포용적이고 안전한 디지털 사회 구축

1.31 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson) : Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House reaffirms our commitment to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society."

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Alex Yam. (proc text)]

Speaker, Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Communications and Information, comprising People's Action Party Members of Parliament Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh and me as the GPC Chair, is moving this Motion as Singapore comes to a point in our national trajectory towards digitalisation where we must confront challenges that could erode trust in institutions and individuals pivotal to our nation's success and cohesion.

Singapore has always been unafraid of transformations. Over a relatively short period post-Independence, we transformed from a traditional, domestically focused economy to export-led industrialisation facilitated by multinational corporations. Subsequently, Singapore strategically pivoted towards developing modern services and made substantial investments in emerging sectors like biomedical industries. Singapore also invests heavily in building up our infrastructure ahead of time so that when the wave arrives, we are ready to ride it.

This forward-thinking approach, combined with the courage to explore uncharted territories, has proven successful, bolstered by a united and high-trust population. Our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita grew from US$500 in 1965 to US$13,000 in 1990 and to US$83,000 in 2022. Going digital is a reality around the world and it is imperative for Singapore. As it is, our digital economy contributed 17.3% to our GDP in 2022, up from 13% in 2017.

As we continue to transform and embrace the opportunities presented by digital transformation and immerse ourselves in the digital realm for our daily activities, we are confronted with a growing set of challenges. The digital landscape is becoming increasingly perilous, marked by the surge in online harms such as scams, ransomware, deep fakes, misinformation and other malicious cyber activities. Compounded by rapidly evolving tactics, the situation poses a constant challenge.

Much like cockroaches, scams often operate in the dark corners of the digital realm, exploiting vulnerabilities and thriving in unsuspecting spaces. They are agile, quick to evolve and adept at camouflaging themselves, making it challenging to eradicate them entirely. Similarly, just as we believe that we figured out the latest scamming trick, new and more sophisticated threats emerge.

The rising prevalence of scams demonstrates this. Reported cases reached 31,728 in 2022, marking a 32.6% increase compared to 2021. Between January and August 2023, losses due to malware scams exceeded $20.6 million.

Notably, a global study reveals that Singapore, unfortunately, bears a significant brunt, with scam victims in the country experiencing an average loss of US$4,031 per individual. This could be a substantial loss of hard-earned savings for some Singaporeans.

In MacPherson, I have encountered several residents who were victims of scams. In late 2021, one young resident, Ms Tan, shared about how she and others lost money to fraudulent transactions on her credit card when she did not receive or provide to anyone her one-time password (OTP).

Quoting her, "Even without evidence that the consumers have received the OTP sent by the banks, that is, through a history of incoming message from the telco, banks requested customers to make payment for the fraudulent transactions without investigating whether the OTPs could have been diverted. Frustrated by their disadvantageous position in dispute against banks, consumers oftentimes bear the burden of making up to five-figure payments for these transactions."

As an ordinary citizen and consumer, it is typically difficult to retrieve information or history of SMSes from the telecommunications company (telco) and the victim usually finds themselves to and fro between the bank, telco, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Police.

In another example, I met my elderly resident, Mr Yee, who fell prey online to an investment scheme supposedly endorsed by then Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He did not understand how credit card transactions work online and consequently was charged several thousand dollars in fraudulent credit card bills, which he could ill-afford as he only had a few hundred dollars left in his savings account. He was under tremendous stress as he was frail and worried that he will lose everything.

We managed to get the bank to waive it, given his dire circumstances, but how many such goodwill write-offs are possible?

These are just some of the notable cases that I have come across in MacPherson and I am certain my Parliamentary colleagues have many similar examples as well. Such cases are compelling motivation for us to move this Motion.

Moreover, the escalating global artificial intelligence (AI) arms race raises concerns about potential compromises on ethical considerations as powerful technology companies prioritise winning at all costs. This heightened competition may lead to a disregard for addressing social disparities, including the widening gap between the digitally know-how and the digitally know-nots, exacerbating divisions within the population.

Additionally, if institutions solely concentrate on leveraging AI or any emerging technology for enhanced productivity without concurrently investing in workforce training and re-training initiatives, ordinary citizens could grow fearful of what we will lose more than being hopeful of what we can gain from technological advancements as a society. This fear, in turn, can impede Singapore's progress.

The trustworthiness of critical infrastructures and essential services also plays a role in shaping public confidence towards the security of their personal data. With 99% of resident households in Singapore connected to the Internet, we have one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world. This is testament to Singapore's progress, but it also means that we are all the more susceptible to online threats.

DBS' repeated digital service disruptions in 2023, Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings lost to Android malware scams and personal data breaches in public healthcare – these incidents affected a significant portion of our population and in turn, affect the public's trust in the digital. These issues, if left to fester, will undermine trust.

Not being able to trust every information received, every transaction made, every voice heard and every image seen is paralysing. Trust is fundamental in a society as there will inevitably be difficult times when individuals need to be willing to temporarily sacrifice individual interests in favour of collective societal benefits. Trust is important for value-creating transactions to happen, for creative ideas to be shared and not be suppressed.

Hence, if we do not make a clear stand and actively manage these issues, we risk losing the public's trust in the digital world, thereby losing out on the benefits of convenience to citizens and benefits of productivity and innovation for our national economy.

Against this backdrop, we decided to move this Motion to reaffirm this House's commitment to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society.

At the onset of this speech, I have explained the context for why we have moved this Motion. I have also emphasised why trust is important and strengthening trust in a digital society must be the end goal of this Motion. Allow me to elaborate on the "safe" and "inclusive" tenets of this Motion.

On "safe", a safe online environment is crucial for building trust in a digital society because it directly influences people's confidence and willingness to engage in digital transactions and interactions.

Underlying a safe online environment are: number one, trust in digital transactions

First, we need reliable digital infrastructure so as to provide the foundation for secure, reliable and accessible digital services.

Unreliable systems, frequent outages or vulnerabilities in the infrastructure make users skeptical about the security of their transactions, hindering the growth of digital trust. Thus, the organisations across all sectors must intentionally and systematically incorporate measures and practices that prioritise and enhance trust throughout the entire digital transaction process.

Second, we need to combat scams and fraudulent activities swiftly and effectively. Scams erode trust by exploiting unsuspecting users, leading to financial losses and undermining confidence in digital transactions.

Number two, addressing cyber threats. Cybersecurity threats, such as data breaches and identity theft via malwares, contribute to fear and suspicion among users. Privacy breaches and unauthorised access to personal information can also make individuals hesitant to engage in digital activities. Hence, we must ensure that related policies and capabilities continually evolve to keep up with the rampant and fast-changing threats online.

Number three, countering online harms. Online harms, including cyberbullying and harassment, have real-life consequences on individuals' mental health and well-being, hampering their potential. Further, vulnerable groups, such as children and the elderly, are particularly susceptible to online harms. Hence, we must promote respectful and responsible behaviours and implement measures that protect vulnerable groups from exploitation, thereby fostering trust among users of all demographics.

Number four, meaningful human connections. The interconnectedness of online and physical worlds often influence real-life relationships. We should focus on creating more positive online experiences so that human connections remain meaningful even as we go digital.

And number five, digital inclusion. Ultimately, people will be keener to participate if they feel safe. Hence, we must create a safe online space that allows broad-based participation if we are to achieve a truly inclusive digital society.

