in light of some MOE statistics, as of 2024, which indicates that bullying numbers have been held steady in the last five years.

And to the Minister's point about how children actually learn from multiple behaviour sources, which thus highlights the importance of upstream preventative measures, I am very heartened to hear about programmes, like the Parenting for Wellness programme and other tool kits that are available for parents, but more importantly, we also understand that implementation is often times as important as programme and toolkit design.

So, could the Minister elaborate on what is the uptake rate by parents of the more than 400,000 school-going primary and secondary school children of these toolkits and programmes? And if the uptake rate is low, whether there are other ways to increase this uptake without placing the onus on our teachers that are already burdened trying to manage the situation in school and outside of school?

Well, these CCE changes come about as a result of review. We had a comprehensive review of the kinds of character and values that we see as important to develop in our children, and we will continue to review these from time to time. And then they are then delivered through pedagogy, through class activities, through student activity, and so on, as well as adult role modelling. And as I said earlier, we hope to be able to also share that with parents so that they can do some reinforcement at home. Our parents take charge of our children's upbringing and are also, in a way, teachers of values and character, in as much as our teachers in our classrooms.

As to how we can measure and evaluate, there are so many factors that go into the behaviours of our children. We, of course, can see some of these manifests themselves in the children's relationship with one another, their attitudes towards the people around them, including their teachers. Some of these can be seen on the ground. But I think it is very hard to scientifically measure for each and every child whether these improvements to CCE have, in the short term or immediate term, resulted in certain factors. So, the causative link is not so easy to establish, but these are reinforced, these are role-modelled, and we hope that this sets them in a good position and trajectory for life.

As for the uptake of the tool kits, I do not have the data at this point in time. I have said, in my reply, that these are made available, our schools disseminate some of this information to our parents as well as to parent support groups. And we, certainly, as part of this review, want to see how we can improve the material, make it more accessible to diverse audiences and find better and more effective ways to connect with our parents, not just by sharing information, but by working together for our children's well-being and development.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Thank you, Speaker. Protecting our young through the prevention and identification of online harms and cyberbullying needs to be a whole-of-community effort.

In my community engagements with parents, given that the bullying happens to be in the "unseen" online world, I note that many parents were not aware of the extent of their child's cyberbullying cases. With online bullying ground movements coming from school backyards, for instance, "XXX", being the school's name, and confessions on social media pages, chat groups, game rooms, how will the school and Ministry reach out to the community to be vigilant to such pages and such movements?

Beyond the current reporting channels, will the Ministry also consider a nationwide campaign to stamp out cyberbullying in schools, because really, it is not okay to be not okay.

The short answer to both is, we will study in the course of the review. For the Member's suggestions, on the first, we will also welcome members of the public, including Members of this House, if you have seen any of these sites, to also alert us, I think that will be the "all hands on deck" approach to looking after our children.

I have called on all Members who filed PQs on this matter for today and the next three days. The last member I am going to call is Mr Gerald Giam. You had filed a question for written answer yesterday, but I will allow you to ask another supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, one of the most effective ways to stop bullying is through peer disapproval. How do schools encourage and empower students who are bystanders to intervene and tell the bully that what they are doing is not okay? The Minister mentioned that students are taught to be upstanders and to respond appropriately to bullying. Can this be made part of the core CCE curriculum and be introduced at a lower primary level? This will be a very important skill that they will carry into adulthood, because bullying can happen at all ages and in all environments.

I thank the Member for his important point. Upstanding behaviour is not just something that our peer support leaders are trained to do. We hope our students, as a whole, will not just stand at the side, be an audience, or worse, even implicitly egg people on.

So, this is really about fomenting and formulating a positive school culture and class culture, which I mentioned earlier, that is the aim of this review, to see how we can further strengthen existing efforts to create a positive school culture, not just a kind and caring culture, but one in which people speak up and make clear what is not acceptable behaviour in their midst.

That is the end of the MOE question time, almost an hour. Mr Xie Yao Quan, next question please.

13 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of a lower proportion of fresh graduates from Institutes of Higher Learning landing full-time permanent employment after graduation (a) what are the cyclical and structural factors contributing to this trend; (b) how does the GRaduate Industry Traineeships Programme (GRIT) address these factors; and (c) what further measures is the Ministry considering to address these factors.

14 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme will affect the long-term earning potential of fresh graduates; (b) what guardrails guide its implementation and how are these reviewed; and (c) how are host employers and sectors selected, especially in strategic growth sectors.

15 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower what plans does the Ministry have to encourage host employers to fairly consider fresh graduates participating in the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme for conversion to full-time positions.

16 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of companies that will be participating in the GRaduate Industry Traineeships programme; and (b) what is the allocation breakdown of the 800 traineeship places among the universities, polytechnics and ITEs.

17 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies are currently on board the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme; and (b) how will the Ministry monitor and ensure the quality of the traineeship experience.

18 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what measures are there to ensure that GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) offer meaningful, structured learning experiences for fresh graduates; (b) how will the Ministry monitor the quality of host organisations and mentorship provided; and (c) how will GRIT draw from best practices in internship programmes at tertiary institutions for a win-win outcome for trainees and participating companies.

19 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower what safeguards are in place under the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme to ensure that the emphasis remains on providing meaningful training and developmental opportunities to fresh graduates, rather than on cost-savings for host organisations.

20 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how the initial number of 800 GRaduate Industry Traineeship positions was determined; and (b) what is the Ministry's projected demand for traineeship placements based on the number of recent graduates in 2024 and 2025 who are seeking employment.

21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what key factors contribute to the decrease in employment in permanent jobs for fresh graduates; (b) what are the goals and KPIs of the new Government-funded traineeship programme for recent graduates; and (c) how does it address the factors affecting permanent jobs for fresh graduates and what other measures are planned to arrest this employment trend.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to address the following Parliamentary Questions (PQs) on graduate employment and the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme together: questions filed by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis and Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan from yesterday's Sitting; oral Question Nos 13 to 21 from today's Order Paper on graduate employment; and oral and written questions filed by Ms Lee Hui Ying1, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Ng Shi Xuan2, 3, Ms Poh Li San4, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Dr Charlene Chen for the subsequent Sittings, also relating to graduate employment.

Please go ahead.

I would also like to invite all Members to seek clarifications after and consider withdrawing the questions filed for future Sittings, if they have been addressed.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the key factors contributing to the decrease in permanent employment of fresh graduates. First, I would like to clarify that we have not seen a decrease in permanent employment of fresh graduates in the 2025 cohort so far. Mr Yip and Mr Xie may be referring to the decrease in the permanent employment rate of fresh graduates six months after graduation from 2023 to 2024, reported in the Joint Autonomous Universities Graduate Employment Survey. Based on our data so far, we have, in fact, seen some improvement in employment rates from 2024 to 2025.

As of June this year, around 9,300 graduates from the 2025 cohort, or 52%, were employed. This employment rate was higher than that of the 2024 cohort at the same time last year, when 8,600 graduates, or 48% of the 2024 cohort, were employed. The proportion of graduates in permanent employment has also increased, at about 44% in 2025 compared to 37% in 2024. I believe these figures will improve further, as many graduates were only beginning their job searches in June.

The employment rate of the 2024 cohort has risen from 48%, as mentioned earlier, to 88% this June.

That said, Members of the House, we recognise the anxieties and challenges faced by fresh graduates in their job searches. Based on our data, we assess that this might be partly driven by a significantly higher number of fresh graduates from the 2025 cohort entering the job market immediately after graduation, compared to last year.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I display a chart to better illustrate my point and may I ask the Clerks to distribute a copy as well.

Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL App.

If Members look at the chart that has been distributed, compared to the same time last year, there were about 2,400 more fresh graduates looking for a job instead of either taking a gap break or going for further studies.

Hence, even though there were about 700 more fresh graduates who were employed, the additional 1,700 active jobseekers who had yet to find a job may have contributed to a stronger sense of job competition among fresh graduates.

Moreover, external factors including economic headwinds from increased trade tensions, the imposition of tariffs and geopolitical conflict and growing concerns over artificial intelligence taking over entry-level jobs have added to the anxieties of our fresh graduates. Therefore, even though graduate employment rates remain stable, we need to support the additional influx of graduates looking for work.

We have introduced GRIT to give graduates an opportunity to pick up industry experience and practical skills to boost their employability in the longer term. This model builds on positive results seen for the trainees who participated during the COVID-era SGUnited Traineeships (SGUT).

To Ms Eileen Chong's question, close to 90% of SGUT trainees found regular employment within six months after completion.

While the median starting salary for degree graduate trainees who participated in SGUT, at close to $3,400, was slightly lower than the median of $3,700 reported in the Joint Autonomous University Graduate Employment Survey 2020, these figures are not directly comparable, because the demographics of both groups differ.

The economic context for the introduction of SGUT and GRIT also differ. SGUT focused on increasing capacity to reduce graduate unemployment during an economic crisis, while our current GRIT programme focuses on the provision of a limited number of quality traineeship opportunities to provide reassurance to graduates. Hence, the outcomes of GRIT may not mirror that of SGUT.

There have been several questions raised over how GRIT can support graduates to gain sustained full-time employment eventually. We have designed the scheme with a few key considerations to achieve this.

First, we will ensure that the traineeships are of high quality, so that they improve the employability of graduates in the longer term. Mr Edward Chia, Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the selection of companies currently on-board for GRIT. Workforce Singapore (WSG) has worked with sector agencies to identify leading companies as host organisations for the programme.

These companies come from key growth sectors such as financial services, and information and communications, which offer a large number of good jobs. They have a good track record of hiring and training locals and are committed to offer a good mix of traineeship roles for graduates from all of our educational institutions.

To Mr Chia's, Ms Gho's, Ms Jessica Tan's, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin's and Dr Hamid Razak's questions about how the Ministry will monitor the quality of the traineeship experience, host companies will need to submit a traineeship development plan with learning outcomes that WSG will regularly review. WSG will also conduct check-ins with trainees to monitor and ensure the quality of the traineeship experience. These structured traineeships with leading companies will position trainees in good stead for jobs and for roles within or beyond the host organisations.

Ms Chong, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we would support the conversion of trainees to full-time positions. To strengthen the pathway to full-time employment, WSG will strongly encourage host organisations to offer full-time employment where possible.

To support host organisations to do so even before the traineeships end, we will continue to provide allowance subsidies for host organisations that convert trainees who have completed at least three months of the traineeship. In addition, as part of the check-in with the trainees before the end of the traineeship, WSG will also proactively share employment resources, including career matching services to support trainees' transition to full-time employment.

Second, we have designed the scheme to provide support without crowding out full-time job positions that companies might otherwise offer to fresh graduates.

To Mr Gerald Giam's and Ms Poh Li San's question on the initial number of places, we have started GRIT with an initial capacity of 800 places – 500 private sector and 300 public sector.

Last week, when I released the Labour Market Report for the quarter ending June 2025, I have also shared that there are 30,000 entry level job positions available today for our fresh graduates to apply, so, I hope you can understand why we have very tightly ensured that this programme does not end up cannibalising full-time positions. This helps to safeguard both the quality of traineeships and at the same time, manage the risk of crowding out full-time positions.

To Mr Louis Chua's question on how we determined the traineeship allowance, we capped the maximum at $2,400, which is approximately half of the median starting salary of fresh graduates from autonomous universities. This is similar to the quantum for SGUT and is calibrated to ensure that trainees continue to prioritise full-time roles.

We also capped the duration of traineeships at six months to encourage employers to seriously consider the trainees for a higher paying full-time job at the end of the traineeship. This relates to Mr Chua's other question on why trainees will not be considered employees of the host organisation.

GRIT is meant to offer traineeships that build skills and early work experience through on-the-job training. It is not meant to be an employment subsidy, typically used to support groups that face more serious and chronic barriers to employment, such as, persons with disabilities. If companies see the value of trainees and wish to engage them on a longer-term basis, they should offer full-time positions.

Third, GRIT is designed to mitigate the risk of displacing existing employees, including mid-career workers. We have carefully selected host organisations that actively participate in workforce development efforts, including the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or WSG programmes that support mid-career workers.

To Mr Ng Shi Xuan's question, WSG will also conduct checks on host companies' recent retrenchment activities to ensure that the traineeship roles are not similar to that of impacted workers.

This also speaks to Mr Kenneth Tiong's question on the risk of employers using traineeship grants to displace employees. Moreover, the traineeship allowance is calibrated to be lower than what host organisations can receive for mature individuals who are undergoing attachments under the Mid-Career Pathways Programme.

The Government stands ready to roll out further support if necessary. We are prepared to increase traineeship places and extend the programme if economic conditions worsen, or if there is demand for more traineeship places due to good outcomes for both graduates and employers.

In the meantime, we encourage all our fresh graduates to tap on the extensive career guidance and job matching support that has been made available through the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), WSG and NTUC's e2i.

To Dr Charlene Chen's query, to complement the education and career guidance provided by the Ministry of Education and IHLs, WSG and its partners offers a variety of career services and resources to students seeking to enter the workforce.

These advisory services include, not just career advisory, but also coaching services provided by both WSG and e2i, and they can be complemented with industry insights offered by WSG's Volunteer Career Advisors. Individuals can also look for job opportunities on WSG's MyCareersFuture portal, utilising its CareersFinder feature to explore potential careers and upskilling options.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Thank you, Sir. I would just like to ask the Minister if, beyond cyclical factors, the Ministry also assesses that there are structural factors driving the graduate employment situation, including, for example, the displacement of entry level jobs by artificial intelligence (AI)? And would the Ministry consider traineeships as a solution to some of these structural factors driving graduate employment?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I agree with the Member. Generative AI is indeed reshaping entry level jobs and increasingly advanced models automate quite a lot of the more routine and mundane tasks. But I think that contemporaneously, this shift is also creating new opportunities in AI-related fields, and it elevates the importance of soft skills, for instance, like critical thinking, creativity.

What we hope to do is to ensure that our young graduates continue to be ready, flexible, nimble enough to be able to adapt to leverage on AI positively, particularly given the world that we are in today – rapid disruptions, rapid pace of transformation.

So, to prepare our young graduates for career success in an AI era beyond the traineeships, the Government has put in place a mix of upskilling programmes, work-based learning, as well as career guidance initiatives, and under the National AI Strategy 2.0, for example, we are scaling up programmes like AI apprenticeship programmes, so that we can continue to boost our pipeline of young AI practitioners. Beyond the inclusion of AI-related modules within the curriculum at our IHLs to build up our students' digital fluencies, literacies, we have been evolving our education system. We work closely with Minister Lee's Ministry, so that we can continue to place an even greater focus on the soft skills that would continue to be important for career success in an AI era.

