雇用なき成長を許さない人工知能（AI）移行（討論総括）

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker : I see a few hands being put up. Please raise your hands again, those who wish to seek clarifications. Mr Andre Low.

6.51 pm Mr Low Wu Yang Andre : Thank you Speaker. I have clarifications for the Minister of State Lau and Minister Tan.

My clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau is, I am glad to hear that she has put to me that automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. She went on to define that as being intentional about automating repetitive and physical tasks and upgrading the skills of that same worker. So, I am glad to hear that because that is exactly how I have defined augmentation in my speech.

And she also noted that I use the term automation in my speech as a shorthand for scenarios where a job is entirely fully automated away at the expense of the worker. And this is abundantly clear.

To Minister Tan, he suggested that proposals by my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam and myself, are anchored on the premise that Singaporeans are hapless passengers along for the ride on this AI journey. I would urge the Minister to clarify how he has managed to read that basis into our speeches.

And secondly, I would simply use the language of Minister of State Lau as well, that we do not believe that strong social safety nets, and upskilling Singaporeans and urging them to embrace AI are mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a binary equation. In fact, we believe that strong social safety nets are precisely what will enable Singaporeans to take a risk-taking approach and embrace the opportunities that AI will deliver.

Ms Jasmin Lau : Very glad to hear that we are on the same page. I thank Mr Andre Low.

Dr Tan See Leng : Likewise, I am really glad, particularly from Mr Low that, and I presume, since he is mentioning his name, Mr Giam as well, that they believe that Singaporeans have what it takes to work with the Government, with the unions, with the businesses to chart their own future. So, I thank the Member for that affirmation.

Mr Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song : Thank you, Sir. My response to the Minister, yes, I definitely believe Singaporeans have the ability to chart this future for themselves. But the Minister has offered a choice of two visions in his response to my speech; and I thank him for reading it carefully. But I do not agree with his characterisation of my proposal as a resignation to displacement.

The National AI Equity Fund is not about a compensation for failure. It is about providing the security required for assurance and success. And I would like to remind him that the proposal I put forward has actually got two limbs. The first provides a direct stake in our prosperity. The second, which utilises nearly half the fund, is a direct investment in the skills and competencies of our workers. It provides a wage support and technical expertise that companies, especially SMEs, need to conduct on-the-job (OJT) training that is fully relevant to their workers.

And earlier, Minister of State Jasmin Lau said gains from AI must translate into greater security for all Singaporeans. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to ensure workers receive a direct and tangible share of AI productivity gains beyond just more training? Specifically, what is the Government's plan to move from discretionary spending to a structural sharing of AI wealth to protect the economic agency of our workers?

Dr Tan See Leng : I think the straight answer is through real income improvement. For today's Motion, the NTUC Secretary-General will be wrapping up. But in the months, in the years ahead, I have shared that SWDA will have very clear key performance index outcomes, including tying the Enterprise Workforce Training Package, job redesign to specific skin in the game for both the businesses tapping on such grants, to improvement in real wages and career progression for the workers. That is how we envisage the pie to be shared.

Mr Speaker : Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat : I would like to ask two clarifications of the Minister.

First, why does he believe that the SkillsFuture course enrolment is a reliable proxy for seriousness? I have some of my residents who have gone for some of these AI courses; they are not very complimentary on the content of these courses. So, there is a perception that some of the quality of these courses is not as good as it could be.

And second, does the Minister not think that universal supply of frontier agentic tools will create its own demand eventually?

Dr Tan See Leng : Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Tiong's speech earlier on and where he also expounded on his experience in learning a lot of the cutting edge, I think it was Anthropic Claude, and he mentioned a few of that.

I must say that not everyone, myself certainly, would have his level of expertise when it comes to AI. What we are trying to do is to make it pervasive to bring as broad a segment of our population as possible and tying it to a slightly lower hurdle for them to acquire that confidence, that comfort in using AI.

So, our journey is about ensuring that everyone gets a stable path, covering a pathway devoid of potholes, bringing hopefully everyone to base camp before we prepare to scale the peak. I think I have articulated the vision.

Mr Speaker : Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling : Thank you, Speaker. I have a clarification for Minister of State Jasmin Lau. In my speech on job redesign, I had asked for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. And I am very glad to hear that the Ministry has set out expectations of companies that benefit from AI and a vision for good jobs in the AI age. I am also very happy to hear that you have committed by saying that public support will come with worker outcome expectations.

Would the Minister of State be able to share what specific worker outcomes will be tracked and whether job redesign will be an explicit condition of our AI grants, or simply an expectation that companies are just encouraged to meet? And what kind of mechanisms will you be putting in place to track and recognise companies that do this job redesign well?