In short, a safe online environment is a cornerstone of building trust in a digital society. This trust, in turn, contributes to the growth and success of the digital ecosystem, positively impacting both online and offline aspects of individuals' lives.

Moving on to "inclusive", inclusivity builds trust in a digital society as it ensures that the benefits of digitalisation are accessible to all, fostering a sense of fairness, equity and shared progress.

Key to this include: number one, access to essential services. As essential services such as Government, healthcare, finance and telco services increasingly transition to digital platforms, these must remain accessible to everyone.

Number two, digital skills empowerment and closing social gaps. We must empower our citizens with digital access and the right skills for active participation in the digital society. We must be mindful of not creating new gaps between the digitally savvy and those who are not. By doing so, individuals, including the vulnerable, can gain the confidence to navigate digital platforms, reducing the digital divide and fostering trust in their ability to engage with digital technologies.

Number three, workplace evolution for all ages. We must evolve jobs and workplaces to keep up with the fast-changing digital landscape, whilst ensuring the workforce continues to have the right skill sets, so that everyone can contribute meaningfully, regardless of age or background.

Number four, enhancing citizen participation. We must ensure that digital platforms and environments are safe, kind and respectful as I have had earlier articulated, so that citizens are not denied their voice or meaningful online participation for fear of being "cancelled" just because one holds a different view from a vocal few.

And number five, embracing diversity. We must ensure digital interfaces are inclusive by design so that citizens of all ages, languages and physical conditions can comfortably and confidently engage in the digital space.

To achieve a safe and inclusive digital society, everyone needs to play a part. Hence, our GPC for Communications and Information, together with several People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs), have set out 13 calls to action, urging a whole-of-nation approach to make the online space a safer and more inclusive one for all Singaporeans.

I will first cover five calls to action, while my fellow GPC members and PAP MPs will speak in greater depth on the rest.

First, Government to take the lead to set up information-sharing mechanism with the industry, modelled after "Stop Scams UK".

Companies, given the competitive nature, are fundamentally unwilling to cooperate and share information and best practices, which could help with timely interventions or enforcement against scams or digital threats. Ironically, collaboration on this front would have catalysed learning and improvements to their operations and business.

However, companies tend to be more willing to share data and experiences with the Government, which could then anonymise and aggregate such information. Hence, we need a stronger framework for public and private players to share information on scams, to enable faster detection and intervention.

Taking a leaf from the "Stop Scams UK" that allows industry players to share intelligence and collaborate on scam-related initiatives, our Government can and should take the lead in setting up a similar information-sharing mechanism with the industry. My hon colleague Vikram Nair will also touch on this in his speech later.

Second, Government to further integrate expertise and prioritise resources to regulate and enforce online safety. The Singapore Government has done much to combat scams and online harms, from legislation updates, introduction of codes to introducing new tools for companies' and public's use.

It is also encouraging to note the establishment of Anti-Scam Command in 2022 and co-location of major banks' staff with the Police to facilitate scam detection and reporting. But the broader efforts in combatting scams and online harms still necessitate extensive coordination across various Government agencies and departments, and private institutions, such as banks and telcos, which may have varying mandates and resource priorities.

Hence, there is scope for further integration of expertise and resource prioritisation in regulating and enforcing online safety. My hon colleague Yip Hon Weng will further touch on this and specifically on stakeholder coordination later in his speech.

Third, device manufacturers and digital service providers to strengthen safeguards against malware and ensure their offerings are safe by design and default. We have seen an increase in prevalence of scams enabled by malware on users' mobile devices. These malware threats are difficult for everyday citizens to detect. Even with public education, it will be difficult for individuals to know if their phones and devices have been compromised. Even someone who is in the tech industry will find it difficult to know.

Therefore, device manufacturers and digital service providers should be proactive in informing consumers of vulnerabilities detected and in strengthening their safeguards against malware to ensure that their offerings are safe by design and default. From another perspective, greater transparency and evident efforts in enhancing safe use will bolster customer confidence and drive sales. So, it is a win-win.

Fourth, banks and e-commerce platforms to adopt stronger authentication solutions like the Fast Identity Online (FIDO) passkeys to keep our accounts secure.

Many digital service providers continue to use authentication methods, such as traditional passwords that are vulnerable to phishing. As bad actors evolve their methods, banks and e-commerce platforms with their powerful tech capabilities have a responsibility in keeping their customers' accounts secure and should thus be adopting phishing-resistant authentication, such as FIDO passkeys.

Fifth, everyone can play their part in making Singapore's digital society safe, gracious and inclusive. As we spend more time online, the digital and physical worlds are converging and our actions in either realm can have a profound impact on the other. Ultimately, we should ask ourselves what kind of environment do we desire to see in the digital world? If we desire safety, inclusiveness, kindness and respect in the real world, we should also aspire to create the same online. Why should the digital world be any different from the real one? My hon colleague Vikram Nair will also speak on this later.

As my hon colleagues engage in deeper discussions on online harms later in their speeches, I wish to highlight the need to ensure a safe space for freedom of ideas and expression online. The Internet has the power to amplify the voices of a vocal few. If this ability becomes misguided, it risks drowning out or cancelling others who hold a different opinion or who are, simply, different. Hence, this call of action calls on every one of us to continue upholding the values of kindness and respect online and offline, to look beyond ourselves and reach out to others who may be in need of help.

Following my opening speech, the remaining speeches by our PAP MPs will focus on the remaining eight calls of actions. Allow me to briefly list them.

Holding social media services accountable for the proliferation of harmful content and malicious ads. My hon colleagues Nadia Samdin, Wan Rizal and Mariam Jaafar will be covering this.

Next, reviewing the approach to victims of scams by unauthorised transactions, with larger players doing more to prevent losses and share consequences. My hon colleagues Hany Soh and Yip Hon Weng will also be covering this.

Requiring social media services and app distribution services to step up age assurance measures to better protect young users from harmful content. My hon colleague, Nadia Samdin will be speaking on this.

Requiring social media services and app distribution services to improve timeliness in responding to user reports on harmful content on their platforms. My hon colleague Nadia Samdin will also be covering this.

Requiring essential service providers to ensure accessibility for all. My colleagues Jessica Tan, Nadia Samdin and Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this.

Driving corporates and community organisations to promote awareness of essential digital skills and partner public sector to help close digital skill gaps. My hon colleagues Jessica Tan, Hany Soh, Sharael Taha and Mariam Jaafar will be speaking on this.

Driving stronger partnerships between public, private and individuals to deepen focus on educating our young and old on digital literacy, scams and online harms. My hon colleagues Darryl David, Wan Rizal, Sharael Taha and Yip Hon Weng will be speaking on this.

And finally, strengthening efforts in establishing future-ready workplaces for a more digitally-savvy workforce. My hon colleague Sharael Taha will also be speaking on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Since Independence, Singapore has always been fearless in breaking through the status quo, and daring to transform and reform over the relatively few decades.

Our country has evolved from a traditional economy primarily focused on domestic sectors to an export-oriented industrialisation driven by multinational corporations (MNCs) and then to the development of modern service industries and investment emerging sector to maintain our competitiveness.

Singapore has also made forward-looking investments in infrastructure development, enabling it to seize opportunities as they arise.

Coupled with unity, high trust and cooperation of its people, Singapore has been able to reach where it is today.

However, the increasing opportunities brought about by a digital transformation, we have also faced increasingly severe challenges.