In addition, we have also stepped up support for career planning while they are in flight through the universities, through the IHLs. And WSG's career guidance efforts is integrated with them, so that we can support them to journey better and help them to work towards achieving their career goals.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Speaker. I understand that most of our students studying in our IHLs already go through internship programmes and the effort is intended to equip our students or young jobseekers with relevant work experience, and some of these internships are also supported by existing Government programmes, such as the Global Ready Talent Programme. In this context, may I ask the Minister first, how does the GRIT programme differ from existing internships, in terms of expectations, oversight, mentorship, learning objectives? And the Minister also mentioned about soft skills; so, would there be efforts to also harmonise this with the Global Ready Talent Programme?

Secondly, the Minister mentioned that there will be regular check-ins with trainees. May I ask how frequent will these check-ins be and how will these enhance the overall trainee experiences and outcomes?

I thank Mr Chia for his supplementary questions. I want to keep it short, because I understand that quite a number of Members who have filed PQs would also want to raise other supplementary questions.

Suffice to say, when we create programmes like this, we try to be very precise, very differentiated towards a particular need, as the other programmes run contemporaneously. GRIT is intended to be a temporary scheme. This is meant to support fresh graduates amidst the current economic uncertainty and of course, we will monitor the take-up closely. We will work with our programme partners to map out and to see whether there is a need to scale up capacity and provide lateral links into all of these other programmes, including the Global Ready Talent Programme that the Member alluded to.

Before the end of the 12-month period, we will also review the outcomes and we will then consider the need to extend the programme, depending on how the labour market situation evolves at that particular point in time.

Perhaps on a slightly more uplifting note, we did end the first half of this year with a growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Our GDP grew year on year by 4.3%. So, this is really a very pre-emptive approach to try to resolve and help our fresh graduates to gain that confidence, to gain that exposure and to build their networks.

The rest of the scheme would continue to run in tandem. There is also a whole slew of measures that I had announced at the MOM Committee of Supply (COS) Budget this year on the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. And the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), working with the different agencies, has put up a $200 million package to develop Company Training Committees with all of the different companies. So, I think these measures come collectively, and I think that today, just to keep the scope of where we are on GRIT, it is meant to be a very tightly curated scheme, focusing on that delta of fresh graduates looking for opportunities for industrial attachments.

I do hope to clear all the PQs for this, so Mr Patrick Tay, a short and concise one, and the same applies to the Minister later.

Two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, on abuse by employers; secondly, on morale of GRIT trainees.

On the first supplementary question on abuse by employers, there may be employers who are keen and able to hire graduates on permanent employment but then use GRIT as sort of like a backdoor approach. How can MOM address this possible abuse?

Secondly, on the GRIT trainees, I know the scheme only starts on 1 October, but GRIT trainees, many of them may be on the GRIT scheme, but working alongside some of their classmates or schoolmates from last year, previous years, working alongside them and doing the same job, but their classmates are drawing sometimes maybe twice the pay because they are on permanent employment. How do we manage the morale of such trainees?

Mr Speaker, I will try to keep it short. WSG has implemented safeguards under the GRIT programme to protect trainees from potential abuses from host organisations, so, there is a traineeship agreement which has to be signed by both trainees and the host companies. This details what is the approved traineeship allowance, what are the working hours, the leave entitlements, including medical and annual leave, which is offered by the host organisations, and this is submitted to the programme partner for oversight.

The appointed programme partner will then conduct check-ins with trainees to ensure that they are settling in well and that they have good traineeship experience. Trainees will also have access to a dedicated hotline and email to support and to report any issues, and the appointed programme partner will intervene where necessary to address concerns. We work very closely with the Singapore Business Federation on this.

We also started the scheme with a lower number of places so that we avoid crowding out all these potential full-time positions. We want to maintain the quality of the traineeship. The purpose for GRIT trainees is not to do the same work, but it is to give them the opportunity to pick up the industry experiences, the practical skillsets, hopefully the soft skills as well as – I was sharing, earlier on, to Member Mr Xie Yao Quan's PQ – so that eventually they can quickly get full-time employment after the traineeship duration of up to six months is completed. And we urge all companies to consider these trainees, to offer them permanent employment after their traineeship.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, we have been hearing about companies hiring less entry level jobs. So, can I ask the Minister if companies in Singapore are indeed also hiring fewer entry level jobs; and if indeed this is a long-term trend, in addition to GRIT, what other policy measures may be necessary to support fresh graduate employment?

There are some companies who are limiting the hiring of entry level jobs, but there are also many companies that have ramped up the hiring of entry level jobs. The entire scope of our economy is quite wide. We are quite well differentiated. In many of the growth sectors that I had earlier on talked about, and that is how we approach them to help, these are the companies that are still actively hiring.

For the purpose of GRIT, we have worked with close to 50 companies in the growth sector and they have committed to offering places under the GRIT programme. They span quite a diverse range of sectors, including financial services, manufacturing, the information and communications technology (ICT) and media sector, wholesale trade and professional services. I can share with Members a list of some of these companies, which includes prominent industry leaders – OCBC, DBS, Singapore Technologies, the semi-conductor companies, Micron, Sembcorp, Grab, Sea, Standard Chartered Bank – they have all stepped forward to offer meaningful traineeship opportunities.

Many of these roles would include – I mean, the list is very long. What I have done is to also request my MOM colleagues to publish the list of job vacancies in all of the different sectors for our fresh graduates and our graduates to apply for, and this will be made available on a recurring basis. Some of these traineeship roles that I alluded to include data analysts, robotic process automation (RPA) specialist, research and development, policy and strategy, as well as functions in marketing in human resources and in business development. And of course, Members know we are all rapidly ageing, and from where I used to come from, healthcare, they are always hiring. I hope that gives Members that breadth and that spread of the type of entry level jobs that are available.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

Thank you, Speaker. One supplementary question for the Minister. With regards to the GRIT@Gov Programme, would the Government commit to offering employment to trainees at the end of their traineeship, or at least set a clear expectation that the Government agencies should seek to hire these trainees into permanent roles rather than treating the programme as a stop gap measure?

I thank Ms Gho for that very incisive exhortation. Certainly, from the Government's perspective, the 300 places offered by the Government agencies, we hope that the moment they come on board, that industrial attachment, would indeed inspire and encourage many of these young trainees to sign up and join the Government.

I would also like to remind the hon Member that there are a separate 2,400 jobs at Careers@Gov, and I certainly hope that more than 300 would apply to the 2,400 vacancies we have at Careers@Gov and we will do our best to facilitate their onboarding. I hope that gives you that reassurance.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions for the Minister. One on the point on after the GRIT programme, are there any specific measures to map some of these vacancies to these trainees who have completed the programme? Because the host organisations would have provided GRIT exposure, experience and training, which some of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) may not be able to provide, and these graduates would then be more ready for the roles.

The second question is that if the entry level jobs are really going away, and in some cases they are, will this traineeship programme – after the completion, even if it is a 12-month programme, but your traineeships are three and six months – will it lead to a cycle of the trainees going for another cycle of traineeship?

I thank Ms Tan for her questions. Earlier on I did share quite a fair bit of insight on how we will build on the SGUT. So, very similar to the SGUT, we will track how many trainees would have found employment after the GRIT programme and whether it was with their host organisation as at the outset.

The appointed programme partner, while the trainees are in flight, will review, will conduct regular check-ins with the trainees to ensure that they are settling in well, and that the experience is generally beneficial, and it is good. Host companies who are part of this programme will also be required to submit a traineeship development plan, with learning outcomes so that WSG can regularly review. Lastly, as I said, to strengthen the pathway to full-time employment, WSG will strongly encourage host organisations to offer full-time employment where possible.

And to support host organisations to do so, to get them to convert these GRIT trainees earlier even before the traineeships end, we will continue to provide allowance subsidies for host organisations to convert the trainees who have completed at least three months. So, the entire period of traineeship is up to six months, but after three months if they convert, we will still continue to provide the subsidy.

Before the end of the traineeship, WSG will proactively work with them to share employment services, including career matching services to support the trainees' transition into full-time employment.

So, there is a whole slew of measures that we put in place to facilitate their onboarding to full-time employment.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I would imagine the demand for the GRIT scheme would far exceed the 800 places available. Will academic performance or prior job experience influence candidate selection for GRIT? If so, how will MOM ensure that the scheme does not disproportionately favour high-achieving candidates who are likely to secure jobs on their own, while leaving those with weaker academic results or limited practical experience still struggling to find employment?

My concern is less about the cannibalisation of entry level positions that the Minister mentioned earlier, but more about ensuring that jobseekers with weaker credentials are not inadvertently excluded from this scheme.

I thank Mr Giam for that supplementary questions. I want to bring the Member back to the chart that I distributed earlier. The delta of fresh graduates looking for jobs, that increase in numbers, is about 1,700. So, this initial number, and let me highlight and underscore, is an initial number of 800 traineeship positions, is actually approximately half of the increase in the number of job-seeking graduates in the 2025 cohort, compared to the 2024 cohort at the same point in June last year.

And over time, you have seen that over that one year in my combined PQ reply earlier on, for those graduates in 2024, that from over 40%, I think it was 48%, has gone up to 88% in June this year. So, we expect that with time this delta will continue to drop because it was only in June that we got the numbers, so we expect that the numbers going into full-time employment would continue to increase.

Because of that, as a result of the number of unemployed graduates gradually falling, because more of them land jobs overtime, because, as I have said, there are also 30,000 full-time job vacancies for fresh graduates that that were available, our end objective is to channel as many graduates as possible into full-time jobs.

To the Member's point about grades and how those with better grades take up the GRIT traineeship, my sense is that those who have better grades and soft skills, those who have actually gotten a lot more experience, and those who have actually done a lot more internships and industrial traineeships while they were undergoing studies, they would have already been able to secure many of these jobs. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we want to level up the playing field for those people who may not have had the opportunity, because they were taken up by other responsibilities while they were still undergoing the training within the IHLs.

And as I have said, if the Member over time feels that there are other opportunities, there are other ways, we are happy to listen to suggestions and solutions from yourself. And depending on GDP growth, depending on how the economy continues to progress and move along, we will not hesitate to ramp up the traineeships, ramp up all of the support resources available, because at the end, if you look at the entire history of what we have been doing over the last many years, it is really focusing on developing a very strong Singapore Core and Singapore workforce. I hope that gives Member the reassurance.

I will just allow for one final supplementary question. Dr Hamid Razak.

Thank you, Sir. There are two questions for Minister. The Minister did mention that the scheme is meant to be temporary. Are there any specific milestones or indicators that the Ministry has in mind before this scheme will cease or morph into a more permanent scheme?

And number two, I understand that we have taken in host organisations that have credibility and are able to give the development value to the trainees. Will you also be considering our local startups and companies that may similarly be able to offer value to our local graduates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think, to respect the time, I think we have passed Question Time.

You are absolutely right, so keep yours short as well.

To the second point, certainly we have kept it very tight as at the outset, but if the scheme is successful and we are able to extend it to more companies, we certainly will work with the startups and the SMEs as well.

For the first point, we will monitor our GDP growth. We will also look at the unemployment statistics, particularly the long-term unemployment statistics. If you look at where we are today, the resident long-term unemployment rate is still very low, below 1%. And the spot unemployment is about just below 3%, about 2.8%, 2.9%.

At below 1%, a long-term unemployment rate, that 2% to 2.1% is actually churn. In any healthy economy, you would expect that churn to happen. That means that these people typically either take a gap, couple of weeks or months, but within six months they get back to a new job.

Today, like I said, I mean, there is that fear, that angst, that apprehension, but the reality on the ground is such that we are still in a relatively stable state.

Of course, things can change in the next one, two quarters, and we are cognisant of that. But what we are trying to do is to provide the reassurance, because to the individual looking for a job, he is most affected and impacted. No amount of statistics that I share will be able to allay his concerns, his fears and his anxiety. So, we want to scope this thing carefully to make sure that we can help them and we can reach out to all of them with maximum benefit.

Mr Yip, I am sorry I could not get to you. I know you filed a question. But you have the honour of kicking off the Debate, next.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [22 September 2025]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

[(proc text) '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] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I begin by declaring that I work in a global investment firm with investments in defence-related companies.

In the opening chapter of the Chinese novel, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", we find a line that carries through the ages: "天下大势，分久必合，合久必分". Great powers come together after a period of fracture; and divide after a period of unity.

History bears out this pattern. Empires rise and fall. Regions fracture, only to converge again under new banners. The map of the world is never still. It is like the tide – advancing, retreating, flowing.

For small, open nations like ours, the world today is not only uncertain. It is like a gathering storm at an inflection point, where old certainties collapse into turbulence. The assumptions that once held steady – open trade, safe sea lanes, shared global norms – can no longer be taken for granted.

Supertankers and fleets of all sizes are shifting course, switching lanes and creating waves. For a small vessel like Singapore, the challenge is not to command the seas. It is to chart a careful passage through them.

This inflection point is not only geopolitical; it is economic and technological. The British Empire was powered by coal. America’s rise was fuelled by oil. The next era will be built on electrification – from renewable grids to new storage systems. The demand for coal has levelled off. Oil may be nearing its peak. Electrification is still in its early stages, but will rise sharply in the years ahead. Demand will shift. And the nations that adapt will lead.

As Ray Dalio warns, we are entering a period of “multi-dimensional conflict” – spanning economics, technology and geopolitics. He notes that the United States’ (US') relative position has declined, while China’s rise has been remarkable. If unmanaged, this could harden into greater confrontation. Singapore cannot sit back. We must prepare. And preparation begins with recognising this fundamental truth: Singapore’s security rests on two pillars – defence and diplomacy. One without the other leaves us vulnerable. Defence gives credibility to diplomacy. Diplomacy ensures defence is well-positioned. Together, they form the twin pillars of our survival.

I thank President Tharman Shanmugaratnam for his clear articulation of the challenges ahead. His words remind us: this is not business as usual. I speak today not only as the Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), but also as the Member of Parliament (MP) of Yio Chu Kang. From one vantage point, I see the shifting sands of geopolitics. From another, I hear the everyday anxieties of Singaporean families – about jobs, about costs, about our children’s future. These are not separate conversations. They are one and the same story.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Southeast Asia, once seen as an oasis of stability, is more fragile than we would like to admit. Border disputes simmer. Political transitions in our neighbours bring forth opportunity and uncertainty. Globally, wars in Europe and the Middle East shake supply chains and energy security. Great power rivalry between the US and China sharpens by the day.

Even in advanced democracies, societies fracture not with bombs or tanks, but with inequality, disinformation and digital disruption. If foreign policy begins at home, then the lesson is clear: when nations grow divided inside, they stumble abroad. And when they stumble, the shockwaves ripple across the world.

