Debate on President's Speech - Securing our future by turning our challenges into opportunities

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): 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.