Cyber threats, such as scams, ransomware, deep fakes and misinformation are rapidly on the rise, significantly increasing the risks in the digital environment.

As the saying goes, the higher the level, the greater the devil.

These cyber threats are like cockroaches that will never say die.

Furthermore, the escalating global competition in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised concerns about potential ethical compromises.

Powerful technology companies may prioritise winning the competition at all costs and this potentially leads neglecting social disparities.

Additionally, the credibility of critical infrastructure and essential services can also affect the public's confidence in their personal data security.

If left unchecked, these issues will erode trust. People will not be able to trust every piece of information they receive, every transaction they conduct, every voice heard and every image seen.

This is a worrying scenario. How do we live on? How do we proceed?

Of course, there are no absolutes in the world and in the real world, nothing is perfect.

In real life, we do not refrain from leaving our homes for fear of encountering accidents.

However, trust is a key factor in building the foundation of society as difficulties are inevitable in life.

During these times, we may need to temporarily sacrifice personal interest in exchange for the collective interests of society.

Trust is also important in conducting transactions that create value and sharing ideas.

Therefore, if we do not clearly set our position and actively address these issues, we may lose trust in the public in the area of digital technology, resulting in the loss of convenience for the people, as well as productivity and innovation benefits for our economy.

In this context, I and the Members of Parliament from the PAP, have decided to propose this Motion, presenting 13 calls to action to reaffirm Parliament's commitment to build an inclusive and safe digital society through the combined efforts of the Government, businesses and the people to sustain trust.

( In English ): As technology continues to develop, new methods of scams and cyber threats will also emerge. We may not be able to totally stamp out such risks or threats as they are like cockroaches. But if we can do more, if everyone is willing to take on a larger share of the responsibility, we can protect more people and reduce the harms or damage to the ordinary citizen.

In conclusion, to sustain trust and build an inclusive, safe digital society in Singapore, cannot be the responsibility of a single Government, entity or individual. As Singapore continues to advance towards a digital society, public and private stakeholders must collaborate as a whole-of-nation to manage the risks, address the challenges and help each other thrive in the digital future. Sir, I beg to move. [ Applause. ]

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

Mr Speaker : Ms Sylvia Lim.

1.58 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied) : Mr Speaker, my topic today is about restoring trust in the digital arena to tackle a crisis of confidence. On restoring trust, I will touch on scams and AI.

First, scams. I read with interest about an interview given by Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) Minister Josephine Teo to Lianhe Zaobao in December on MCI's priorities for this year. Among other things, she underscored the urgent and pressing need to restore confidence in the digital space and telecommunications.

On scams and in particular scams through phone calls, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has revealed that out of the 1.6 billion international calls received in Singapore each year, about a quarter or 300 million were suspected to be scam calls and were blocked by telcos in the first nine months of last year.

To block 300 million calls is a staggering statistic. But I would surmise that many other scam calls would have gotten through. Our parents, residents and we ourselves are all in the pool of potential victims.

Since I spoke this House in mid-September on scam losses and doing right by bank customers, the landscape has evolved further.

On the positive side. I note that banks appear to be taking more steps to prevent scams and to stop scams in progress. I cannot over-emphasise why banks of all people need to do this. Banks are making healthy profits and have the resources and expertise to do more to protect and detect scams.

At the same time, the modus operandi of scammers has continued to evolve and leverage on victim psyche. From impersonating Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and bank officers, they now impersonate officers from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Phishing scams involving Paylah! have been effective in spoofing SMS messages typically sent by DBS Bank.

On New Year's Day this year, I, too, received the SMS about the withdrawal of $289 from my Paylah! account and a link to stop the transaction if it was unauthorised. As I was in the midst of some work then, I did not scrutinise the message carefully and clicked on the link to stop the transaction. The link then brought me to a page to enter my banking credentials, whereupon I had my Eureka moment and stopped in my tracks.

Not so fortunate were some residents who received the same SMS who then came to the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) in desperation. All in all, I have to conclude that these organised criminals must have very good consultants.

Even modes of savings we thought were very safe, like our Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies and fixed deposits, are not safe against scams and malware. This is leading to a change in thinking about digital transactions.

On this, I note that the "money lock" options now offered by the three local banks are a practical feature to ringfence funds that can only be withdrawn by a physical visit to the bank. I myself have opted for this. But from a helicopter perspective, "money lock" is actually a concession that the digital space is not that safe.

I would not like to exaggerate the situation but I would say that we are moving towards a crisis of confidence in digital banking, without stronger intervention by Government regulators.

Of course, customers need to do their part. Customers need to be wary and alert to prevent being scammed. However, we should be ever mindful not to expect too much from the public. As stated in a Straits Times Forum page letter on 22 September, it is not always possible for people to be on full alert against scams as one's level of alertness could be affected by multi-tasking, stress, fatigue or medication.

According to the IMDA's Singapore Digital Society Report last November, 78% of seniors over 60 used e-payments for online transactions but only 44% of the same group was moderately confident about identifying scams. Ninety-nine percent were worried about becoming victims of scams. These numbers show that the threat of scams is very real and that more needs to be done.

Sir, I acknowledge that the Government is working on restoring confidence in the digital space. The MAS has been working on further regulating banks and more must be done on prevention and loss sharing. I have spoken on this previously and shall not repeat myself today. I have also made a submission to the MAS on the risk-sharing framework for scam losses.

Sir, given the unequal bargaining power between banks and consumers, the MAS should be mindful that the public look to it as the bank regulator to ensure that banks behave responsibly and ethically.

Over the last few months, I have received skeptical feedback from some members of the public that the banks' interests will always be protected at the expense of the customer. I hope that the MAS will demonstrate that this is not true.

On the more general issue of digital communications and services, I acknowledge the potential of the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to prevent scams. Among other powers, the OCHA will enable law enforcement to proactively issue orders such as access blocking directions and app removal directions to require internet service providers to protect the public from scams and other malicious cyber activity. On OCHA, it would be good to know when all the provisions will be effective.

In addition, I note the announcement by the Minister for Communications and Information on the setting up of a multi-agency group called the Task Force on Resilience and Security of Digital Infrastructure and Services – what I call the RSD task force. The work of the RSD task force is set to oversee matters of public confidence in the country's digital services.

While the set-up of the RSD task force is an important development, I note that its stated composition does not mention any representative from the MAS. Since banking is such a big part of digital infrastructure and services, should MAS not be on the task force?

Sir, my colleagues, Jamus Lim and Gerald Giam will elaborate more on scams and the sharing of responsibility later. I move on to artificial intelligence.

Twenty twenty three is generally hailed as the year when ChatGPT came into the world's consciousness and everyone started exploring its potential. The focus is now shifting to how AI tools can be deployed at scale as AI develops in sophistication. From asking AI to carry out a specific task, AI tools have gone from classification AI to generative AI where content is created, like mimicking voices of loved ones. It has further developed into interactive AI where AI tools can interact with humans to reason and arrive at watershed decisions affecting work and personal lives.

Last year, the Government published Singapore's National AI Strategy 2.0. In it, the report acknowledged both the vast potential of AI to do both good and bad. The bad aspects included how AI could amplify harms such as enabling scams using deepfakes, spreading this information and others.

According to CNA, the prevalence of deepfake videos in Singapore jumped 500% in 2023 compared to the previous year. We should be acutely aware of AI's pitfalls and the need for AI regulation to ensure that Singaporeans remain safe online.