For Singapore, whose survival depends on stability abroad and cohesion at home, the stakes could not be higher.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Defence's (MINDEF’s) commitment to deepen ties with partners is vital. Strengthening ties with existing allies is good, but we must avoid over-dependence. We must also cultivate diversified relationships, even with non-traditional partners in the Global South, for example, emerging economies that share an interest in regional stability. At the same time, we have to carefully manage risks from states who may not always share our worldview and whose ambition may not always align with a rules-based order. Meanwhile, warfare is changing. Cheap drones. Cyberattacks. AI-enabled systems. These are not weapons of tomorrow. These are weapons of today. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) must not just keep pace. It must set the pace.

But it is not enough to buy the most advanced systems. What matters is whether we can sustain and replenish them. A handful of elite systems may not decide the outcome. What will matter is scale and speed – tens, hundreds, even thousands of resilient systems that can be replaced and deployed quickly. This is where our defence industry plays a role. ST Engineering has shown what is possible with reliability and innovation. We must build on that and encourage more to innovate for the next generation.

National Service is evolving. We are redesigning vocations, harnessing civilian expertise. That is good. But we must also retain high-value technical talent, rather than lose them once trained. Total Defence volunteerism is expanding, but participation alone is not enough. We must measure outcomes in terms of readiness and trust, not just headcount.

Let us be ambitious. Our defence industry can provide high-value jobs, strengthen technological sovereignty and be a source of national pride. But ambition must remain sustainable. At around 3% of gross domestic product (GDP), our defence budget is prudent. The challenge is to sustain strength, while keeping it affordable.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, our foreign policy must adapt just as quickly. We do not choose sides. We choose principles. We stay open. We stay credible. We stay constructive. Principles are like a compass to set our long-term direction. Deepening ties with both the US and China demands careful, calibrated messaging. Openness to one must never be misread as turning away from the other. Ultimately, all foreign policy is domestic policy. When big nations clash, Singaporeans feel it – in the price of groceries, the security of jobs, the reliability of essential services. Our external relationships are directly tied to stability at home.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains our cornerstone. But consensus paralysis is real. Beyond trade and digital frameworks, we must explore institutional innovations that enable action – maybe not qualified majority voting in select domains – so that ASEAN is not paralysed by gridlock.

As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) expands its missions in Africa and Latin America, the intent is right. But we must ensure that resources are not overstretched. Missions should deliver trade, partnerships and strategic footholds, not just symbolic presence.

Most importantly, diplomacy is about people. Personal relationships. Cultural understanding. The ability to pick up the phone, call a counterpart and have trust built over years. That is invaluable. In our own region, many of the old leaders have passed on. We must invest in the new generation of connections. We must have people who can sit at tables, share meals and build trust beyond formalities. Foreign policy is a long game. It requires credibility backed by defence, curiosity about the world and resilience at home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, security is not only about the nation. It is also about the resilience of our communities in Singapore. In my constituency Yio Chu Kang, I see how strong communities make strong nations. Dementia-friendly walkways. Food rescue programmes. These may seem small compared to geopolitics, but they are not. They build trust. They build solidarity. And solidarity is the true bedrock of resilience.

Here, I must commend the Ministry of Health (MOH) on Healthier SG and Age Well SG. As Vice-Chair of the Health GPC, I have seen first-hand how these initiatives are not just policies on paper, but create real impact on the ground. Preventive health, functional screenings, community fitness programmes and mental health outreach are transforming the way Singaporeans think about health. They bring care into the neighbourhood, where people live, know each other and can support one another. This is where resilience takes root – in the neighbour who checks in, in the resident who volunteers.

Yet, we must also address challenges to jobs and social mobility. Rising costs, low birth rates and an ageing population test our resilience. Still, most Singaporeans believe hard work can improve their circumstances. That optimism is not just individual hope. It is our collective strength.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have reflected on shifting tides of geopolitics and unpredictable challenges. We have looked at warfare today, from drones and cyberattacks to AI-enabled systems and the need for an SAF that is ready and resilient. We have considered foreign policy that is principled and practical, open but credible, designed to deliver for our people. We have seen how resilient communities, rooted in solidarity, form the foundation of national strength.

Through it all, defence, diplomacy and community must be sustainable, guided by careful planning and prudent stewardship.

Singapore is like a small vessel sailing in waters where giants move. Supertankers shift course, sometimes collide. If we drift without care, we risk being capsized. There are strategic dangers if great powers disengage and economic dangers if rivalries fracture supply chains.

Survival is never passive. To endure, we must see risks early, seize opportunities fast and equip our ship with radar, engines, reserves and most importantly, a disciplined and united crew.

Foreign policy is also personal. Recently, a Yio Chu Kang family came to see me at my meet-the-people session (MPS). A member had faced a serious road incident abroad. Delays in medical care, challenges with local authorities. MFA and our High Commission stepped in. Guidance, support and access were provided. The family returned safely. I met them recently during my community walkabouts. They shared with me that they were very thankful for the consular support. This is what foreign policy really means: the safety of citizens, the security of families, the assurance that Singapore will stand by her people, because foreign policy is not only grand strategy. It is the price of groceries, the security of jobs, the reliability of services. The assurance that when you are in trouble abroad, your country will not leave you behind.

So, when history looks back, in 2035, 2050 or 2065 when we celebrate SG100, let it record that we did not shrink from the challenge. We rose above it. We secured our sovereignty, held fast to our unity, and built resilience across generations.

This is our moment to ride out the storm. We must move with confidence, clarity and courage – together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us rise, not as individuals, not as separate communities, but as one Singapore. Let us SURPASS – Secure, United, Resilient – and ensure Singapore's safe passage through turbulent waters, today and for generations to come, and let us do so with a "we first" spirit, put our people, our families, our nation at the hearts of every step. When we act with purpose, stand together and refuse to be passive, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

And let us remember even a small state like ours has agency, if we are careful and united. Our credibility rests on three things: our economic success, our ability to deter threats, and our consistent, confident diplomacy. In a world of shifting tides, Singapore must always strive to be useful but never made use of.

Finally, let me acknowledge the men and women who make our defence and diplomacy possible – our soldiers, National Servicemen (NSmen), diplomats and public officers who carry the weight of safeguarding Singapore every day. We honour their service. I support the Motion.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank President Tharman for his Address at the Opening of the First Session of this 15th Parliament.

President Tharman's call for unity, inclusivity and resilience deeply resonates with me, because these are not abstract ideals but real challenges we see on the ground. His Address is a timely reminder that while policies set the direction, it is a collective effort of Government, businesses, unions and our communities that will determine whether every Singaporean feels supported and included in this journey. I am committed to do my part in Parliament and in my Nanyang division to help translate this vision into reality for our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stood in this House on at least six occasions since 2021, to sound the alarm and plead for stronger action against the notorious rise of vaping. At that time, the burden of enforcement fell almost entirely on the shoulders of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), an agency I believed was not sufficiently resourced to combat this growing crisis. My belief was strengthened when I saw the dangerous infiltration of illicit products like Kpods into our schools and communities, and the possible involvement of criminal syndicates in trafficking vapes and Kpods.

So, it was with a profound sense of relief that I, along with many concerned Singaporeans, listened to President saying that "we must guard dangers at home, including vape". Similarly, Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong had earlier voiced his concerns about vaping, especially those laced with harmful substances, during the National Day Rally. He affirmed the urgent need for stronger enforcement and harsher penalties. And true to his word, swift and decisive action followed, powerfully backed by our dedicated Home Team officers, working closely with MOH and HSA officers.

What we are seeing now is the strength of a whole-of-Government response. A united front involving MOH, Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MINDEF, is working to detect smuggling, and to protect our young people in schools, Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and army camps. While I deeply wish this decisive move had come sooner to curb vaping's nasty spread, I am, nonetheless, grateful, for in matters of public health and safety, it is always better late than never.

This very success, which demonstrates what we can achieve when agencies work in concert, brings me to my next point, the critical importance of seamless coordination within our Government to truly serve our people.

We have come a long way since the famous "fish ball stick issue" was first raised in by then-backbencher Ms Low Yen Ling and mentioned by then-Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong during his National Day Rally in 2014. Today, Ms Low Yen Ling is a Senior Minister of State, and inter-agency coordination has undoubtedly improved. Yet, some stubborn challenges remain.

Let me share an example of the challenges we face in the fight against pest birds, whether they are pigeons, mynas, or crows.

Recently, Nanyang has seen more of such birds, and I believe many other parts of Singapore face the same issue. When I noticed people feeding birds, which technically counts as littering, I referred the matter to the National Environment Authority (NEA). But NEA explained that they only handle high-rise littering, such as when food is thrown from windows to feed the birds. On the issue of bird control, they told me it is not under their purview and referred me to the National Parks Board (NParks).

When I approached NParks, I was told that they mainly manage pigeons. For crows, they would request the Town Council to remove nests from trees. As for birds scavenging for food waste, responsibility depends on location. When the birds eat on the food waste in hawker centres, NEA steps in. If it happens at coffee shops, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) takes charge. If it happens at food courts in industrial estates, then JTC Corp is responsible – and the list goes on.

So, here is my question. If NParks is the main agency responsible for pest bird management, and this is clearly an island wide issue, would it not make sense for NParks to set up a taskforce with NEA, Town Councils, HDB, JTC and other relevant partners, so that efforts can be coordinated instead of fragmented? Surely, we should not need to escalate this, the fight against bird nuisance to our Defence Minister, who is also the Coordinating Minister for Public Services, to lead the war against bird nuisance.

Someone suggested we could consult ChatGPT. But, of course, ChatGPT or generative AI cannot chase away the birds for us. But it remains an important tool to help us tackle everyday challenges.

During my recent trip to China, I once again saw first-hand how technology is transforming daily life, from sophisticated self-driving functions in mass-market electric cars to simple voice commands that can open curtains or switch off lights in a modest three-star hotel, technology has touched everyone's lives.

What I witnessed shows us the true potential of AI. It can amplify human creativity, solve problems once thought impossible, and unlock entirely new levels of productivity. More than that, AI adoption creates new kinds of jobs, just like the rise of social media created opportunities for content creators and influencers. Yet, we must also acknowledge the very real concern that AI may displace jobs. As tasks become streamlined, some roles will inevitably be lost and this is where our greatest challenge and our deepest responsibility lie.

We must embrace technology but also ensure no one is left behind. We must not see displaced workers as collateral damage. They are our partners in this transition. Beyond the measures already introduced by the Government and our unions, I believe we can and must do more to support workers who may be displaced by generative AI adoption.

Firstly, we need to strengthen lifelong learning not just as a policy, but as a culture. Workers must feel empowered, not fearful, when faced with new technology. Instead of asking, "Will AI take my job?", we should encourage them to ask, "How can I use AI to do my job better?"

Secondly, let us look into community-based learning hubs. Just as we have libraries and community centres in every town, why not also create AI learning spaces, where residents, regardless of age or background, can get hands-on exposure to digital tools, guided by trainers and volunteers? This makes reskilling accessible at the heart of every neighbourhood.

Thirdly, we must build stronger partnerships with industry. Companies that adopt AI should not just think about profits and productivity. They should also take responsibility to retrain their workers, so that technology uplifts people rather than leaves them behind.

Finally, we should encourage and celebrate second careers. A displaced worker does not mean a discarded worker. With the right training, a driver today could become a remote controller of autonomous vehicles tomorrow; a cashier could become a digital customer service specialist; a technician could become an AI maintenance trainer. Each career transition is not an end, but a new beginning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it is the fight against vaping, the nuisance of pest birds, or the disruption of AI, one lesson is clear. No challenge can be solved alone. Our strength lies in people working together: the Government, the unions, the businesses and communities. With unity and courage, we can turn every challenge into opportunity, protect every worker and ensure every Singaporean has a place in the future.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, as we mark SG60 this year, it is clear that Singapore has attained significant achievements by most standards – from third world to first, from mud flats to metropolis, as the Singapore story goes.

Today, Singapore stands as the world's fourth richest country by GDP per capita, around US$93,000, according to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) 2025 projections and ranks 26th globally by a total of GDP, notwithstanding our modest size, making us ASEAN's second largest economy, surpassing in Thailand which has a population exceeding 71 million.

We often label ourselves as a small country with limited resources, no hinterland of our own, but, perhaps, in this century, physical size and natural resources have become secondary. Singapore's population exceeds most of the top 10 GDP per capita countries and many of which do not enjoy abundant natural resources.

Africa's struggles with the resource curse reminds us that natural endowments are no guarantee of prosperity. I am sure everyone knows of Nvidia, now the world's most valuable company at more than US$4 trillion or roughly $5.5 trillion, yet it employs merely 36,000 workers. Consider instead, one of the largest palm oil plantation companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, which employs over 100,000 workers and yet creates far less value with a market capital of about $4 billion.

Which model do we aspire towards? Human capital and financial resources now loom larger than natural endowments or physical space. According to a recent article from The Financial Times, they believe GIC could well be the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with assets worth somewhere between US$1 trillion and $2 trillion, a testament to Singapore's success in capital accumulation at the national level.

Yet the troubling paradox remains. According to ADP, 60% of Singaporeans are living paycheck to paycheck as of 2024, a figure that surpasses regional neighbours, like China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia. And why is the cost of living the top voter concern, according to the Institute of Policy Studies' (IPS') post-election survey, when we are supposedly one of the richest countries in the world? In our day-to-day interactions, we witness residents anxious about their financial security and seeking help through MPS.

Moreover, are Singaporeans truly happy and satisfied? Though ranked the world's third happiest city by the Institute for the Quality of Life in 2025, one cannot help but feel a healthy dose of scepticism as to whether this reflects the lived reality of most Singaporeans. Numerous surveys in recent years point to widespread workplace burnout. One in four primary school students experience bullying. And we see all these manifestations of anxieties and stress around us, from growing neighbour disputes and noise complaints, to road rage and superiors lashing out against junior employees. What gives?

Singapore's economy is at a crossroads. Economic growth, growing the pie has always been the Government's fundamental goal and the Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong recently affirmed that we should grow as much as we can, aiming for rates faster than the eventual 2% to 3% long-term target.

This is not wrong in principle. But we must now ask, is it more important to grow the pie or to grow most Singaporeans' share of the pie? President Tharman reminds us, "The old playbook is no longer sufficient."

Yet, in the short term, much remains largely unchanged. On the capital front, the focus remains on attracting foreign direct investments (FDIs) to anchor multinational companies (MNCs) here. Singapore is still keen to continue incentivising MNCs, in spite of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 and the global minimum tax. And with regulatory certainty and the rule of law in place in Singapore, as opposed to what we are seeing in other countries, including the US right now, I am sure there will be companies keen to locate themselves here.

On the labour front, again in this fractured world, there will be many who will want to call Singapore home. Non-resident employment growth continues to stay at elevated levels of 152,000 across 2023 and 2024, according to MOM statistics, reflecting both the demand and supply of non-resident labour. However, there are limits to growth by boosting capital and labour. The world's largest economy, the US, increasingly ties trade agreements to domestic investment for tariff reductions. How will global supply chains shift and will Singapore's economic relevance continue to endure in this new world order?