Ms Jasmin Lau : I thank the Member for the clarification. I think this is something that we should discuss together with all of our tripartite partners, whether it is with unions as well as business leaders, to make sure that any of our grant and support schemes do not end up making things even harder for companies that want to transform.

But yes, this is the direction that we are committed towards and we should discuss this further in the coming months.

Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Mark Lee : Mr Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification from Mr Kenneth Tiong. I believe my speech has put forth my concerns about advancing mandatory notification for businesses. I would like to clarify on his proposed 90-day mandatory notice for AI-driven role elimination.

In practice, AI transformation is often gradual and task-based, with roles evolving through redesign, augmentation and changing workflows over time rather than a single identifiable point of elimination. Even in my own company, it starts at 10% of tasks being automated, then 30%. And it is merged with another function; then, the scope changes. The issue is therefore operational reality and definitional ambiguity.

So, could the Member clarify how companies, especially many of our SMEs, are expected to determine when this 90-day notice should formally commence? Would the Member also agree that if definitions are too rigid, firms may avoid gradual redesign altogether and may instead move towards sharper restructuring exercises, which may ironically worsen outcomes for workers, and another possibility that this might even inadvertently cause slower AI adoption and weaken business competitiveness?

Mr Speaker : Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat : To the extent that there is a court jurisdiction as was the case in Hangzhou in China, I think that there can be made a point to determine whether something is substantively AI-driven redundancy or not. I think in practice, it will probably depend on the composition of tasks that are automated as well as things that perhaps when the employer pays a lower effective remuneration for. But that is why it is very important for there to be an adjudicative process, as I have pointed out in my speech, for workers to be able to better challenge some of these concerns.

Of course, I acknowledge that some of these things may introduce friction for businesses. I certainly do not deny there is a trade-off. But if we do believe that there is this potential for AI to foster very rapid employment changes, then certainly, I think we should err on the side of caution.

Mr Speaker : Can I invite Mr Ng Chee Meng to do your rounding up speech?

7.03 pm Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who have debated and supported this Motion with such conviction.

All Members recognise that AI adoption is not optional. If Singapore is to stay competitive, both enterprises and workers need to raise AI fluency to seize new opportunities. There is also a clear consensus on the transformative potential of AI and on our collective responsibility to manage its impact on our enterprises and our workers.

As Minister Tan See Leng and Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau have pointed out, left to the market, AI growth may not automatically benefit workers. Members like Mr Yip Hon Weng warned about an outcome where some workers gain but others risk falling behind.

I am therefore glad that through this Motion, the Government has affirmed that it will not leave outcomes to chance, but will shape the direction of AI growth deliberately and I look forward to the measures that will be unveiled through the Economic Strategy Review report.

Mr Speaker, Members raised ideas that deserve serious consideration.

In my opening, I put forth four practical moves: first, building market intelligence and foresight for an AI-enabled economy; second, enabling enterprises to transform with AI and to do so in a way that benefits workers; third, enabling workers to seize new opportunities; and fourth, enabling displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence.

These are no-regrets moves – practical, grounded and effective. They lay the foundation for AI growth that translates into good jobs and better prospects for our workers, guiding how AI is adopted, how work is re-organised and how workers can move through change with support and dignity.

Let me draw on Members' contributions and address them.

First, on intelligence and foresight. Workers and enterprises need more than information. They need trusted intelligence put directly in their hands, so that they can navigate this transition with clarity, not anxiety. I thank Mr Alex Yeo, Ms Poh Li San and Ms He Ting Ru for supporting this proposal.

Ms He Ting Ru highlighted the need for Singapore-specific research so that we know the impact of AI disruption on our more vulnerable workers. Mr Alex Yeo pointed out that such intelligence could also help us identify where AI is creating new jobs and new industries so that the Government can move early to incentivise AI startups and enterprises to generate fresh opportunities for our workforce.

Assoc Prof Terence Ho likewise underscored the need to deepen local research on how AI is reshaping work to inform our responses and to position Singapore within global research networks on human AI complementarity.

Within NTUC, we have begun contributing to this work through our Labour Alliance co-laB (LAB), a research community we formed with academics that brings together experts across our IHLs. Working with our tripartite partners, LAB seeks to translate international best practices into insights grounded in Singapore's labour market realities so that researchers, adult learners and human resource practitioners alike can have an earlier, clearer basis to act on AI transformation.

Second, on enabling enterprises to transform with AI. Mr Mark Lee spoke about enterprises' need to transform to stay competitive, making the important point that enterprise and workforce transformation must move together. Mr Yip Hon Weng reinforced this – that the real constraint is not the technology, but workforce readiness, and we must move from AI adoption to AI fluency, with clear accountability for worker outcomes. Mr Gerald Giam had a proposal to support employer-led on-the-job training model so that employers, especially SMEs, are incentivised to train and retain workers. I acknowledge and support the objectives behind these proposals. It is precisely what our CTCs are doing – supporting firms to embark on transformation through structured projects that embed worker training and outcomes.