Sir, I believe the Government is closely watching for the potential pitfalls of AI. It has set up the AI Verify Foundation, which published a discussion paper last year entitled, "Generative AI: Implications for Trust and Governance". The paper was stated to be targeted at senior leaders in Government and business, advocating for more discourse and collaboration on building an ecosystem for the trusted and responsible adoption of generative AI. Among the emergent risks of generative AI listed by the paper were the making of mistakes, copyright infringements and the spreading of toxicity and cyber threats. Apart from these emergent risks, the fact that AI will lead to drop losses and disinformation alone will erode public trust in the digital arena.

Across the world, the fundamental question of whether human beings really want to go further with AI is being asked. There is growing concern about creating more powerful AI tools that may replace the human function and even control human interactions. The concern comes from those in the AI industry as well.

For instance, there is a non-profit organisation based in the United States (US) called the Future of Life Institute. Its multidisciplinary international team engages in policy work aimed at improving AI governance. In March this year, the institute launched a petition calling for a pause in AI development beyond GPT-4. The petition gathered more than 33,000 signatures, including those of CEOs of AI companies.

Some of the big questions identified for reflection include the following questions: (a) whether we should let machines flood our information channels with possible propaganda and untruth; (b) whether we should automate away all jobs including, the fulfilling ones; and (c) whether we should develop non-human minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart and replace us.

Other prominent thinkers have cautioned that reliance on AI tools to process information and to think may result in the potential loss of human reasoning and analytical ability. Speaking for myself, I must say that the thought of major decision-making in the world being outsourced to AI tools is simply unacceptable.

Moving forward, the need to harness AI and yet ensure humans are in charge will be the big challenge. Technology should be our servants and not our masters. We should take time to reflect on what is happening and not let technology run away unbridled with us in toll. To this end, having effective regulation for AI will require the Government to invest in constant capacity building.

Sir, let me conclude. My speech today was on restoring trust in the digital arena. I have highlighted that online scams and the risk of AI have put trust under a microscope. The Motion today posits that a whole-of-nation approach should be taken to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society. I am able to support the Motion as I agree that everyone has a role to play.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I have stated, my view is that it is incumbent upon the Government and businesses to spearhead this effort.

Mr Speaker : Dr Tan Wu Meng.

2.10 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong) : Mr Speaker, I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate and speak, but a number of Clementi residents had been sharing about the timeliness of this Motion and I feel I should just share a couple of perspectives.

I will speak today about the consumer protection angle to scams and secondly, more broadly, on the landscape in the age of AI and Singapore's survivability.

Firstly, on the issue of scams. There is, I would say, agreement on all sides of the House that it is a serious issue, especially in the era of digital banking, where senior citizens who grew up in a world of face-to-face counter transactions now can have their bank accounts and life savings depleted at the click of the device by a scammer far away, outside of Singapore.

This is a serious issue, especially in societies such as Singapore, where we progressed rapidly from third world to first and seniors growing up in the pre-digital era today exist in a world of digital access and digital technology. That is the first point about consumer protection.

Even as Members on both sides of the House call for additional measures to scrutinise how banks treat their customers, I would like to once again call upon the MAS and the relevant authorities, to call upon and make the point I have raised previously in this House on multiple occasions, which is that there needs to be a consumer protection approach to scams involving banking customers who get scammed out of their savings online.

In recent times, there have been efforts by the MAS – initially called the risk sharing framework or risk allocation framework, depending on how commentators look at it. But the key point has to be this: the norms that we approach consumer safety in banking, the approach to consumer safety for banking should not be too different from consumer safety in other more tangible areas of the marketplace.

As I shared to the Minister of State from MAS not too long ago, if today, a company had a consumer product and if somebody could be tricked by a stranger into configuring that product wrongly so that there was either bodily harm or damage to property resulting in the loss of someone's entire life savings, we know what the consumer protection approach would be.

We see that with vehicles, where if there is a design flow in the vehicle that predisposes to human error or catastrophic outcomes of human error, that vehicle has to recall, that manufacturer is dealt with in a very serious way.

Yesterday, in a written question to the Minister for Communications and Information on operating systems, what was quite notable was that a certain operating system accounted for virtually all of the online banking scams made known to the Police, while a certain different operating system did not figure very much in the figures reported in that Parliamentary written answer. So, again, we see quite a different situation between these consumer products.

Once again, I call upon this Government to take a consumer protection focus and make sure that manufacturers as well as service providers, including financial institutions, are held accountable in a way that is not too different from other sectors of society.

If your family owns a car and there is a design issue leading to bodily harm or loss of your life savings, you know what the manufacturer must do. If there is a home appliance in your kitchen and someone can trick you into pressing the wrong button so that someone is injured and loses their life savings along the way, you know what the approach will be when it comes to that home appliance.

I call upon this Government, MAS and the other agencies to take a hard look at the financial institutions and banks and ask: are the banks and telcos and technology firms shouldering enough responsibility in the digital world that tangible goods providers shoulder in the physical world? So, that is the first part of my speech, Mr Speaker.

The second part of my speech will be on the age of AI and what Singapore needs to do to adapt. I spoke on this last year, during the debate on the President's Address. Early last year, I spoke on the age of AI and it was a humbling moment, because after the speech was delivered and it got a little bit of viral traction online, I think, just a little bit over 100,000 people around the world watched it – not that many. But we started getting emails, messages, from people around the world. Someone from the USA wrote to me, someone from Africa wrote in as well and it touched a chord. But this is not about that speech. It is about what Singapore represents to the world. When people see our Parliamentarians, whether our Ministers, office holders, whether our backbenchers of various persuasions, looking to the future about what the world will be like, people look at what Singapore is thinking about and they want us to try and find the way forward as well.

And so, on the issue of AI and the issue of deepfakes, I have a few suggestions as well for the Government to consider. Some I have put forward before in Parliamentary Questions and in my speeches, but let me just reiterate again.

The issue of deepfakes is going to be a serious matter for democracies around the world – because if we can no longer discern easily what is real and not real, you cannot even have a functioning democracy. No government, regardless of which political party they come from, will be able to govern in any country without that fundamental basis for deliberative, democratic discussion.

That means, as a society, we need to deal with this pre-emptively. The Prime Minister not too long ago, in a Facebook post, talked about how there was a deepfake of him trying to sell certain investment products, a fake video. But that is just deepfake 1.0. Project that forward three, five years, 10 years, with more computing power, you can imagine how authentic those deepfakes are going to be. Therefore, as a society and as a government, we must not shy away from moving pre-emptively to address the issue of deepfakes.

I have called upon this Government to look at ways of electronically watermarking content, so called "proof of human", whether it is proof of human when someone transacts with an AI bot, with a tech firm online that may be giving answers by AI, but the broader point is that we need ways to confirm that the content is real and is a human.

We also need to continue moving upstream, a point which I made to the Education Minister yesterday in Question Time. From young, we will have to continue training and teaching and bringing up our young Singaporeans, our children and grandchildren, to be even more aware of deepfakes and how subtle they can be.

In short, as a young Clementi friend not too long ago, this young Clementi friend was sharing about his worry about deepfakes, saying, "You know, look, some of these look a bit sus", suspicious. But the whole point is, the first step is to have that healthy scepticism to sense when something might be a bit "sus". To sense, while at the same time not losing faith in society being able to move forward.