Meanwhile, Singapore's population has touched six million, raising questions: how much further can we drive economic growth through workforce expansion in one of most densely populated cities in the world? While the Government had anticipated for our population to remain well below the 6.9 million mentioned in the 2013 population White Paper, a 2% annual increase, which is the same rate as that of last year, would see us reach roughly 6.8 million by 2030; and at 1%, we would still hit 6.4 million.

So, Mr Speaker, I fully agree with our President that we need to urgently rethink our playbook. I acknowledge that we have been attempting to refresh our economic strategies and Singapore has never lacked taskforces or committees: the Economic Strategies Committee launched in 2009; the Committee on the Future Economy in 2016; which was followed by the Future Economy Council; Future Economy Advisory Panel; Industry Transformation Maps; then the Emerging Stronger Taskforce in 2020; and most recently, the Economic Strategy Review and Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce this year. Many even have multiple sub-committees.

However, if you take stock of where we are today, our economy remains very much driven by attracting global MNCs and capital. This is a model that has prevailed since Albert Winsemius advised Singapore in the 1960s. Looking at the share of value-add to the indigenous workforce and citizen-owned companies, this has declined from roughly 70% in the late 1980s, to 50% to 60% in the decade prior to 2015.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) shared, in response to my Parliamentary Question in 2022, that the Department of Statistics ceased indigenous GDP and gross national income (GNI) data compilation from 2011 and 2016, respectively, due to the perceived lack of public interest. But these numbers are crucial. The Yearbook of Statistics 2012 noted eloquently that Singapore's economic development depends heavily on foreign capital, foreign technology and foreign workers, with a large share of employee compensation and operating surplus accruing to foreigners and foreign enterprises. Per capital GNI, as conventionally defined on the residential basis, may not, therefore, reflect correctly the income accrued to Singaporeans. How then can we reverse this? How many homegrown Singapore firms have become global giants?

AI is the buzzword of the day, prompting reflection. You do not need huge physical space or underground natural resources. Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab is valued at US$12 billion, with just around 50 employees. Why do we not have our own open AI equivalent, despite Singaporean students having one of the best math and science scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), for decades? When local entrepreneurs succeed, many still choose overseas listings and foreign bases to access supportive ecosystems. This despite our financial hub status and acclaimed business friendliness.

Prime Minister Wong's Addendum to the President's Address highlights investing in productive capacity, ensuring stable tax, customs, regulatory environment and infrastructure investment. To me, these are necessary, but insufficient conditions. Because, as what President Tharman has said, "Above all, we must foster an outgoing and experimental spirit among our enterprises and people."

In the near term, it is crucial to prevent a lost generation by securing jobs. Young graduates are justifiably anxious. AI-driven seniority-biased technological change may disproportionately impact juniors and entry-level positions. Grades is a good start, but full-time entry-level role creation must also be incentivised. For example, reintroducing the jobs growth incentive for fresh graduates. If GRaduate Industry Traineeships @ Gov (GRIT@Gov) mimic full-timer duties, then the Government should take the lead in levelling pay and benefits.

Long term, re-invigorating our workforce demands that our education system fosters critical thinking and independent learning, not rote memorisation. As Alvin Toffler wrote back in 1970, the illiterate of the future are not those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn.

More pressing still is raising our total fertility rate (TFR), which slipped below one in 2023 and stayed low in 2024. Looking at our population pyramid, one might be forgiven for thinking we do not have an ageing population, thanks largely to immigration. We recently debated the Families Motion and without repeating myself, our low TFR remains an existential threat to Singapore and our identity.

President Tharman pledged, "in this term, we will do more to help parents better manage their work and family commitments and work with stakeholders, such as employers and community partners to build a culture that celebrates and values families".

Minister Indranee has said earlier that our marriage and parenthood policies are not incremental. But, perhaps, the most urgent task force we need now is one to tackle the critical challenge of our record-low TFR. Do we show the same resolve in tackling population as we do economic challenges? Because without enough Singaporeans, there will be no Singapore economy to speak of.

Ultimately, our greatest challenge, in my view, is how to refrain from rent-seeking or rent-maximisation behaviour as a society. To develop an entrepreneurial culture and let the thousand flowers bloom, we must encourage open-mindedness and diversity of ideas. More entrepreneurs mean more risk takers, but this also requires robust safety nets so Singaporeans can pursue entrepreneurial or vocational change without risking destitution.

We see rent-seeking across our society. Individuals buying investment properties, prompting Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty measures; companies prioritising property over their core business; even Government that focuses on maximising rents and nothing less than market value for land, lest it be seen as raiding the Reserves.

But such behaviour permeates every corner of the economy, raising costs. We must set the right tone at the top.

Policy should not inevitably reward the highest bidder at the expense of wider societal outcomes. I am encouraged that there are initiatives for more price quality tenders downstream; and as a matter of policy, whether it is for general practitioner (GP) clinics or hawker stalls, we need to move away from simply awarding sites based on the highest price alone.

I agree with Minister Ong Ye Kung in his response to the $52,000 monthly rental bid for a GP clinic at an HDB estate, where he shared that this must translate to higher cost of healthcare one way or another; and that the higher rental bids do not necessarily translate to the best healthcare that the community needs. Upstream, however, we must go further. State land forms part of our Reserves, but excessive land prices push up development costs and rents, impacting tenants and consumers.

As a local C-suite member of one of Asia's largest real estate groups recently shared, in Singapore, land costs now form roughly 70% of total project development expenditure, up from just 4% in the 1980s when Raffles City was built. These costs inadvertently get passed down and perhaps, it is time to consider reviving the two envelope or concept and price land tenders, focusing on desired developmental outcomes beyond just the highest bids. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The 15th Parliament convenes at a critical juncture and we have a long road ahead. The nation faces severe challenges: geopolitics, the rivalry between the US and China, trade wars, and the revolutionary changes brought by AI will all test the collective wisdom and resilience of Singaporeans.

The President spoke passionately, emphasising unity, trust, a “we first” society . I believe that the spirit of unity and “we first” Singapore does not mean everyone speaking with one voice, but rather, that we can address issues by exchanging different opinions with a rational and open attitude. The Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) have always been a minority in Parliament. However, I believe that the presence of WP MPs can demonstrate the value of diverse voices and better embody the “we first” Singapore spirit mentioned by the President and Prime Minister.

Especially in the coming five years, the variables in the international situation and the transformation of the global economy will become increasingly rapid. How to pool collective wisdom to respond to drastic changes is homework we must do. Therefore, I hope the Government can listen to different views from Singaporeans with an objective, rational and open attitude.

From a policy-making perspective, some core issues are interconnected, for example, the various problems brought by AI and economic transformation. The Prime Minister mentioned that Singapore should embrace AI to improve productivity and create new employment opportunities. We agree that AI and new technologies can indeed help enterprises improve efficiency and drive innovation but, at the same time, we must also see that it will permanently change the employment environment. If we do not prepare in time, many Singaporeans will be left behind.

To ensure that no one is left behind, we must strengthen employment stabilisation policies in the short term and encourage the public sector and private enterprises to increase employment opportunities. At the same time, WP also calls on the Government to strengthen the social safety net to respond to the impact brought by AI.

Most crucially, in the age of AI, education should not just be for examinations but should prepare people for life. We need to align education with economic needs and help students develop important soft skills. These human qualities cannot be replaced by AI and are essential for future social and economic development.

In summary, Mr Speaker, a “we first” society also requires us to uphold the principle that collective interests take precedence over individual interests. However, unity cannot be built on inequality. When the nation achieves success but many citizens still feel forgotten, trust becomes difficult to maintain. We need not just economic growth but also inclusive growth that ensures every Singaporean can share in the nation's future. The true measure of our success lies not in GDP rankings or the size of sovereign wealth funds but in whether young Singaporean couples can afford to start families, whether our elderly can retire with dignity and whether our children are willing to call this island home.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address and the measures in the Addenda announced by the various Ministries to take Singapore forward in an increasingly uncertain and turbulent world with a changing world order.

I am heartened by how our people and the Government have been working hand in hand to overcome the numerous waves of challenges pounding our shores. They emanate from continents far from our island – economic upheavals, armed conflicts, technology changes – yet, they have significant impact on our everyday lives.

On the one hand, I am confident of our ability to catch some of these waves to survive and thrive. On the other hand, let us never forget the need to protect the vulnerable amongst us and prevent these powerful waves from sweeping them under.

I am cognisant of the immense responsibility that my residents and fellow Singaporeans have entrusted me with. I applaud the great progress that we have made so far together to address some of the issues faced by our vulnerable groups. But our work is far from done and that is why I continue to champion change that will benefit Singaporeans and my residents and keep our country going in this new reality.

MPs play an important role to help the Government to continue to review the effectiveness of our policies on the ground. Where necessary, we must be willing to recalibrate and make improvements to narrow the gaps and plug any loophole. Let us never forget that spirit of sensible policy-making and pragmatic government administration that has been a hallmark of Singapore's success.

Sometimes, the solutions can be deceptively simple and I would like to call upon us all, the people, private and public sectors, to be daring to raise practical and smart solutions, and our policy-makers to listen to good ideas from our people. This is how we stay united as a nation, by caring and looking out for one another. It is worth reminding ourselves that we are only as strong as our weakest link and the tides of change must not leave anyone behind.

I am assured and heartened by the commitments made by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) in its Addendum to the President's address. I support the suite of enhanced and new measures to help our families cope during this challenging period. I support the enhanced employment support and opportunities for lifelong education for lower-income families and persons with disabilities (PwDs). Reviews and updates of ComCare assistance and payouts, and Family Services are timely. I welcome the introduction of a new Domestic Violence Act and the commencement of the Mental Capacity Act review, just to name a few.

Our social and healthcare workers play an essential and critical role in ensuring that appropriate help and care is provided in a timely manner. This was best demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, but now that we have moved on from that crisis, it does not mean that we forget their roles and contributions.

In fact, I would like to urge the Government to consider dedicating more resources to our social care sector, in view of the needs arising from our rapidly ageing population, as our population pyramid starts to invert amid shrinking family sizes and changing social norms.

Our social care workers are professionals and they must be treated as such. They need to be equipped with more support and resources in order to achieve better outcomes for their clients. Much research worldwide over the last two decades have resulted in new findings in this field and we can tap on these to provide constant professional upgrading so that they can be even more effective.

In addition, we should elevate and accord better recognition of and compensation for their work. Due to the nature of their jobs, burnout and attrition rates are high. Their heart work is hard work. We have to do more to better retain our existing talent pool of social workers, while attracting new blood to boost our ability to care for our people. Foreign workers do help to fill many of the gaps, but let us not end up as a country that relies too heavily on others to take care of our very own.

Singapore is rapidly ageing. Our silver tide is here. We must accelerate efforts to strengthen community-based eldercare, expanding Active Ageing Centres, daycare facilities and home-based support services. These not only enable our seniors to age-in-place, with dignity and autonomy, but also reduce pressure on families.

Caregiving, often performed by middle-aged adults juggling work and family, must also be better supported. Caregivers want to be able to care for their families, but they also have their own dreams and aspirations. All too often, I have met residents who have had to sacrifice their careers to look after their loved ones. Indeed, they have chosen to do so out of love, and we need to celebrate that and provide them with better support. The toll that they experience goes beyond the physical and it is quite common that their mental well-being is also at risk.

I urge the Government to consider enhanced caregiver leave, more accessible respite services and financial assistance tailored to caregiver households. Our seniors are not a burden; they are a blessing. Let us honour their contributions not just in words but through concrete policies that uphold their well-being as well as that of their loved ones.

We have to double down on our efforts to support families holistically, so that they can remain strong and resilient in the face of change. For families under duress, our social care workers need to be empowered to coordinate with partners, such as mental and physical healthcare professionals, financial counsellors, schools, eldercare centres and so on.

Sir, poverty in Singapore may be less visible, but we still have families struggling even for basic provisions, including food. Families living in rental flats, often headed by single parents or elderly caregivers, face daily struggles. For children in these households, we must do more to ensure their well-being and that they can access healthcare, nutritious food and be able to focus on their education.

We must intervene early and effectively. Programmes like KidSTART are commendable and we need to go further in scaling them up, with holistic support for families – not just for children, but also for parents. Empower them with good parenting skills, stable employment, access to mentoring and even overcoming addictions, such as to vaping, alcohol and even drugs.

Sir, we have watched with horror how divisive many countries overseas have become, splintering along racial and religious lines, and increasingly along the lines of immigration and social economic backgrounds. There are heightened tensions between established resident communities and new arrivals, and distrust between the rich and the poor, manifesting in rallies, riots and violence. Almost daily, we see alarming images of looting, burning vehicles and buildings, and people attacking each other on television and social media.

Social harmony did not happen by chance. It is the result of careful stewardship, addressing root causes of problems as soon as they surface, building mutual respect and reaching the national consensus to agree to engage in difficult conversations, even over sensitive topics.

Yet in today's digital age, we face new threats, from misinformation, polarisation and imported ideologies that can erode trust and amplify division. How can we build unity in diversity? Inter-faith platforms like the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) must be re-energised for a new generation. Many of our youths that I met have good questions and think about such issues very seriously. Let us support engagements for deeper, ongoing conversations about faith, tradition and coexistence, especially among our youths.

Civic education in schools should place greater emphasis on empathetic understanding of different faiths and worldviews. We must move beyond mere tolerance, to deepen our mutual understanding, appreciation and respect.

Strong communities are not built by governments alone. They exist when neighbours look out for one another, when residents take ownership of shared spaces and when there is deep trust among people, in our institutions and in our leadership. We must also support faith and community leaders who work quietly to build bridges. Our bridge-builders must be seen, supported and safeguarded against threats.

Our Community Development Councils (CDCs), Social Service Offices (SSOs) and grassroots organisations must continue to be strongly supported to work closely with ground-up groups and volunteers. Policies must enable not only professional help, but also "kampung"-style initiatives and mutual aid.

One example where multiple stakeholders came together to try to solve a long-running problem is the Skyville@Dawson sky gardens. For years, residents have been putting up with the disamenities of noisy and inconsiderate visitors who litter, smoke, urinate and cause disturbances even in the wee hours. Volunteers, despite feeling burnout, continue with patrols, even as we continue to engage with HDB, the Town Council, Residents' Committees, NEA, the Police and other Government agencies. Unfortunately, the disamenities continued and we sought to present alternative solutions which have been proven effective in other sky gardens, such as the Pinnacle @ Duxton. When problems remain unsolved and proposals are not accepted, it is not surprising for my residents to feel disappointed.