I thank Minister Tan See Leng for supporting NTUC's suggestion to further expand the CTC initiative. What we must now do is to deepen it, scale it and focus our efforts on AI across more businesses and sectors.

Mr Mark Lee called for a clearer enterprise "front door" so firms, especially SMEs, are not slowed down by having to navigate multiple schemes and processes. He also suggested that trade associations and chambers could become platforms that accelerate AI adoption across sectors.

This is exactly what the Tripartite Jobs Council is setting out to do – to consolidate tripartite partners' various capabilities under one roof to better serve out our enterprises and our workers. I am glad the Government has supported NTUC's proposal to form this Tripartite Jobs Council.

Third, on enabling workers to seize new opportunities. Mr Alex Yeo made the point that equipping our workers requires building capability and confidence at the workplace so learning translates into deeper skills. Mr Kenneth Tiong highlighted the importance of providing our workers access to AI tools. Dr Neo Kok Beng suggested that we define competencies for the AI age and validate competencies through certifications. I note these suggestions.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Vikram Nair also made the point that job redesign if done well is the key to ensure that AI creates opportunities and pathways for our workers to grow. Dr Hamid Razak spoke for the PMEs, residents and parents carrying this anxiety about AI not just for themselves, but for their children. Indeed, AI-relevant pathways must be tied to job redesign to provide a smoother transition for our youths and PMEs.

Several Members have raised concerns about our young graduates. Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms He Ting Ru and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted that fresh graduates face challenges not just in finding good jobs, but in accessing the foundational entry-level roles where they learn to become professionals.

NTUC supports the Government doing more to provide wage supplements if indeed there are wider signs of labour market weaknesses. But should this be done too early or too broad a scale, then, employers may not have the right incentive to pay the full wages. This is also why good research and understanding of the labour market is needed.

My fellow labour Members of Parliament – Mr Desmond Tan, Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Yeo Wan Ling – spoke up from our unions' perspective. Their asks – that productivity gains are shared, that workers are supported through transitions and that workers are given a genuine voice in AI adoption – exemplify what the Labour Movement stands for in this renewed tripartism in the AI era.

Mr Yip Hon Weng called the Government to establish clear conditionalities for our support schemes to ensure that public funding goes towards worker outcomes. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for AI grants to be tied to mandatory job redesign requirements and productivity gains linked to worker outcomes. Mr Andre Low made a similar point that we need accountability mechanisms to ensure that our investments in AI are ensuring augmentation, not automation. In response, Minister of State Ms Jasmin Lau shared that the Government's commitment that where public support is given, the Government will expect companies to make the effort to support worker outcomes.

Mr Saktiandi, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms He Ting Ru highlighted how AI can cause an uneven impact on jobs as well as uneven benefits across different worker groups.

Members also highlighted segments of workers who may require additional attention. As Mr Saktiandi and Ms He Ting Ru pointed out, caregivers and vulnerable workers may have unequal access to AI tools and training. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms He Ting Ru spoke about the need to support women. Gig and Platform workers, as Ms Yeo explained, must be consulted. Their lived experience is critical input as work evolves with AVs and AI. She also called for clearer visibility on the national AV deployment timeline so platform drivers can plan transitions.

I also thank Ms Yeo, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Fadli Fawzi for speaking up for our skilled tradesmen. Amidst AI disruption, we must do more to equip them in AI fluency and build sustainable and respectable career pathways so that they have better work prospects and wages.

Senior workers, as Mr Desmond Tan spoke passionately on, may face more challenges in keeping up with AI disruption and require dedicated support.

I fully agree with Members that we must be alive to the needs of specific segments of workers mentioned. I echo Mr Saktiandi's call for sound policies to shape the trajectory of our AI growth so it benefits workers and citizens and remains inclusive.

As Ms Poh Li San rightly reminded us, AI also has the potential to augment our workforce and reduce reliance on foreign labour, unlocking the human bottleneck that constrains many businesses today.

On the fourth move to enable displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence, Mr Patrick Tay called on the "3 Es" – equitable growth, enhanced protections and engaged workforce. He calls to raise the Jobseeker Support scheme eligibility to the PME median income – around $8,400 as of 2025 – and to provide earlier notification of retrenchment. These are in line with the moves I suggested in this House too. These are specific, actionable asks that will make a real difference to blue-collar workers and middle class PMEs alike.