It is of course, a whole-of-Government effort, there needs to be many ways to look at it, education, regulation, social norms, making sure tech firms are held accountable as well. But we need to move on this very quickly because by the time the genie is completely out of the bottle, the horse has bolted, it is much harder to rebuild these norms and reconstruct the democratic process in our society.

So, in summary, Mr Speaker, just two key points, but fundamentally about seeing through the eyes of our people.

The first, seeing through the eyes of our consumers and making sure that firms in the digital space and in the financial sector, retail banking services, they treat consumer protection the same way online as we would treat consumer protection for an offline tangible product in the home, around the home.

Secondly, likewise seeing through the eyes of our people in a world where we have to cope with deepfakes, training, educating our people to see better, so that we can safeguard this very precious idea that is Singapore, in a world that is continually being disrupted by AI.

One last point I wanted to make is that we need to double down our investments in AI capability in our Government and in our industry as well. There has been mention of the AI roadmap version 2.0, but sometimes let us also ask ourselves, can we have even higher levels of ambition?

From public domain information, if I recall correctly, not too long ago, I think less than a decade ago, Microsoft pumped $1 billion investment into OpenAI. It seemed like a big amount then, but in hindsight, it seems like it was a quite a good deal at the time, given what OpenAI grew into. This also links to a point I made a few years back during a Budget debate. Sometimes when we invest ahead of the market, invest in certain technological capabilities which may see tenuous today, but which could have high yields tomorrow, it means that we are able to get those dividends later on.

Many of the big tech firms today, whether Apple, Google, Meta, back then known as Facebook, would not have seemed sure bet investments in their very early years. But those who were willing to make those bets yielded substantial dividends and today our tech powerhouses.

So, let us think about that as we move into the next phase of AI, the next phase of tech in the digital world for Singapore. What investments can we bet on that may seem tenuous today but which could put Singapore in a position to be a world power of such capabilities in years ahead.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I stand in support of the Motion by Ms Tin Pei Ling. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker : Ms Jessica Tan.

2.22 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast) : Mr Speaker, our GPC for Communications and Information is advocating for commitment of all stakeholders to build an inclusive and safe digital society as the pace of technological advancements has changed how we live, work and play. These changes have enabled ease and speed of access, ability to connect or interact, bringing benefits as well as new capabilities and opportunities.

As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital connectivity enabled people to continue to access timely information, services and to communicate. Businesses and work could continue – albeit virtually.

Increasingly, access to many services for living are digital. From everyday tasks such as booking a taxi or private hire car, ordering food or making a restaurant reservation, making payments, getting information or directions, to accessing and transacting Government services and banking transactions. Even to get discounts requires you to scan a QR code or go online. For some organisations, job applications and interviews are done online. The latest news is availably digitally as soon as it happens or even as it happens.

If an individual is digitally excluded, he or she will not get timely information, services and its benefits. It is therefore important to ensure that no one is left behind as we become increasingly digital.

While it is encouraging to see in the Singapore Digital Society (SGDS) Report 2023 that 99% of households in Singapore have Internet access and there is a higher adoption of digital technology and skills even amongst seniors. However, a study by IMDA showed that while Singaporeans are more willing to try new technologies, only 55% of those aged 18 and above and 24% of seniors know how to use devices and applications with emerging technologies such as voice recognition, virtual or augmented realities.

Singapore takes a digital first but not digital-only approach as a central organising principle to harness the innovation potential and productivity but still ensuring that those who may not be comfortable with using digital technologies not be excluded from essential services.

But while we continue to provide non-digital options, we must work to encourage and enable as many as possible to participate digitally. If we do not, what it will mean in a digital first but not digital only society is that those who do not use digital will miss out on the ease, timeliness and benefits that digital can offer.

Let us just take a simple example of the collection of the Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers to illustrate the point. You can get the physical CDC vouchers by going to a community club (CC). To do so, you will be required to make time to go to the CC when it is open. If you are lucky, there is no queue and you do not have to wait in line to get you CDC vouchers at the CC before you can use them. If instead you "collect" your CDC vouchers online using your Singpass, it would take you a minute or even less and you can proceed to use your CDC vouchers.

The point applies to many other transactions that we do like banking. You can go to the bank to get your transactions done which requires travel and time. It also has to be done during the opening hours of the bank. With online banking, you can do so anytime, from wherever you are.

This now brings me to the critical point of digital safety and resilience which impacts trust and adoption. You heard from all the previous speakers about the concerns, the risks, the dangers. But I would like to just make a few points on this.

Digital inclusion is more than access. It must be accompanied with the ability to use digital technologies effectively and safely and trust in the security and resilience of the digital environment and the platform in order for someone to really benefit from it. This includes important skills to stay safe online such as how to interact safely, how to protect your personal privacy online and how to effectively search for and discern information.

The increasing use of new technologies does have its risks and safeguards against cyber risks, scams and misinformation is vital to increase building confidence and trust.

With the increasing use of sophisticated technologies and tools by scammers, the number of persons affected by and amounts lost to scams is significant. Of particular concern are unauthorised transactions.

While there are measures including legislation that have been introduced to safeguard the online space from harmful content and Government agencies continue to implement strategies with critical services and digital platform providers to prevent, detect and recover monies lost to scammers, more still needs to be done to secure digital transactions and online transactions and protect vulnerable users.

When we think of vulnerable users, we tend to think of seniors and those less digitally savvy. Sadly, I have had both seniors who lost their life savings to scams as well as younger individuals who had been scammed, approach me for assistance.

Recently, a young resident in her 20s came to see me for help as she had worked hard to save her money, and had spent a few years building up her savings, but as a result of an online transaction she made, unfortunately she lost all her savings. To add to it, she had her bank account details and credit card credentials stolen which resulted in unauthorised credit card payments as well.

Basically, what it means is that with the new technologies and sophisticated tools, user digital literacy will not be sufficient to safeguard against digital risks. We must put more demands on Government, on platform players, telcos and device manufacturers to do more to improve the standards of security to enhance online safety of users on their platforms and for their services.

But as we talk about the dangers and risks, there are also opportunities. As we put more demands on all the larger players, and the key players and stakeholders, I will say that there is also an opportunity for platform and service players in Singapore. Singapore is an advanced market with high levels of connectivity, as I have shared earlier, and also high levels of residents owning smartphones. The number of seniors owning smartphones has increased to 89%, as per the report I cited earlier. This provides platform and service players an opportunity to use Singapore as a base for innovation to apply and showcase higher standards of security. I do urge all players to do this, because as the Government pushes the measures, if all players come together, it will be a great opportunity for us to try new things, as Dr Tan Wu Meng had said, to really make Singapore that showcase to bring trust and confidence back in the digital space.

As I have mentioned, it is key to building trust and confidence for digital adoption. I just want to make another point that, the Singapore Digital Society (SGDS) Report 2023 did say that 55% of Singaporeans aged 15 and above are willing to accept the risks that come with the use of technology and only 33% amongst those aged 60 and older. So, people are aware of the risks. But what we now need to do is to manage that.

So, let me now also talk about the role of users and public education. Industry players and Government play a big role to strengthen digital safety and security and digital literacy of persons using these applications and online systems. Public education and efforts to equip people with digital literacy, especially for certain segments like seniors and vulnerable segments, have been effective and have helped adoption. But more needs to be done and more efforts need to be continual because the digital space does not stay static.