You may recall that in 2022, I moved an Adjournment Motion in this very House to explore solutions on how we can better manage our common spaces in housing estates. I will not hesitate to speak up for my residents if I feel that more can be done.

Securing Singapore's future lies not in grand slogans, but as our President put it, in everyday deeds and action, like little acts of kindness; helping an elderly neighbour with groceries; guiding a child in need; and lending a hand in crisis. These are the encounters that strengthen our social compact and build a "we first" society.

In closing, allow me to reiterate our first principles. To build a united and resilient Singapore, we have to be inclusive and caring, respectful of differences in diversity and united in core values. Every child who falls through the cracks, every elderly person who dies alone, every caregiver who burns out is a reminder of work yet to be done. Similarly, every neighbour who helps another, every volunteer who steps forward, every employer who provides a second chance, is a sign of the better Singapore that we are building together. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, securing Singapore's future lies not in grand slogans, but as our President puts it, in everyday deeds and actions, like little acts of kindness: helping an elderly neighbour with groceries; guiding a child in need; and lending a hand in crisis. These are encounters that strengthen our social compact and build a "we first" society.

In closing, allow me to reiterate our first principles. To build a united and resilient Singapore, we have to be inclusive and caring, respectful of differences in diversity and be united in core values. Every child who falls through the cracks, every elderly person who dies alone, every caregiver who burns out, is a reminder of work that is yet to be done. Similarly, every neighbour who helps another, every volunteer who steps forward, every employer who provides a second chance, is a sign of the better Singapore that we are building together.

Mr Andre Low.

Mr Speaker, the world has fundamentally changed. It is a new world fraught with peril, but awash with opportunity, one that needs a new strategy to not just survive the challenges ahead, but to thrive despite them, a strategy built on security, investment and trust in our people.

Two great forces define our current moment: the great re-ordering of global power and the AI revolution transforming how we work. Together, they represent a convergence of challenges that invite a rethinking of how we approach governance and policy.

The World Economic Forum projects that 22% of jobs will undergo structural change by 2030. This is not some distant threat. It is a near-term reality already reshaping our economy. But this AI wave is fundamentally different from previous technological revolutions. Where past disruptions primarily hit the factory floor, this one targets the boardroom, the artists' studio, the claims desk. From administrative assistants to software developers, from graphic designers to even chief executives, AI capabilities can now match many tasks performed by these workers.

In Singapore, this threat is amplified by our unique economic structure. Nearly two-thirds of our workforce are professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), precisely the demographic most exposed to AI displacement. Some of us call this the knowledge economy. Researchers from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believe 60% of jobs in advanced economies will face AI exposure. But for Singapore, given our economic make-up, this figure is probably higher still. Half of these jobs could benefit from AI integration, boosting productivity and wages. But the IMF thinks that the other half face automation, creating downward pressure on wages and hiring in these sectors.

Singapore's success to-date comes from world-class execution of a sound playbook. But as we chart the course for tomorrow, we must question if yesterday's maps are still adequate for these new waters.

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the Government's and Prime Minister's focus on assurance and cost of living. I agree with the diagnosis, but temporary reliefs are insufficient for the systemic challenges ahead. In an era of AI-driven disruption, we should acknowledge that our existing social safety nets are ill-equipped for the scale of the change ahead. A stronger, permanent foundation of security is required, and this is not charity, but is the cornerstone of national competitiveness.

The impact of this AI revolution can already be felt. Recent surveys of US employers showed 25% of AI users expected to hire fewer workers in the next six months, versus just 10% who intended to hire more. We can already see the same early warnings here in Singapore. Younger workers, lacking the tacit knowledge that accumulates with experience, are particularly vulnerable to task replacement from AI. This is not a hypothetical disruption. After my party colleague Eileen and I put out a call for feedback a couple of months ago, we have heard from many young Singaporeans who have shared their stories about struggling to start their careers, struggling with the job search as well as underemployment concerns.

So, the first pillar of our new foundation must be redundancy insurance for the AI age, not merely jobseeker support, but a comprehensive scheme designed for workers facing the reality of career churn in the digital economy – 40% of last drawn salary, capped at 40% of Singapore's prevailing median income, for up to six months. The scheme will be funded by small equal contributions from employers and employees amounting to 0.1% of your monthly salary. To put that in perspective, for a median income earner, that is just over $5 a month, and only half of that is paid for by the worker. This creates a true safety net that catches everyone, one that gives workers the confidence to explore new opportunities rather than clinging desperately to dying industries.

This represents a profound shift in how we should think about support for the unemployed. In the AI age, career transitions will become the new normal, not the exception. Workers need the security to retrain, to upskill, to reinvent themselves without the spectre of destitution haunting their choices.

Housing security must also evolve to acknowledge changing aspirations and economic realities. Build-To-Order (BTO) prices should be pegged to a house price-to-income ratio of three for first-time applicants. We should offer 70-year lease options at lower prices for those who prefer affordability over asset appreciation. The BTO access age for singles should be lowered to 28 and grants should be equalised for single parents who face unique challenges in building stable homes.

Housing is not merely shelter. It is dignity, stability and the foundation upon which families build their futures. As someone who has navigated this journey myself recently, I know the anxieties many young Singaporeans face. When we cannot settle into our first homes until our 30s, we are denied the chance to put down roots, to plan for families and to contribute fully to society's fabric.

Just as a home provides foundational stability for the family, our economy also requires its own form of security. Platform work has emerged as the primary economic buffer for this era, offering a crucial bridge for those transitioning between traditional jobs. The Platform Workers Act is a commendable first step to shore up this vital buffer. But it stops short of addressing algorithmic management, the digital boss that controls every aspect of the platform worker's existence.

Concerns about a "digital boss" are not new, but the AI revolution brings renewed urgency. These black-box algorithms determine job allocation, pricing, performance evaluation and even disciplinary action. Recent advances mean that they could become supercharged, rendering them even more powerful and even more inscrutable than before. Workers deserve to know when AI systems had made decisions about their lives and livelihoods, and they also deserve the right to human review as a fundamental backstop. We cannot allow the digital economy to become a digital dystopia where human dignity is sacrificed on the altar of algorithmic efficiency.

The freedom to explore and chase one's dreams should not be the exclusive playground of the bold or the privileged. By strengthening our foundation of security, every Singaporean will have the licence to try new things because should you fail, you will not have too far to fall.

But Mr Speaker, a strong foundation of security is only the first step. To truly thrive, we must build upon it. This brings me to the second pillar of our strategy: investment in our people.

The Government has rightly focused its efforts here through SkillsFuture and recent updates like the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for mid-career workers are positive developments. The ambition is correct. But for all the good intentions, there remains a persistent disconnect, a "last mile disconnect" between training and employment.

Many workers still see SkillsFuture as a supermarket of courses, a system that provides plenty of choice but sometimes lacks clear pathways to career advancement. We hear from those who have diligently completed courses, only to find their new certificates hold little currency with employers who still prioritise degrees, certificates and linear work experiences. This is the paradox of our current system. We have built a comprehensive architecture for upskilling, but we have not yet solved the problem of market recognition.

The challenge, therefore, is one of pace and integration. Last year, the former Minister for Education articulated a vision for stackable micro-credentials and cross-recognition between our IHLs. We must accelerate this vision.

To start with, as we continue to push the IHLs to grow their micro-credential offerings, the existing careers and skills passport should evolve from a simple certificate library into a dynamic, living credential, a system where micro-credentials from any IHL can be seamlessly stacked over time, allowing adult learners to build towards a formal, credible qualification awarded by one of the universities or other IHLs. Backed up by the collective reputations of our renowned institutions, this would go a long way to bridging the disconnect between adult learners and employers. This acknowledges the busy, unpredictable reality of adult life and provides a flexible pathway for all Singaporeans to stay relevant.

Secondly, we must address the skills gap afflicting our fresh graduates. We possess world-class universities, but we hear of a persistent concern from both employers and graduates themselves, a gap between academic excellence on the one hand and the practical skills that are needed in a modern workplace.

Our polytechnics and the Singapore Institute of Technology have proven the value of structured work-integrated learning as a core part of the tertiary curriculum. Given this success, we should push for work-integrated learning to be the norm for as many tertiary students as possible, ensuring our graduates enter the workforce ready to contribute from day one. A targeted grant to help our local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) offset the costs of providing such placements could be a powerful catalyst. But crucially, payouts should be structured to incentivise retention and discourage exploitation. This ensures our graduates enter the workforce with the practical, real-world skills that the AI age demands.

Finally, as we pursue our national AI strategy, we must also ensure its benefits are democratised. SMEs should continue to receive assistance to adopt AI tools and AI literacy should be woven into our school curriculum. Students should be encouraged to command it as a creative and analytical tool. SkillsFuture credits should also be allowed to cover subscriptions to AI assistants and tools, ensuring that all Singaporean workers, regardless of their means, are able to utilise the latest and best tools to enhance their own productivity.

But above all, we must continue to be vigilant to ensure AI serves our workers, not replaces them. In an age of AI, our people's ability to learn, adapt and apply knowledge quickly is our single greatest competitive advantage. The right investments in our people will ensure that AI's promise translates into better wages and better jobs, not just higher profits for shareholders.

Yet, even the best-laid plans for security and the most ambitious investments in our people will fall short if they are not built on a foundation of mutual respect and this requires the final and perhaps, most crucial pillar of our strategy: trust.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the President's focus on trust as a national priority, but we must be more courageous in our definition of what trust means in a mature democracy.

To truly thrive, trust in Singapore must become a two-way street. We have long been asked to trust the Government's judgement, wisdom and intentions. In this new era, the Government must also learn to trust its people with information, with genuine dialogue and with the fundamental dignity of participation.

Trust is demonstrated through transparency in governance and that is why the WP has called for a Freedom of Information Act which shows that we trust citizens with the information necessary to hold the Government accountable. When the Government holds data that could inform public debate, it should be shared. When policies are formulated based on evidence, that evidence should be accessible to scrutiny.

Trust is also demonstrated through genuine dialogue rather than managed consultation. Defending robust debate shows we trust the wisdom of our people to engage with complex issues and reach sound judgments. The current Parliamentary committee system, while useful, lacks the teeth necessary for true legislative scrutiny. The WP again calls for establishing Standing Select Committees for each Ministry, with MPs from all parties properly resourced to provide meaningful oversight. The Government should share information openly with these committees and not jealously guard it as proprietary knowledge.

But the deepest trust of all is demonstrated through permissive discourse. When differences of opinion are tolerated – nay, celebrated – in our society, in civil discourse, in the media, in politics. It is why we believe that when disputes over facts arise in our public square, our independent courts and judges should have oversight on what is, or is not, a falsehood. Trust is, after all, a two-way street.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken of the need for us to be a "we first" society. It is a call we can all get behind. But as we heed this call, it is our duty in this House to give the vision meaning for the people we serve. So, if by "we first", the Prime Minister means a secure Singapore where every family has an affordable home and a robust safety net to catch them when they fall, then we are on the same page; and if by "we first", he means investing deeply in the skills and boundless creativity of every Singaporean, then we can work together; and if by "we first", he means trusting our people with the freedom to explore, create and find their own path, then we can take heart. These three pillars – security, investment and trust – form the foundation of a strategy for a thriving people. A compass for our next chapter and a promise about the society we can become. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Minister of State Goh Pei Ming.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. As one of the younger new political office holders in this House, allow me first to share my thanks, for what my generation has received. Then, Mr Speaker, amid the many challenges that Singapore faces, I would like to speak about our children and their childhood, and offer some suggestions on how we can help our next generation thrive.

I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s in a simple HDB flat in Bedok. Studying was important, but my fondest memories were from playing football during recess, going to the nearby playground and wandering around Bedok Town Centre shops and the library. A simple childhood, a heartland experience, like most Singaporeans. And I am grateful for what I had, for it shaped me into who I am today. My generation grew up proud of Singapore. Proud that our small country was able to punch above her weight as one of the four "Asian Tigers", proud that we stayed principled and resisted external pressures, proud that we were bold and planned long term.

We owe gratitude to our grandparents and our parents whose hard work and strong values enabled them to overcome tough cycles of retrenchment, global conflicts and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, so that we all can have a much better life than they ever did. Now, it is our turn to take on the mantle, to navigate through the dark clouds, to support and take care of our seniors and to raise our children well to become future leaders of Singapore. And if I may add, on a more personal note, it is precisely my heartland upbringing and my pride in Singapore that has kept me committed to serving in the SAF for many years as well as in the community as a grassroots leader through the past two decades; and now, to do even more, as I take this step into politics.

Just as our Pioneers had their challenges, my generation, our generation, will have ours to confront as well. As a nation we have no lack of issues to think about in our next lap. In a world of rapid change, geopolitical situations, climate change, intense economic competition, the opportunities and challenges that AI brings, the dominance of tech and mobile devices, the explosion of choices that face us all will be even more daunting for young minds. It is, therefore, our responsibility to help them thrive and we have to do as well as we possibly can. Singapore is already one of the best places for our children to grow up in, with a high-quality of life, safe and secure environment, excellent healthcare and schools. But with new uncertainties ahead of us, we need to ensure our next generation is ready to brave it and resilient enough to stay ahead.

We must help our young people develop in the right way, to shift from “what to think and do”, to “how to think and do”. So that they have the confidence and curiosity to navigate those winds of change. So that they develop the critical thinking for them to discern what’s right and what is wrong for them to possess the grit and perseverance to keep pushing when the going gets tough and to have the resilience to get up when they fall. To do so, we, as a nation, need to change the way we raise our children and that begins with changing our mindsets. Amongst all the shifts that we need to make, sometimes changing mindsets is the hardest. But just like how our grandfathers and fathers have prepared us well for today’s challenges, it is now for us, our generation to prepare our children for their future.

We all want our children to get the best possible start in life and the good thing is, many parents today already send their children to preschool, although starting ages differ. Our data shows that children who start preschool at three years old do better in primary school and, in fact, the benefits continue long afterwards. Children develop better and learn better, with preschool. So, I strongly encourage all parents to start your children in preschool early. Of course, parents need to be able to identify and secure a good preschool, especially if both parents are at work.

As a parent myself, I care deeply about my children’s education. Eight years ago, when choosing a preschool for my first-born, there was no vacancy in any of the nearby Government-supported preschools. Fast forward to today, as the Minister of State overseeing the preschool sector, I am glad to learn that our Government-supported centres can meet 80% of our population’s needs. This leaves options for some Singaporeans to pursue private centres. Furthermore, our early childhood educators, our teachers, are well qualified and committed. Preschool fees have also come down and we must continue to do better; and we will.