Mr Andre Low questioned whether the JSS is sufficient and proposed a redundancy insurance scheme instead. NTUC’s position is clear – our focus is on ensuring the right support to help workers bounce back. NTUC is not wedded to any particular form. We will work closely with tripartite partners to innovate, as we have done before. That is how we have come up with Workfare, Progressive Wage Model and now the JSS. Our shared aim is to make the JSS even better, so we can better support our workers, especially our PMEs.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also made the important point that we must rigorously track the speed and effectiveness of our existing measures to support workers who face disruption, especially the financial runway for displaced workers.

I also thank Mr Sanjeev Tiwari, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms He Ting Ru for highlighting the potential of AI to cause harm to our workers, such as how AI may intensify workload and introduce risks of discrimination in employment decisions. Ms Eileen Chong suggested also to legislate the right to flexible work arrangements.

The Labour Movement takes these concerns seriously. We will work with tripartite partners to study these issues, building on the Workplace Fairness Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements.

Members have also surfaced other ideas to contribute to the Motion. Mr Saktiandi suggested for the Government to be the "first customer" of useful AI tools and solutions to facilitate broad and widespread utilisation of AI. He also highlighted the need to calibrate data-sharing frameworks and ethical guardrails. Ms Poh Li San spoke about ethical use of AI in society, to ensure that it is used as a force for good and not for criminal and harmful exploits. Ms Eileen Chong and Mr Fadli Fawzi spoke about the need to address the impact of AI use on our students, and the impact it might have on our cultures. These important issues deserve separate, careful study and consideration beyond the remit of this Motion.

But I thank Members, everyone, indeed, who have spoken up and contributed to this Motion. I really appreciate the conviction and the commitment expressed for the workers and the enterprises, for us to create the biggest possible pie for Singapore. I also want to thank tripartite partners who have been on this journey every step of the way: MOM, SNEF and all our different partners.

Mr Speaker, with that, let me close – after seven hours and 18 minutes. I am deeply appreciative, finally, of Mr Sharael Taha's sharing of his experience with labour movements overseas, and his insight that a lack of tripartite trust in their system prevents innovation and change even when this change is most needed. I thank him for highlighting the uniqueness of our tripartite model, where our unions not only protect workers, but focus on keeping them relevant, employable and ready to seize opportunities.

Our tripartite model works because it is based on trust. Even among our own tripartite partners, when there are different views and priorities, we evolve our conversations. We work through differences to find win-win positions that are in the best interest of Singapore and our workers. It is not about labour versus capital, workers against employers, or one group advancing at the expense of the other. Transformation in the AI era can be win-win, and our tripartite model in the AI era will ensure this.

AI is fast-evolving and we do not have all the answers today. Its full impact on jobs and businesses will continue to unfold. We may not agree with every "how", but we must set the right direction, and at the same time, know with humility that we are innovating and experimenting with pathways forward in this era.

We have forged a firm commitment – to keep our workers and enterprises at the heart of national efforts to seize new opportunities brought about by AI. And in this Chamber, now it sends a clear signal to every worker – blue- and white-collared alike – this House stands with you.

With this House standing united, I am fully confident that we can strengthen our plans and responses at this stage of the AI-enabled growth. Together with enabled enterprises, we will forge "Tripartism in the AI-era" for win-win outcomes as we have done before – in Singapore, for Singaporeans. Not AI instead of workers. But AI that works for workers. Because in Singapore, Every Worker Matters.

Mr Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support the Motion as it stands. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

7.21 pm Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song : Sir, I thank Mr Ng Chee Meng for acknowledging my OJT proposal. I am aware of the work of CTCs, but my proposal goes beyond what the CTCs currently provide.

First is the depth of the wage support, and second is the structural design of OJT. While the CTC grant can support training fees and process redesign, its primary lever still remains project-based capital expenditure. It does not provide the aggressive six-month salary subsidy required to derisk the transition for an employer when a worker's productivity temporarily drops because of intensive AI training. And many SMEs currently lack the internal capacity to design effective structured OJT, so my proposal provides the necessary, what we call, "design brains" through a dedicated pool of expert OJT consultants to ensure that the mastery that they achieve is both practical and is not just administrative.

Mr Ng Chee Meng : I note the intent of the OJT and agree with the objectives behind the proposal, and it will be studied, considered in our NTUC's work, even as we chart possibilities in career counselling for the youths, and do possible pathways to innovate with the IHLs in career guidance and matches into internship and other possibilities.

I will note the point raised and see if we can fulfil the intent, while maybe have variations on the specific pathways.

7.23 pm Mr Speaker : I do not see any more hands and indeed, after 24 speeches and over seven and a half hours, let me put the question to the House.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That this House – (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) 2. Emphasises that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all; (proc text)]

[(proc text) 3. Resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and (proc text)]

[(proc text) 4. Affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters." – [Mr Ng Chee Meng] (proc text)]