But, I do want to make a point about each of us and the role that we have to play. We do need to remind ourselves that what we do to protect ourselves in our physical interactions should also be practised digitally. Take, for example, in our physical lives, before we let someone enter our homes, we would check on who they are and we would not let anyone suspicious or someone we do not know into our homes. We would not give our NRIC details, bank account information or ATM card to anyone we do not know or trust. These same principles and practices must be applied when we are online and using our digital devices and applications. Otherwise, no matter what measures and legislation are in place to improve digital safety and security, they would not be able to protect us in our digital transactions. So, we all have to do our part.

Let me now touch on a few other points.

While digital literacy allows us to transact digitally, one of the areas when people do hit issues with transaction is the ability to get help to resolve these issues can, sometimes, be quite challenging, given how access to support is currently structured. Unless you are a victim of fraud or have been scammed, most helpline numbers provided take quite a bit of navigation. Prioritising support for those who have been scammed is necessary. However, users of digital services when faced with issues during their transaction, do also need support to resolve their transaction issues.

I do agree that it is challenging to resource support given manpower constraints, cost and capacity. But as commercial businesses and Government services become more digital-first, we need to rethink the model of support and find more effective ways to provide timely access to support for users when they encounter issues with their digital transactions. This will reassure and build digital trust and confidence. Especially when transactions involve monies, it can cause anxiety for users, young or old.

I do want to touch on another point about digital inclusion and that is about the ability to participate in opportunities. New areas of technologies, including AI, have the potential to enable new capabilities, cause disruptions, of course, but create new ways of doing things and generating new opportunities.

Singapore continues to have ambitious plans to leverage new technologies to grow and bring benefits to our people and businesses. An example is Singapore's second National AI Strategy (NAIS 2.0), which was recently launched last December by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. It outlines both the opportunities and risks of AI. It outlines also our ambition and commitment to building a trusted and responsible AI ecosystem, driving innovation and growth through AI and empowering our people and businesses to understand and engage with AI. But it will require new governance models as well.

So, my point is, to realise these ambitious plans, we will need people with skillsets in new areas of technology and cybersecurity. Why? It is to build thoughtful design and solutions to really benefit from these new technologies. What it also means is good jobs for Singaporeans. But in order to take advantage of these opportunities will require new skills. Organisations must make investments to support their employees in building new skillsets, educational institutions must prepare our students and those in the workforce for these opportunities, individuals of all ages and career stages must be open to learning and taking on new opportunities. There must be investments by the Government and the private sector to build deep skills.

New technologies will allow for new ways of doing things and this involves more than technologies. We will need new thinking and ideas. And this brings me to a point about a diverse workforce. A diverse workforce will enable organisations to leverage different perspectives, skills and experiences because you need that to develop new ideas to grow and thrive in a digital society. This is possible. On that note, I do want to make a point to employers and organisations that we must tap on the vast pool of wealth and experience of senior workers and bring that into that diverse workforce to enable us to find new ways, both young and old, to create new ways of doing things with technology.

Let me now conclude. While we discuss building an inclusive and safe digital society, core to our Motion is our People. It is not about being a digitally advanced society with the best infrastructure, policies and skills or level of excellence and technology adoption. All these are necessary, but the purpose of an inclusive and safe digital society is to ensure that everyone can actively participate and benefit to make their lives better and that no one is left behind. But in order to achieve this, it will take all of us to do our part to enable an inclusive, trusted and safe digital society.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.37 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang) : Mr Speaker, others in this House, in particular, my hon friend Ms Sylvia Lim, have previously articulated reasons as to why the MAS' Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) is inadequate and unjust.

While I support the Motion as it stands, I will elaborate in my speech today on why, as currently conceived, it remains fundamentally unfair in stark contrast to its stated aim of equitable sharing.

The official press release describing the framework states that, and I quote, "All parties have responsibilities to be vigilant and to take precautions against scams." Financial institutions need to implement robust controls to safeguard customer accounts and to detect and clamp down on suspicious transactions. Customers need to take precautions to not frivolously release their banking credentials and to practise cyber hygiene. Losses would then be assigned according to how far each party falls short of these responsibilities.

All this sounds reasonable on its face. But, in practice, fraud is almost always perpetrated on the weaker link in the chain, in this case, the vulnerable consumer, more often than not, than on the relatively better-equipped and technologically sophisticated bank or telecoms company. Hence, the equitable sharing framework becomes less about fairly distributing losses, but about distributing responsibilities. Losses, when they occur, would appear overwhelmingly borne by the consumer. Put another way, we should only expect the framework to yield equitable outcomes if the fair assignment of responsibilities were all that mattered.

Anyone who has bargained over the price of fish or vegetables at the market or negotiated a salary or a raise with an employer or taken part in discussions over the distribution of chores or workload would know full well how power differentials matter massively and how the altar, how the pie ends up being split.

This is not mere speculation. A large literature on the theory of bargaining shows that those in possession of power, tend to do better in negotiations. In cases where the bargaining is explicitly antagonistic, canonical models suggest that those who are more patient and are able to make the first move possess an advantage.

Even when we allow for the possibility that players see the benefits of cooperation and embed this in their negotiations, the outcome remains heavily conditioned by each party's relative bargaining power. Moreover, those who are better able to walk away tend to do better.

If we look carefully at the two parties involved in negotiating a settlement over fraudulent claims, it is clear who has the greater power, patience and ability to hold firm to their offer, and that is the bank.

Financial institutions are not only larger. If they can simply demonstrate that they have not erred in effecting a fraudulent transfer, they can currently credibly insist on refusing any share of the loss altogether. And write-offs, when they do occur, are typically only a small fraction of the institution's balance sheet.

In stark contrast, scams are often ruinous for the depositor. At the extreme, they could constitute either an individual's entire life savings, or worse, it could saddle an unwitting "mule" with onerous debt. What is the split then that best reflects distributive justice?

While there are variations, many have concluded that a 50/50 split or something close to it, is the only just solution to most bargaining situations. Importantly, the notion of a 50/50 split should not be seen as one where each party takes an equal nominal share. Rather, the notion of an equal split suggests that each is made to bear a burden that is commensurate with what they are able to afford.

This is why the Government needs to step in to empower depositors with a more robust set of laws that offer financial protection to consumers. At the simplest level, these could be laws that limit liability on fraudulent transactions to a pre-specified amount.

I had previously raised this point in a speech on the Financial Services and Markets Bill delivered last year. Here, I will elaborate why doing so will not only help redress the power imbalance between customers and banks, but also why it is fundamentally fair.

Mr Speaker, the Government first shared with this House that it was working on a loss-sharing framework early in 2022. It explained closer to the end of that year that it was taking longer than expected and the release was further postponed in the middle of last year. MAS finally published a joint consultation paper in October, but it was extremely circumscribed to deal only with phishing scams.

Perhaps more importantly, what the framework proposes is to adopt a "waterfall approach", where financial institutions and telecom operators will only bear the full losses when they "fail to discharge their respective prescribed duties" and will not require payouts to be made to consumers if they are deemed to have done so.

Alas, this approach will absolve financial institutions and communications companies from the costs of business, so long as they have done their part. While this does not close the door to other resolution mechanisms, such as the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), it remains too cavalier in apportioning liability in the first instance. SRF is a split based on effort, not outcomes. Put another way, should there be a realised loss, as long as the financial institution or telecom operator can demonstrate that they have satisfied a certain set of obligations – which, to be honest, is not even exhaustive – their loss share will not be half. It would not be a third or even a quarter. It could well be zero. This cannot be fair.