I had a chat recently with a young couple. Marine Parade is a mature estate, but we do have our fair share of young parents. They grew up in the East, like myself. They are happy, living and starting a family in Marine Parade. Even though they did start the conversation by telling me that they were disappointed they did not get to vote in the recent General Election. But it was a good reminder to me to never take our residents’ trust for granted. They subsequently went on to share their concerns about the academic pressures that their young child already faces. I want to make the point that the best start in life is not about pushing learning earlier. It is not about studying ahead of the school curriculum, and it is not about outdoing their peers academically. Growing up, I recall friends around me being drilled in abacus classes to help with their math and there are many more examples like that.

Do not get me wrong. Our children must develop and must have good numeracy and literacy skills, because it is important in life to go on. But I think Singapore as a country, we are already doing well in these areas. The way to give our children the best start in life, is to build them up well, to make sure they have a proper childhood. A childhood rich with opportunities to develop important values that will help them to become inventive, resilient and flexible. A childhood where they truly learn to be a good person, as opposed to just being academically clever.

When you are a young child, the most powerful lessons, the most powerful learning, comes not from books, not from tuition centres, but from experiences. Our children need a childhood where they can enjoy the freedom to explore and learn from their own experiences because that is how they learn best. I learnt about a butterfly’s life cycle from keeping a caterpillar. I was pretty good at playing marbles and that helped me quickly understand Newton’s Laws on Action and Reaction, many years later. It was my own experimentation and playful experience that taught me these powerful lessons and more.

Our children need such experiences to grow their curiosity for a lifetime of learning. Bring them out to our parks and playgrounds, they need to learn through doing and experiencing for themselves. Let the world be their classroom. But child development is not just about intentional learning experiences. There is much to learn through play, unstructured play. Increasingly, research shows that play enhances our children’s brain development. New neural pathways are formed when children play. These lay important foundations for problem solving, creativity and emotional regulation. There are important lessons from play that every child deserves. From playing five stones and zero-point, my generation honed our hand-eye, leg-eye coordination and learnt how to focus and persevere. From falling from a swing, we learnt about resilience. It is not how we fall, but how we get up and swing faster and higher. From the pain of blisters that came from playing football barefoot, we learnt about consequences and how to keep ourselves safe in the future.

Yet in our effort to want to keep our children safe, we sometimes deprive them of these lessons. While we ironically overprotect, in the real world; we may have under-protected, in the virtual world, allowing our children to indulge in their devices. After MOH’s advice on screen time for young children, parents are anxious. Parents say it is not easy to pull back on those devices. My own child will also argue with me that digital play is also a form of play. While that is true, the constant sensory stimulation releases dopamine. Not a bad thing in controlled quantities, but when done in excess, its effects are no different from gambling and substance abuse.

So, what can we do? We can do more to support our families to dial back on screen use. Not sudden, total withdrawal, but progressive changes. For a start, one simple change is to devote more time and energy to interacting with our children face-to-face and listening to them. Rebalance away from tuition centres, away from devices and cater more time for play.

Yes, it might mean sacrificing some peace and rest for us caregivers, but nothing beats spending quality family time together. And for those of us who need to work long hours to make ends meet, our communities and our schools can do more to engage our children meaningfully.

Finally, our children need to learn from and interact with other children; and from there, they can grow to become more communicative, more caring and more emotionally balanced. Growing up, I recall playing many variations of catching, at the playground, in the void decks, what the catcher can and cannot do. We made up our own rules and played by them. We learnt to convince, to negotiate, to compromise. We learnt how to share. We can be playing football and basketball on opposite ends of the same court. Through it all, more importantly, we found ourselves friends, best friends, friends that we can reliably call upon later in life. Friends that ChatGPT can never replace.

An article I read on World Suicide Prevention Day a couple of weeks ago, emphasised how important friends are in helping us navigate the stresses and storms of life. Through supporting one another, our children can learn about care, about compassion, about empathy. These are important in building a "we first" society. So, let us help families rebalance – more real time, less screen time; more play, less pressure; more emotional intelligence, not just artificial intelligence and give space for our children to learn how to learn, because when learning is fun, it becomes its own destination, rather than a means to live up to an adult's expectations.

As parents, our children look to us and what we emphasise and define as success influences them too. Is a child successful only because of straight "As" and a delightful co-curricular activities (CCA) record? As adults, how do we measure our own success? Is it only about our job titles and salaries? Is it about what vacations we take and what car we drive, if we drive?

Comparison is the thief of joy and in this age of social media, it is easy to feel that we pale, in comparison, to others. But social media is not an accurate reflection of most people's lives. Many of us will curate and share only the best and the most positive aspects of our life, while filtering out the mundane or the natural realities of everyday.

So, I want to encourage Singaporeans with this. Let us define our own success, our own sense of meaning, of purpose and this is how we can pursue our own dreams and our passions. Perhaps, the "kiasu" spirit is ingrained in all of us. Perhaps, this sense of exceptionalism is what got us this far in the first place. But let us channel this competitiveness more positively, away from rigid definitions of success, towards self-improvement, not for the purpose of outdoing others, but to become better versions of ourselves.

Mr Speaker, amid the many challenges that Singapore faces, I chose to speak about our children and their childhoods. Let me cite a quote that sums this up quite nicely: "I would give wings to children, but I would leave it to them to learn how to fly by themselves".

I would like to leave this House with one final image. The world sometimes calls parents "tiger moms". It is my hope that we become better known as "mommy bears" instead. I use "moms" and "mommy" carefully because that is how these phrases are coined, but it includes all the fathers, myself included.

Why mommy bears? Mommy bears are nurturing and warm, and very cuddly too. Mommy bears raise their cubs to be independent, to be able to survive, to hunt and to be able to explore on their own. Mommy bears allow their cubs to stumble, because that is how they learn and become more resilient. But when danger comes, mommy bears will defend their cubs ferociously.

This is the mindset change we need, from "tiger" parents to "bear" parents or, if I may call, "Bear-rents". If we do this, then our next generation will not only be able to face the future but also shape it with confidence, resilience and heart. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, hon MPs, good afternoon. It is my great honour to speak here today and I am deeply aware of the weight of this responsibility.

As a member of the younger generation, I want to thank our parents and grandparents for their hard work and dedication. They have weathered economic fluctuations, regional instability and the trials of the pandemic. Through their relentless efforts and perseverance, they have given us a better life. Here, I would like to say “thank you”!

The responsibility of building and safeguarding Singapore has fallen upon our shoulders. We must learn from the good examples set by the previous generation, and prepare for the future, planning ahead for the next generation. The future is full of uncertainties: geopolitical situations, climate change, artificial intelligence and the impact of the digital world will all bring new challenges. Singapore is one of the best places in the world for children to grow up but we cannot become complacent because of this.

We must help our children build confidence and curiosity – learn to think and make judgements – whilst cultivating resilience and tenacity, so that they can face future storms with composure. This requires us as parents to change our mindset. Academic results are certainly important, but they cannot be the only goal. What is truly crucial is giving children a proper and meaningful childhood.

Children should have the freedom to explore and play, to learn creativity and resilience through trying and falling. Research also shows that free play promotes brain development, laying the foundation for problem-solving and emotional regulation. At the same time, we must pay attention to the influence of the digital world. Many parents worry about their children becoming addicted to screens. I myself am often "persuaded" by my children to treat online gaming as a form of play. But excessive use can easily lead to dependency. We should gradually reduce screen time, replacing it with more face-to-face interaction and high-quality companionship.

Children also need to interact with their peers, learning empathy and care through communication, collaboration, and sharing. These values cannot be replaced by textbooks and tuition classes, but they are key to building a “we first” society.

Parents have a profound influence on their children. We need to rethink the definition of "success". Success is not just about grades, positions or wealth, but whether one can find direction and meaning in life. We should guide our children to pursue growth, not merely materialistic achievements.

Finally, let me conclude with an analogy: society often calls parents with high expectations "tiger parents", but I hope that Singapore's parents can become known as "bear parents”. Bears are warm and caring, they protect their cubs, but they also let the little bears explore independently, learning to stand up on their own after falling. Only in this way can children become truly resilient.

Let us work together to cultivate the next generation's character of confidence, resilience and compassion, so that they can not only respond to the future, but also shape it.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Ms Denise Phua.

I rise to support the Motion of Thanks for President Tharman's address. My topic today is moving our society from fear to hope. But first, let us acknowledge the fears of our time.

At work, many of us worry: will technology especially AI threaten our jobs? Will it displace more jobs than it creates? Will we be qualified for the new "good" jobs? What happens to those who cannot catch up – some of the elderly, the disabled and those who are less skilled?

As a small nation, our survival depends on global stability and open trade – the rule of law. But what now, as these foundations weaken? As we live longer, will our savings last? For households already stretched, how will they endure the next disruption?

At home, the questions get more personal. What if my child does not do well in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)? Who will care for my ageing parents? Will our children have the same, or better, opportunities? Parents of children with disabilities ask: who will care and provide for them when we are gone?

These fears are not weaknesses. They are signs that we care deeply for our future and the home we have built. They mean we are invested and not ready to quit.

We can let these fears turn us inwards, making us suspicious of change and leading to paralysis or blame, or we can choose a different path. We can choose, as spiritual thinker Henri Nouwen urged, to move from fear to hope.

We must not let the world set our agenda. We must decide as a people. What questions do we want to answer? What values will guide us? Our shared destiny surely must be built on our shared values.

A central part of this is AI. How do we turn collective anxiety into collective agency and how do we build the bridge from fear to hope? Sir, allow me to propose three steps we can take: one, ensure that AI serves humanity and not the other way around; two, update our social and financial safety nets for this new age; and three, supercharge a culture of lifelong learning.

First, to ensure AI serves humanity and not the other way around. The sword of AI is double-edged. There is no denying the breathtaking opportunities it presents. Yet, we must also confront the risks with equal honesty. Automation is already displacing routine-intense jobs. I know this because I am always looking for jobs for some of our disabled and elderly. AI is also hollowing our middle skills and creating barriers for those less digitally-literate.

Today, this exclusion is starkly visible in Singapore. We see it as Neighbourhood Police Posts are shuttered and replaced with digital kiosks. We see it as services in public and private sectors close their customer-facing counters, forcing transactions online, leaving the less digitally-literate to find their own way. I was recently told by a healthcare worker, a volunteer of mine, that medical follow-ups must now be booked exclusively through an app. For many, this is not convenience; it is a barrier.

In our economy, this fracture manifests in the rapid automation of routine jobs, leaving behind seniors and persons with disabilities who struggle to navigate a world increasingly alien to them. The Government can and must lead this mission with compassion and foresight.

Technological revolution is not new. It is a constant of human progress, in every generation. But every such revolution risks marginalising a segment of the population. But as a Government, we do not have to decide that it is just too bad for them. We can set our own agenda, based on our value of inclusive progress, to always put aside a buffer resource for Singaporeans who are in that transitionary generation.

We can intentionally: one, fund human-centric services, maintaining in-person assistance when it is needed – phone hotlines and even printed CDC vouchers, as long as there are citizens in our midst who cannot catch up. These measures are not regressive. They are a vital lifeline of inclusion, especially in essential services like healthcare, security, transport, legal and so forth. And two, we should mandate inclusive design, require that every public-sector AI system complies with the highest accessibility standards. I saw the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) doing that as there was an exhibition at the hall, in Parliament last year. We can adopt universal design at the start and not as an afterthought.

I have raised questions in this House on the ways Government agencies what measures they have for those who are not digitally-savvy. The responses have been inconsistent, practices more inconsistent. And recently, I found out that autonomous shuttles are designed without wheelchaired users in mind. Sir, we can do better and mandate inclusive design.

But closing this gap is not the duty of the Government alone. To businesses, I say, adopt inclusive design, universal design at the start. Proactively ensure your services are also accessible. Create solutions that blend technology with the human touch. For example, banks that still provide personal counter services for seniors should not be rare exceptions. They should be commended. These should be the industry standard until there is no need for it.

And here is a challenge. Can some businesses deliberately choose not to automate every routine job, but instead preserve some roles for older workers and persons with disabilities? These are ways by which they can continue to contribute meaningfully, earn a livelihood and even engage socially outside their homes.

L'Oréal, a renowned cosmetic powerhouse company, once operated a special packaging and assembly facility in Taiwan dedicated to employing people with disabilities. That primary mission was social, not purely commercial and industrial. It is to provide meaningful, stable and supportive employment for people with various physical and developmental disabilities. It was a counter-intuitive move for business, I know. But L'Oreal set its own agenda and did it their own way. That programme was later successfully merged into a larger facility to expand its impact and also promote greater inclusivity.

And to the community, I say this: volunteer your expertise, advocate for accessibility. People like Mr Peter Ng, an IT specialist in Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng, for instance, have for years, coached seniors like his mother and her neighbours on using smartphones and the common apps that they should know. That sustainable, community-driven help is the model that we should commend and need.

Therefore, the is not if AI will advance, but what kind of society we will become. So, we must intentionally choose inclusive progress. Let us ensure AI is a lifeline for all, and a landmine for none.

Second, on updating our safety net for this new age. Singapore has built one of the most admired social safety nets in the world, anchored on the Central Provident Fund (CPF), MediSave, housing subsidies, transfers, SkillsFuture and progressive social transfers. These have served us well in an economy where jobs were relatively stable, careers linear and disruption more gradual.

But technologies, like AI, change that equation. AI has not only automated tasks, it will reconfigure entire industries. The churn will be faster. This is an economy and age where work is fragmented, transitions frequent and inequality risks are sharper. A safety net in this new age must be more than a cushion. It must be portable, following workers across jobs and platforms; preventive, addressing health and skills before crisis strike; and adaptive, responding as automatically as possible to economic shocks.

The task before us is not to abandon the pillars of CPF, MediSave, SkillsFuture and all the good things, but to adapt them for an economy such as this. Two suggestions on how we can start.

One, on expanding protection. Let us protect those who are most vulnerable to economic shifts – our freelancers, our gig economy workers and those in non-traditional employment. Their contribution to the new economy must be matched with a commitment to their security. For the larger population, accelerate the move towards portable benefits, like healthcare and insurance. They are tied to the individual and not the employer, providing a foundation of security in a world of fluid work.

And second, enhance retirement adequacy. The CPF LIFE system, which I think is brilliant, provides a secure retirement for members with substantial savings. However, a segment of the population, particularly those with irregular employment histories, remains financially vulnerable in their old age. We should develop targeted measures to augment the CPF savings of individuals who are not on track to meet their retirement needs, not just those who qualify for Silver Support.

We should conduct a comprehensive review of the Silver Support scheme, too, to ensure its parameters align with the original objective of providing a safety net. This review must account for contemporary economic pressures, such as inflation and longer life expectancy, to guarantee that that the payouts remain sufficient.

And third, to install an affordability assurance body. Rising costs are on everybody's mind. Think of this affordability assurance body like the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) for essentials: monitoring daily cost of food, utilities, healthcare, transport and triggering automatic action when thresholds are crossed. Move from reacting after the fact to at least guarantee or ensuring affordability upfront.

Sir, by innovating more boldly, Singaporeans can be more assured that no matter the disruption the basics of life will remain within reach.

And lastly, on supercharging our culture of lifelong learning. SkillsFuture was a visionary beginning. But now in its 10th year, we must propel it beyond a Government programme into a lifelong habit embraced by every Singaporean. This vision resonates with the direction outlined by Minister Desmond Lee at MOE's Work Plan seminar recently, where the Minister spoke not only about AI in schools, but also about creating a lifelong learning ecosystem, fostering a broader definition of success and meeting the needs of learners who are different.

Visionary Chinese education thinker, Prof Zhu Yongxing argues that the school of the future will, in fact, evolve from what is the traditional classroom into a network of open, flexible student-centred learning centres, breaking down the barriers of time, space, age and institutional structures.

I will talk about that hopefully in a speech next year. That vision of the school for the future is important. But there are now, a few ways that we can do to reach the lifelong learning ecosystem that is fit-for-purpose for the future.

One, build a true skills-based economy. A broader definition of success means valuing skills and competence as much as, if not more than academic qualifications. We need to review the current playbook in this space. As long as academic qualifications or certificates remain the default currency for school entry and hiring, Singaporeans, parents will rationally contribute or continue to chase them; to chase these paper qualifications and the pressures will cascade down into high-stakes exams.

How many times do you have the experience that I have, when I ask a parent, "How old is your child?" And the parent says, "PSLE year." I have spoken long about through-train, 10-year through-train and whether PSLE is still relevant or not, many times in this house, but again, that is for another occasion.

Today, coming back to building a skills-based economy, we need to create a labour market where employers, including the public sector, recognises competencies and experience and pay for them. And that includes recognising the value of jobs, what they call blue-collar jobs, such as our plumbers, our technicians, our rail technicians and our MRT technicians, our repair technicians and other blue-collared workers.

Next, on supercharging a lifelong learning culture. We should personalise learning for every citizen. AI can now make personalised learning possible at scale, providing rich and timely feedback. This principle is not new. Special education has long used individualised education plans (IEPs) to tailor learning to each child. I have seen this approach work brilliantly also for non-special needs kids in home-based education systems. With AI, we can extend this to every Singaporean through a personalised learning plan that guides lifelong growth far beyond the classroom, into every stage of life.

And third, ensure equal access to lifelong learning. Today, students with special needs benefit from our strong special education schools thanks to our political and Government leaders. But when they graduate, many face a devastating learning cliff. We have the school-to-work programmes, but they are transitional steps that last only a few years – a good, sincere attempt by SG Enable will need more visioning and resources. Ahead of our citizens with special needs, lies 50 to 60 years of life too often without structured opportunities to keep growing and learning, not acceptable for an inclusive society. We must re-imagine and revamp the continuum of learning, ensuring that they, too, have access to personalised and future-ready skills through lifelong learning centres.

Sir, by building a skills-based economy, personalised learning with AI and ensuring that no one is left behind, we can supercharge a culture of lifelong learning for all.

Finally, in conclusion, Sir, I began my speech today by sharing some common fears of Singaporeans. These fears are real, but they are not our fate. I have suggested three ways we can turn these fears into hope, by ensuring that AI remains a servant to humanity, by updating our safety nets for a new age and by supercharging lifelong learning. But let us be clear, we are not passive bystanders in this era of change. We are its architects. The future does not simply happen to us. It is built by us. It is shaped by the agenda and the choices that we make as the people of Singapore. We have done this before and we will do it again, and together we will move from a society of fear to a nation of hope.

Acting Minister Faishal Ibrahim.

Mr Speaker, 60 years ago, as Singapore became independent, many in our community faced a difficult choice: to cross the causeway where many of our friends and relatives were; or to stay in Singapore, face economic uncertainties and a precarious future and forge a shared destiny with our Chinese and Indian comrades.

Our forefathers chose to stay. They sunk their roots here, threw in their lot with Singapore and made this island their home. Our Pioneers, led by Malay leaders like Yusof Ishak, Othman Wok and Ahmad Ibrahim, strived hard to meet the social, economic and religious needs of our community. They were also crucial members of our Pioneer leadership team, united in the common vision of a Singapore for all Singaporeans. The courage, dedication and tireless work of our Pioneers laid strong foundations for our community to make progress generation after generation.

Last month, I joined many Singaporeans in celebrating our nation's birthday, and like many in our community, my heart swelled with pride as Lieutenant Colonel Firdaus Ghazali led the National Day Parade; and as Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Iskandar led the F-15 bomb burst salute. This is just one of the many examples of how members of the Malay/Muslim community have excelled in their respective fields and continue to contribute to the Singapore story. As we celebrate SG60, it is timely to reflect on our progress as a society and as a Malay/Muslim community.

Over the last 30 years, I had the privilege of journeying with our community, through my community work and across six Ministries. I have seen first-hand what we can achieve when Government and the community strive with common purpose. Indeed, our community has grown in strength, in confidence and in our ability to rally and contribute to Singapore's shared future.

The M3 agencies and Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs), which include the Indian Muslim organisations (IMOs), have worked together with Government agencies to better serve the needs of the Malay/Muslim community. However, the world is undergoing significant shifts: technological advancements, trade wars, climate change and geopolitical volatility are just a few examples.

The Malay/Muslim community must similarly confront these uncertainties. I am encouraged by the renewed vigour from many community stakeholders, such as our MMOs, to find new and better ways to engage, collaborate and synergise efforts to take us forward. As the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, I hope to build on the good work of my predecessors and fellow community leaders.

I will deepen collaborations among the M3 agencies, MMOs, IMOs and the Government, to chart a stronger future for our Malay/Muslim community while contributing to our multiracial and multi-religious society. Since taking office, I have been engaging widely and listening actively. I have engaged our youth groups, mosque committees, working professionals, grassroots volunteers, MMOs and IMOs, arts and cultural groups and many more. I have also engaged the community at various settings, including coffee shops, markets and food centres and formal dialogues. I am touched by their stories of resilience and contribution, feel their concerns and inspired by their hopes and aspirations for community and the nation.

To achieve these, we must tap on our collective energies and abilities as well as imagination. Every member of our community should have the chance to be the best version of themselves at different stages of their lives. Let us share in the joy of each other's success and rally around those who stumble so that they can find their feet again.

For instance, Mr Muhammad Feroz Haron is the founder of Action in Motion (AIM) Society, which recently celebrated its sixth anniversary last month. Sharing his past experiences, Feroz founded AIM with three other ex-offenders to provide social and emotional support for others on the drug rehabilitation journey. His wife, Madam Salmah Johari, also founded Women in Support to Develop Outstanding Men (WISDOM), a support group for spouses and partners of ex-offenders.

Or the story of Dr Norham Erlyani, who inspires us through her pursuit of excellence. She holds a PhD in stem cell and developmental biology from the National University of Singapore Graduate School and currently serves as Head of Strategy and Public Relations at Hilleman Laboratories. Beyond her professional portfolio, she contributes actively to the community as the lead for Life Sciences under the MENDAKI Professional Networks and as a member of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) Council.

I am committed to supporting people like Mr Feroz and Dr Norham Erlyani, who have taken diverse paths at different stages of their lives, so that they can do better for themselves, and give back to those around them. Let me elaborate on three areas where my fellow PAP Malay/Muslim MPs and I will focus on in the years ahead.

One, to give our community a better life through improved social and economic outcomes.

Two, to uphold the confidence of our community to practise our faith in a multi-cultural society.

And three, to preserve and celebrate our rich Malay arts, culture and heritage.

Sir, let me first speak on improving the social and economic outcomes for our people. We will focus on four areas: first, nurture strong families; second, invest in our children and youths; third, equip our workers to seize growth opportunities; and fourth, support our seniors to age with dignity.

Families form the bedrock of our society. They create stable and loving environments for us to pass shared values from one generation to the next, and for our children to realise their potential. Strong marriages are the first step to flourishing families. Over the years, we have seen good progress from our investments to support strong marriages. The number of Muslim divorces in 2023 have fallen by 30% compared to 2019.

We will continue to do more in this area, led by incoming Minister of State Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. For instance, through the Bersamamu programme, which supports newlywed Muslim couples with religious guidance on marriage and family life, and with practical skills, like financial planning, communication skills and conflict resolution.

With strong families as a foundation, we will invest more in the development of our children and youths.

Education is key to provide our children with a good start in life. As a community, we can do more to encourage the enrolment of our young into preschool, and to sustain their attendance. We must also better support the learning of our students in primary and secondary schools, including after school hours. For instance, under Project Jalan Kukoh, MENDAKI, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), the People’s Association Malay Activity Executive Committees Council (PA MESRA), 4PM, and other Government agencies reach out to youths in the Jalan Kukoh precinct. I thank our community partners, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) for your support in these areas.

Outside of school, we will equip our youths to deal with the challenges of the future. Beyond the academics, we will also support them with career guidance, personal development opportunities and exposure to new experiences.

For example, Ms Sherlita Almeyra serves as the President of MudaSG, a youth-led organisation that has organised volunteer opportunities in sectors, such as community building, education, environmental sustainability, and social outreach, encouraging youth to contribute to society while fostering a spirit of care, collaboration and service.

I recently announced the formation of a Malay/Muslim Youth Taskforce. This will bring together youth champions to advocate for the needs and aspirations of Malay/Muslim youth and co-create initiatives in support of the national SG Youth Plan. Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam and incoming Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi will lead this effort.

I hope that these efforts will position our youths to seize new opportunities in our fast-evolving economic landscape. The workforce in the years to come will look very different from today and our workers must be prepared to ride the waves of growth in the future economy.

This will require a culture of lifelong learning, underpinned by the partnerships between the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), MENDAKI and other MMOs. Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamed and labour MP Dr Wan Rizal will helm this area to develop community platforms to complement national-level programmes to support our workers.

In particular, I hope that more of our workers can tap on opportunities in growth sectors like advanced manufacturing, technology and professional services like finance.

As we progress, we cannot forget our seniors, particularly those in the Pioneer and Merdeka generations. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong outlined Singapore’s plans to improve long-term care options through the Age Well Neighbourhoods for our seniors and their caregivers at the National Day Rally. This initiative builds upon national programmes like HealthierSG and Age Well SG. I similarly hope to mobilise our community, so that we can better meet the healthcare, social and emotional needs of our seniors. I look forward to the support by Members.

For instance, how can we tap on the experience of our seniors to benefit the community, as they transit into retirement? Or how can we better support caregivers through active ageing services and caregiving networks?

To this end, the Santunan Emas programme by Masjid Al-Muttaqin, in collaboration with Ma:een and Muhammadiyah Active Ageing Centre, is a commendable effort. The programme provides holistic support for our elderly – from spiritual guidance through lectures by former Mufti, Ustaz Dr Mohamed Fatris Bakaram, to physical and social activities led by volunteers from Muhammadiyah for their overall well-being.

Let us continue to explore new ways to collaborate with various partners in support of our seniors.

I have spoken about improved social and economic outcomes. Let me now turn to how we will support the community to practise our faith in our diverse society.

Our faith is central to our character as a Malay/Muslim community. It guides our values and how we engage one another, whether family members, neighbours or fellow citizens. Our faith also guides us to live harmoniously with others in a multicultural and multi-religious society. Since taking on this role, I have visited different mosques each week. These visits gave me the opportunity to meet congregants from all walks of life and speak with them on religious life in Singapore, among others.

Let me highlight three areas of feedback and what we are doing in these areas.

One, is the need for more prayer spaces, particularly in newer residential areas. I have announced further details about the new mosques in Tampines and Tengah, and we are exploring ways to bring forward the completion of these mosques. We are also exploring how interim prayer spaces can be provided while mosque upgrading and development works are underway.

Our mosques and prayer spaces are fully funded by the community. So, we must be prudent in designing them and maximise our existing spaces by conducting second sessions for Friday prayers.

Two, beyond physical spaces, we must groom the next generation of religious leaders. Our asatizah play a critical role in guiding our community and should be recognised and fairly compensated for their work, as Mr Sharael Taha mentioned earlier. As we navigate a more complex world, they must be keenly attuned to global changes while appreciating our local context. The new Singapore College of Islamic Studies (SCIS) represents a significant investment in this future by equipping our asatizah with robust Islamic knowledge and practical skills to serve the community, be it in the religious sector or in adjacent sectors like counselling and social work. I also agree with Mr Sharael Taha that SCIS’ partnership with the Singapore University of Social Sciences will be important in exposing our future asatizah to diverse academic experiences and develop them not just as capable religious teachers, but also compassionate community leaders who can help the community navigate contemporary social challenges.

Three, our religious institutions must develop new capabilities to guide the community in contemporary issues. Recent fatwas on cultivated meat and alternative proteins, and carrier screening for severe genetic diseases and antenatal testing have helped our community navigate new questions about food technology, environmental sustainability and medical sciences. These rulings exemplify how our Fatwa Committee and asatizah can provide guidance that is both religiously sound and practically relevant. We will continue to empower our asatizah to guide the community in these complex issues and in so doing, deepen trust in our religious institutions.

Importantly, the ability to maintain confidence in our religious life depends on the trust in our religious institutions and the partnerships with the broader network of Muslim organisations. We will strengthen these networks of trust and partnerships to address the religious needs of our community. Together, I am confident that we will engender a fulfilling life for our Singapore Muslims who actively contribute to their community and society.

I have spoken about improved social and economic outcomes, and about practising our faith in a multicultural society. Let me now speak on how we can celebrate our Malay arts, culture and heritage. This is an integral part of Singapore’s cultural diversity and national identity.

Pak Zubir Said's composition of our national anthem, "Majulah Singapura", is a prime example of how Malay artistic expression has shaped our national identity. Contemporary Malay artists like Madam Som Said are instrumental in championing Malay dance in Singapore, while writers like Djamal Tukimin have become cornerstones of Singapore’s Malay literary scene. We also have practitioners dedicated to preserving our living heritage and craft, such as Yaziz Hassan who is passing down the knowledge of crafting and repairing traditional Malay drums to future generations.

In my engagements, many in the community have told me that they hope we can hold fast to what has nourished our hearts and souls over generations, even as we pursue economic growth and prosperity. My team and I hope to galvanise the community to celebrate and develop our arts, culture, and heritage sector, showcase the vibrancy of our unique Singaporean Malay culture and preserve our cultural traditions for future generations.

The reopening of the Malay Heritage Centre in April next year represents a significant milestone in this effort. It will provide a new platform to celebrate the stories of the Malay community and recognise how their contributions have shaped Singapore's development and national identity. The refreshed centre will enhance representation of Malay ethnic sub-groups, showcasing the diversity that exists within our community, with increased focus on women's contributions to education, literature and the arts. The centre will also see newly commissioned works by both emerging and established Malay artists in support of contemporary cultural expression.