Think of it this way. Imagine that there are two cars driving side-by-side on the road. It is the responsibility of both drivers not to drive beyond the speed limit and to stay in their lanes. Should one car brake suddenly and it is ahead, the following car should always maintain a safe distance. But what if the cars were side-by-side and a child were to run out in front of one of them? If one of them were to swerve to avoid an accident and the other fails to yield, it is hard to say that only one of the cars should bear responsibility for the crash.

Financial fraud, while preventable to a certain extent with sound system design and due diligence, is almost certainly likely to occur, regardless of the best efforts of either party. Much like the analogy that I just shared, there will seldom be clear-cut pinning of blame on one party versus another. If so, it is only fair that both sides bear some of the costs of the loss.

Such a legislative may, of course, seem foolhardy. The standard line trod out by critics is that protecting customers from the consequences of scams must mean that they are less likely to take the necessary precautions to safeguard against falling for them. This is what is often referred to as moral hazard – since one side is protected, one takes less care.

But while I am sympathetic to the argument in principle, a crude application of this theory is problematic. For starters, this kind of argument places too little faith in the agency of Singaporeans. After all, why would anyone wish to fall victim to a scam?

Even if they bore only limited consequences, most of us would take active steps to counteract crime, even when we do not receive a clear pay-off. Furthermore, just as we co-payments in most insurance plans, so long as savers are required to absorb at least some reasonable amount of loss – say, an upper limit of $100 or $500 – then it is hard to claim that the consumer incentives are not well-aligned with combating fraud.

We should not think that only a catastrophic loss would be sufficient for individuals to practise the necessary amount of cyber hygiene. Nobody would rather lose $100 to a scammer, rather than none, if they can avoid it.

Of course, this opens up the possibility that unscrupulous scammers may use this very notion of victim protection to defraud banks directly. Yet, this is true for any form of insurance fraud and there are well-established mechanisms for identifying and clamping down on such abuse, which would emerge when losses are more equally apportioned to both sides.

That naturally brings me to the sort of indirect long-run benefits to having a system where both sides are made to bear some of the losses. Such a law would also likely lead to a sequence of favourable developments in the financial ecosystem that could render it more robust.

Financial institutions would take more care to police phishing and fraud. Since they can no longer pass on most of the costs of losses to consumers, there would also be more pressing incentive to chase down transfers made to suspicious counterparties and they would no longer condone unauthorised purchases made with ill-gotten money.

Fraud detection and prevention tools have been around for a long time. But the widespread rollout of generative artificial intelligence has made the rapid deployment of the latest algorithms both less costly and simultaneously more sophisticated. Merchants and banks, in turn, would apply more caution as they seek to implement their own safeguards lest they lose the right to accept payments or transfers electronically. Insurance schemes to cover fraud would likely emerge. And since all financial institutions would be involved by law, the market would deepen rapidly keeping such insurance costs sufficiently low.

Such developments could well be the unintended but welcome side effect of making our system recognise a truly equitable distribution of losses.

The Government seems to be aware of the potential benefits of insurance mechanisms of this nature. In his initial discussion of CPF-related fraud, Minister Tan See Leng suggested an openness through such mechanisms. However, this was walked back the very next day with the Ministry stating that it had and I quote, "no intention" to consider insurance schemes.

While I appreciate that pricing could ultimately be prohibitive, one is left to wonder why the notion of insurance does not, at the very least, warrant a deeper and further study. After all, even the limited liability insurance scheme – one that caps the maximum amount of fraud-related payout – would still be preferable to a system that is entirely bereft of such protection.

Sir, I have focused most of my speech on what can be done on the supply side. I will close with a discussion on why demand side measures, while useful at the margin, are ultimately inadequate.

Banks have already independently implemented certain features to introduce additional frictions into online transactions in collaboration with MAS and the Association of Banks Singapore (ABS). One is to implement a cooling-off period after a charge is made to the maximum daily transfer limit or other key account features. Another is to remove clickable links in emails or SMSes.

But it is noteworthy that while these were first rolled out in January 2022 and if the continued proliferation of scams over the past two years are any guide, these measures alone remain insufficient to stem the tide of financial fraud.

Another step banks can consider: introduce their own hurdles. For example, one could require certain classes of account holders, such as the elderly or less tech-savvy to opt into a scheme where they designate a separate individual, such as a trusted associate or a family member as a second key who will need to provide approval for transactions that are anomalous. But this will almost certainly bring problems of conflict and control of their own, such as when even well-meaning family members impose restrictions on others' use of their own funds.

Similarly, cooling-off periods only work to the extent that victims are even aware or accept that they have been scammed. There are many instances of careful instructions by scammers building on the trust, naivety or simply insecurity of the victims that lead them to consciously circumvent such circuit breakers.

Unless we think that we surely will never fall victim to such schemes, recall that many fraudsters are extremely skilled confidence artists and even professionals may succumb, as a study by the Police Psychological Services Division conducted in 2018 has shown.

Mr Speaker, the loss sharing framework proposed by the Government is a step forward in helping establish liability on financial fraud. But for the reasons I have offered, I do not believe that it fulfils its fundamental promise of being fair. This has led to a steady erosion of trust in digital transactions, one that if not addressed expeditiously, could result in the crisis of confidence over online payments and digital finance.

To rebuild trust, regulators should require actual loss absorption by financial institutions and communications companies with an upper limit to consumer liability of $100 or $500 when losses are perhaps inevitably and unfortunately realised. This will not only be fair but help evolve the system in the long run to a more robust one.

Mr Speaker : Ms Nadia Samdin.

2.53 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio) : Sir, I rise in support of the Motion and would like to declare my interest as a board member of SG Her Empowerment, a non-profit platform that champions gender equity to empower individuals from all segments of Singapore and my speech will cite incidents of sexual crimes.

Sir, I speak on behalf of the victims and the survivors.

About five years ago, SG Nasi Lemak Telegram group was first created. Thousands of non-consensual sexually explicit photos and videos of women and schoolgirls were distributed to more than 44,000 members.

About half a year ago, a dating show created by a TitTok content creator garnered criticism for its lack of sensitivity in the way it featured and seemed to exploit individuals with special needs.

About a month ago, a 65-year-old Singaporean retiree lost her life savings in 15 days. For one of my resident's grandmother, it was lost over 115 transactions and six days. This was the result of an online scam.

In the last week, articles report that the UK police are investigating a reported case of alleged gang rape of a teenager's virtual avatar in the metaverse.

These are but some examples. For many, the digital world offers validation, connection and convenience. Unfortunately, it can also lead to cyber abuse, trolling and painful scams that is often debilitating, in particular, for vulnerable individuals.

Society is changing more rapidly than ever, with new technologies affecting every aspect of life, from emails after work hours to WhatsApp group chats for classes and sharing locations at the tap of the screen. COVID-19 also pushed much of our world online, from grocery shopping to Zoom meetings.

But access to these technologies and competence to use them is not enough to deal with the dangers. We have to go beyond this, towards digital well-being and digital citizenship for every individual to feel included and empowered to safely participate in the online sphere.