This is part of a wider national plan. We strive to develop Wisma Geylang Serai as Singapore’s first social, arts and cultural heritage hub where culture is not just preserved but also experienced. The National Heritage Board is also partnering with community and precinct stakeholders in Kampong Gelam to strengthen its distinctive cultural identity and heritage value.

Our culture should be celebrated and enjoyed by all. We will continue to support the People's Association Malay Activity Executive Committees Council (PA MESRA) and the Malay Activity Executive Committees (MAECs) in various events to preserve the Malay culture, whether through performances during festive seasons, or through cultural festivals and activities. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, our Malay/Muslim community has made much progress over the last 60 years. This is borne out of the courage, dedication and resilience of our pioneers, such as Yusof Ishak, Othman Wok and Ahmad Ibrahim, to make this country home – a place where we belong. They worked alongside fellow Singaporeans to build a strong foundation for the nation and enabled us to progress as a community and society. I hope to build on the good work of our past leaders, together with our community.

Since taking office as the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, I have engaged widely with various segments of our community, from youth groups, arts and heritage groups, mosque committees, professionals, grassroots volunteers, Malay/Muslim organisations and many more. I am deeply grateful for the feedback and feel inspired by their ideas to strengthen our bonds, uplift lives and realise our potential.

My fellow People's Action Party (PAP) Malay/Muslim MPs and I are committed to continue supporting the Malay/Muslim community. We will focus on three key areas in the years ahead.

One, we will improve social and economic outcomes by nurturing strong families and investing in our children and youth. We also want to equip our workers so that they are able to seize opportunities in emerging sectors, and support our elderly to age gracefully and with dignity.

Two, we will support the religious life of the Muslim community within the context of Singapore's plural society, and provide for evolving needs. This includes increasing prayer spaces, and ensuring strong religious guidance through asatizah development and the upcoming SCIS.

Three, we will preserve our Malay arts, culture, and heritage which have nourished our hearts and souls over generations. With the reopening of the Malay Heritage Centre next year, we will have more opportunities to showcase our unique Singaporean Malay culture and enrich Singapore's cultural and national identity.

Mr Speaker, my team and I have outlined a shared agenda and vision for our Malay/Muslim community, based on our broad engagements and consultations with the community. However, we will constantly refine it through continuous engagement with more members of our community. In tandem with rapid social and economic changes, we want to provide opportunities to every community member to be the best versions of themselves and thrive, regardless of their background, and also be able to contribute actively.

We will also need new ways of integrating partnership networks with Malay-Muslim organisations and other community groups to galvanise their efforts and strengths in addressing the three focus areas that I have just outlined.

As we hoist our sails to harness the winds of opportunity, I hope that we also anchor our work on three values – trust (“Amanah”), sincerity (“Ikhlas”) and gratitude (“Kesyukuran”) – which our forefathers and successive generations of leaders have embodied.

Sir, the President reminded us earlier in his Address that we must aspire to be a society that puts "we" before "me", where we look beyond our individual needs. We must consider how our actions and choices contribute to the well-being of the larger society. By looking out for each other, we can go far together.

Our goal for a “Stronger Future Together” is not a destination, but a continuous journey of growth, adaptation and mutual support. It is not just for the Malay/Muslim community but the whole of Singapore. Therefore, I call upon every member of our community, regardless of age, profession or background, to contribute to our shared success.

Our pioneers and the past generations played a pivotal role in writing the Singapore Story. They chose to build a multiracial and multicultural society regardless of race, language or religion. Now, it is our turn to expand the Singapore Story and write the next chapter that charts the journey and progress of the Malay community, in particular, and the wider society. It encompasses our efforts to celebrate strength in diversity, forging close ties between communities to strengthen our solidarity and work alongside fellow Singaporeans. This solidarity is key in helping Singapore navigate uncertainties ahead and build an endearing home for all.

Let us embark on this journey together, guided by lessons learnt and wisdom gained from past endeavours, as well as with the hopes and dreams of our community to contribute to the happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. Thank you, and Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

When we speak of social mobility or inequality, we often talk about wages, jobs, housing, even cars. But we talk less about how socioeconomic background also shapes health, education and opportunity – across a lifetime.

And the data is stark. In the domain of health, a 25-year-old Singaporean with below secondary education can expect to live almost six years less than a peer with higher education. Six years less time with their loved ones.

Those with primary education are up to three times more likely to have diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol. Residents in rental flats are hospitalised and re-admitted more often, even after adjusting for their conditions. And preventive care – the very thing that could break the cycle – is patchier, with fewer screenings, fewer follow-ups, fewer regular doctors.

Behind these statistics are people. Like my Woodlands resident, Mr K, a lift technician and father of two who came to my Meet the People session to appeal some parking fines. His wife had walked out on the family. He works nights, so he brings his children along. They wait in the car in the unloading bay, hence the parking tickets, while he does his work. This happens a few times every night. His children lose sleep, lose focus in school and sometimes, they skip school. He himself suffers from depression but cannot afford treatment.

Or Ms S, living with chronic mental illness and hypertension. She wants to work, but her workplace makes no accommodations. Each day she cannot bring herself to go in to work, she slips further away from the stability she craves.

Or Mr Z, whose wife has diabetes. When the dialysis centre in Woodlands was closed for renovations and her dialysis treatments were transferred to Ghim Moh, their transport subsidy lapsed. Months of trying to re-apply failed. In despair, he asked me, "Should I just stop taking her and let her die?"

Mr Speaker, when poor income, poor health and poor education reinforce each other, the cycle of disadvantage is brutal. And breaking this cycle must be a most urgent duty. We have strong foundations. KidSTART supports parents and children from the earliest years. The Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Task force (UPLIFT) narrows achievement gaps, improves attendance and well-being. Grow Well SG and Healthier SG help families build healthier habits and access preventive care, Age Well SG keeps our seniors active and ComLink+ brings in family coaches and Progress packages.

Each is valuable. But support today is still too fragmented. Families face many schemes, many officers, many forms that strain their already strained mental bandwidth. There is a lot of coordination and referrals, fewer active interventions. Too much is left to chance – whether a child or senior shows up for vaccination, whether a family completes a form correctly.

What we need are not more and more piecemeal programmes, but joined-up longitudinal pathways that follow a family through an extended period of time – structured where necessary, empowering where possible, that provides support, while building personal agency. Pathways that ensure no child, no parent, no senior falls through the cracks.

I propose three pathways: an education pathway, a health pathway and a career pathway, all linked together with ComLink+.

First, the education pathway. We know early childhood education is one of the strongest levers of social mobility. Yet, today, about one in four children from ComLink+ families do not attend preschool regularly. That is too high.

It is time that we make preschool the default for ComLink+ families, unless they opt out. And the journey should not stop there. It must continue though primary and secondary school, not only after school and tuition, but also enrichment in arts, sports and coding, because talent is not the exclusive domain of the wealthy and must not be capped by income.

Integration between KidSTART, UPLIFT and ComLink+ must be seamless – no six-month gaps, no missed transitions. A child's progress should be tracked, with early interventions when they fall behind – whether in literacy, attendance or well-being. The goal is not just to graduate more students, but to graduate them resilient and ready to seize the opportunity.

Secondly, a health pathway. Here, too, we need integration. From KidSTART to Grow Well SG, to Healthier SG, to Age Well SG, a continuum of care, one longitudinal journey. Family coaches, or dedicated health coaches must go beyond health coordination and referrals. They must actively intervene. If a child misses a vaccination, reschedule it. If medication is not taken, find out why. If meals are not nutritious, connect the family to food support. Families "graduate" only when children are healthy, with acceptable body mass index (BMI) and vaccinations, adults are enrolled in Healthier SG and adhering to chronic disease plans and the family has demonstrated health literacy and food security.

And for working adults, let us pilot Health Secure Jobs – workplaces where chronic illnesses or caregiving duties do not mean job losses. Instead MOH and MOM partner with employers to keep workers employed in jobs, while managing conditions like diabetes or depression, because health must not mean unemployment.

Third, a career pathway. Employment remains the engine of mobility. The ComLink+ Employment Package is a step forward – with coaching, training, retention incentives and wraparound support. But we must aim higher.

Jobs should not be just any job. They must provide progression, skills and dignity and build confidence. Here we can learn from the US programme "Year Up" , which offers six months of intensive training, tuition free, in skills that today's employers need followed by six months of corporate internships – coupled with mentorship, coaching, professional development and the possibility of college credit for coursework, along with stipends and other support services and essential resources, such as, housing, food, transportation and childcare to remove any barriers to participants' success. Its graduates earn significantly more – 30% more – than similar peers who did not participate six years later. And while the program structure is very resource intensive, over a seven-year study period, every $1.00 spent on" Year Up" produced a $2.46 benefit to society. A good return-on-investment.

We could roll this our in Singapore, where a young person from a disadvantaged family who once felt locked out of opportunity, gains not only skills and networks, but also confidence, dignity and hope. I believe talent is Everywhere. Opportunity is sometimes not. But we can build this.

The three pathways: education, healthcare and career cannot stand alone. They must be linked and linked by ComLink+. If a child struggles in school, it should trigger a check on nutrition or sleep. If health appointments are missed, it should prompt a check on school or work attendance, because no one lives life in silos, and neither should our policies.

Housing is a good example. For individuals or families facing homelessness, unstable arrangements or constant conflict at home, or those who are returning from prison or institutionalization, providing stable housing by granting that rental flat or allowing that third HDB loan. It is not just about shelter. It is a health intervention. It is an education intervention. It is a social intervention. Policy must empower our offices to act holistically and not within narrow silos. If we can link the pathways effectively, we should end up achieving more by doing less. Without linking them, each silo can feel like it is pushing on a string – much effort, little outcomes – and gets pressured to invest even more in its own silo.

Underpinning all of this is our care workforce: family coaches, social workers, healthcare teams. They are the ones who journey alongside families on each pathway, not for weeks, but for years. Studies have shown how having that one mentoring figure, whom you have a genuine connection with, a genuine relationship, can make all the difference in changing the life of a low-income person. We must invest in their training, understand their workload and reward them fairly. We must select and empower them to be not just case workers, but life-changers.

Mr Speaker, I also want to address a point raised by the hon Member Mr Fadli Fawzi in his maiden speech yesterday, which he delivered in Malay. I listened quite carefully to it. He paints meritocracy as corrosive, an ideological belief to justify and explain away inequality and the lot of those left behind. I must disagree. Meritocracy in Singapore is not an ideology. It is a principle of fairness. The danger is not in practicing meritocracy but in abandoning it, because success would depend not on effort or talent, but on connections and privilege.

That is not a "we first" society. That is a “some first” society. Our meritocracy is not a perfect system. And that is why we are here, to refine it, to strengthen it, to make sure that meritocracy in Singapore remains fair and real, not just in principle but in practice.

The truth is meritocracy in Singapore has never stood still. We have broadened and deepened the definition of meritocracy precisely to address the risks Mr Fadli Fawzi raised. Let me elaborate on how this has played out in practice.

First, merit is no longer exclusively seen through your exam scores and the schools you go to. Today, we have multiple pathways – university, polytechnics, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), SkillsFuture, we have subject-based banding. Success is not one-size-fits-all.

Second, we have moved from equal treatment to equitable support. Those who have less, get more help. I have talked about KidSTART, UPLIFT, Comlink+ earlier. Yes, we can push further, but all are designed to level the playing field.

Third, we now explicitly recognise unequal starting points. This has been mentioned by both our Prime Minister and our President. Our policies deliberately give more subsidies in housing, healthcare and education to lower-income families.

Fourth, we also now recognise that merit is not just about individual effort, but as something shaped by community, family and society. Many initiatives bring together Government, volunteers, employers to uplift families together. And among the most visible are in our Malay community, where under the auspices of M³@Towns, our "gotong royong" spirit shines through, whether it is in Kelas MateMatika (KMM), Mendaki Tuition Scheme (MTS) or youth mentoring. And lastly, we celebrate values and character, not just grades or how much money you make. At every Edusave awards, we give the Edusave Award for Achievement, Good Leadership and Service (EAGLES) award and the Edusave Character Award (ECHA) award. Resilience, service and contribution to society are part of how we define merit.

What I have just described cannot possibly be seen as an elitist meritocracy. Ours is a progressive and compassionate meritocracy, one which recognizes effort and ability, while also investing heavily in those with fewer advantages and we keep improving. Framing meritocracy as an ideology risks dismissing these hard-won efforts.

I do not discount that there are many families, including many in our Malay community who are really struggling. I see them at my Meet the People session. I shared some of their stories today. But there are many issues at play, that weigh families down regardless of effort or merit. And while we must keep improving our system, I humbly remember both Member Fadli Fawzi and I are, ourselves, beneficiaries of Singapore’s meritocracy. It is this system that enabled us, children from ordinary families, to study, to work and now to serve in this House.

So, there is no need to disparage or dismiss the system that has uplifted and continues to uplift so many. And certainly, there is no need to mischaracterise it to our community as promoting the belief that "those who succeed are entitled to their success because they have worked hard, while those who are left behind deserve to be left behind because they have not worked hard enough".

Firstly, I am sure that, like me, Member Fadli Fawzi eschews this belief. But secondly, words like this do not help families who are struggling. What helps them is when we, as leaders, acknowledge the gaps honestly and work together on solutions. This includes lingering experiences of prejudice and discrimination, perceived or otherwise. Our work to strengthen our multiculturalism is itself a work-in-progress and must continue to go on. A "we first" society is not built by tearing down the ladders of opportunity, it is built by strengthening them and adding rungs below, so no one is left behind.

Sir, when I entered this House five years ago, my primary motivation was clear: to keep social mobility alive. This is not an abstract goal to me. My own journey, I know that of many in this Chamber and many, many more outside this Chamber, and it is proof of what Singapore has made possible.

But 60 years after Independence, our society has changed. If we do nothing, cycles of disadvantage will harden. But if we act boldly, we can give dignity, stability and hope to every family, no matter their starting point, and benefit from the talents of our only natural resource – our people. So, we must be more ambitious and that is why I rise today, to urge us to look harder at the evidence, to think deeper about the gaps and to act with courage, using my vantage point as Chair for the Health GPC, a member of the Social and Family Development GPC and a past member of the Education GPC.

The Minister of Health who is also now the Coordinating Minister for Social Policy happens to be my anchor Minister in Sembawang group representation constituency (GRC) and I seek his understanding that no matter how good a job the Government is doing on this topic, I will always press us to do more, do better. Because social mobility is not just a policy goal. It is the promise of Singapore. Mr Speaker, it is an enormous honour to stand here in this House again. I look forward to working with Members of this House to heed the President’s call.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.38 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]