The Government has been taking great steps to this end, in particular, towards digital access and taking a stand against technology-facilitated sexual violence. For example, MCI's Digital for Life Fund funds inclusion projects that empower all Singaporeans to embrace digitalisation.

In July 2023, IMDA's Code of Practice online safety came into effect, requiring designated social media services to enhance online safety in Singapore and curb the spread of sexual content, violent content, suicide and self-harm content on their platforms.

However, it will take the whole-of-society to create a safer online space; and today I will speak on content, communication and cyber habits, three Cs.

Every day, an approximate 34 million videos are posted to TikTok and 15 million Telegrams are sent, the digital kind. Our modern society craves content and loves to create it. I would like to highlight three consequences – other than the increasing occurrence that some friends may go hungry while the phone camera eats first, to post Instagram stories because if you did not post it, did it really happen?

First, algorithms open up opportunities for creators to reach large audiences. But the curation of perfect content may be harmful to self-esteem. Studies have shown that social media use appear to play a role in perpetuating negative body concepts and exacerbate eating disorders. Young girls and boys are pushed videos and tips on unrealistic body expectations and radical diets.

This idea of a filtered life also creates discontent and intensifies social comparisons. Pressure to create videos which draw quick likes also can lead to unverified or sensationalised content where truth is sacrificed for popularity.

Second, some users, including impressionable miners create suggestive content for validation, at times egged on by peers or malicious actors. This is different from adult content creators who are in control of their actions and aware of consequences.

I call on platforms and apps to step up age-assurance measures to better protect young users from harmful content and have not placed better verification and restriction measures.

Of course, it is not enough in an empowered digital society to simply elect to ban our youths from using their devices or confiscate them. We must also create a safe environment for them to turn to during their curiosity and to receive trusted and effective support in unfortunate circumstances.

Third, I have spoken about the number of social media channels selling, encouraging and circulating non-consensual and illegally obtained sexually explicit materials. A few months ago, we were shaken by the disturbing news of seven men meeting on an online forum as early as in 2010, before discussing their wife-sharing fantasies and turning their plans into action, even live streaming these acts.

What steps can we take to prevent such heinous acts by perpetrators and protect women and girls who are also our mothers or sisters and our friends? How can we hold online forums and social media services accountable? The longer they permit such harmful content to circulate and improve timeliness in responding to user reports where servers are located overseas, how can we prevent such incidents from happening again?

Most importantly, good online habits start from a compassionate and safe offline world built on respect. Incidents of sexual online harms often involve elements of power and humiliation. In order to gain control over their victims, perpetrators of sexual violence tend to resort to practices, such as manipulation and coercion.

Offenders may not necessarily find the act gratifying in itself, but in the meaning attributed to power for men and this may override the goals of such acts.

To this end the kind of content we create to regulate and amplify about women is key. How can we promote gender equity messages based on merit and move beyond stereotyping objectification and hyper-sexualisation?

Beyond content, the online space is also a place for us to converse with each other. But in a world of strangers who comment more than communicate and hold different and divergent views, how do we create a respectful space?

Often times, regretfully, we see comments expressing racist or rude remarks. At times, these are disguised as fairy comments or posted by unnamed troll accounts whose creators would perhaps not make such comments to a person's face in real life, but feel empowered hiding behind the veil online.

While their grievances may be authentic, we must do better in digital education such that our people do not lose basic compassion or tolerance for each other and understand the consequences of their words posted in a rage.

How do we reach beyond algorithms and filter bubbles which seem to confirm our existing beliefs and biases without exception, while hiding content that challenges our thinking? Such bubbles lead to a polarised and fragmented society where even real-life friends are unable to engage with ideas or opposing frequencies that are different from their own.

On cyber habits and how we integrate social media in our day-to-day lives, there are two ends of the spectrum. First, the fear of technology which prevents participation such as seniors would deliberately avoid stalls that exclusively use e-payments; and on the other hand, individuals who may get addicted to social media and excessively consume content or participate in online gambling.

How can we better equip individuals of all ages and literacy levels with positive cyber habits? Sir, the community plays a part. Community-based digital interventions and innovations are key ways through which we as a people can take ownership and do something about these issues. For example, NUGU, a group-based application has been used to improve self-regulated smartphone usage and has been proven effective. In my constituency, Cheng San-Seletar, a group of youths known as the Cheng San Chapalang Club held one-on-one digital workshops in various languages and dialects for seniors to boost their literacy. Non-profits, such as Cyber Youth Singapore, play an important part too. The Surf Safe Initiative was launched in 2022 to cultivate safer cyber habits among secondary students and to date has reached 33,944 of them.

Beyond programmes, ultimately, it comes down to the fostering of a positive and trusting Internet culture. This is particularly important towards ensuring that every individual can participate fully, including our friends with special needs. Studies have shown that the online life may provide a sense of safety, for example, for individuals who autism. In the digital space, they have increased control over their communication and engagement styles, fostering a greater sense of tranquility during these interactions. What more can the Government do to equip and empower persons with special needs towards digital participation and independent living?

Technology can be a great leveller, where you find support in online communities who have the same rare disease as you or date online or visit places in virtual reality that you may never get the chance to see in real life or be the hero in a team game. But this can only happen if persons with special needs can tap on assistive technology and learn digital skills in a way that is tailored to their understanding of the world.

How many individuals has the Digital Enablement Programme served since its inception? Are there plans to further scaffold our digital structure, for example, by creating specialised websites to cultivate accessible and inclusive online platforms?

Of course, societal efforts must be bolstered by rigorous policies and law enforcement. As the velocity of technological advancement increases, it can be hard for regulators to keep pace and in the grey zone, at times, the de facto rules are set by dominant actors who may not have the public's interest at heart.

From data privacy, content regulation, online harms and AI, jurisdictions from the European Union (EU) to the US to Australia have also been developing new regulations. However, this comes with its own complications. The digital space does not always stop at physical borders and the fragmentation of digital governance and regulations may see a confusing patchwork of laws where malicious individuals exploit and play in the gaps, for examples, scammers who hide behind confusing IP addresses.

At the end of the day, it is the innocent victims who suffer. Beyond effective investigation, how can we better provide emotional and mental support to victims of online scams who may feel a deep sense of loss and injustice?

Enforcement is also key and social media platforms play a major role. In July 2023, Google launched the YouTube Priority Flagger programme, which empowers community partners by training them to assess content that violates YouTube community guidelines. These priority flaggers include organisations such as Touch and SG Her Empowerment, who are able to flag content directly to Google, allowing problematic content to be prioritised for review.

By having the community play a bigger role in reviewing content and building trust and safety, this leads to a more resilient Internet culture. Sir, briefly, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In today's world, we are constantly surrounded by technology. Technology helps us but it can also hurt us. It is important that our digital community builds trust in each other, regardless of age and background, by:

Understanding how the algorithm works and exercising care to avoid becoming so immersed in the algorithm until we no longer consider other views. We may also become entangled in narrow-minded views because of what is being shown to us, and such content can potentially create tension in society. Therefore, it is important for us to cultivate healthy online habits, so that we can benefit from the use of technology in our day-to-day lives.

Second, communicate judiciously, even when we are behind a screen. While technology has given many people a chance to speak out about issues that they believe in, it has also become a platform for online harms. According to a study conducted by SG Her Empowerment (SHE), three in five Singaporeans have experienced online harms, or know someone who experienced it. The ability to conceal identities behind a screen has given confidence to many "keyboard warriors", thus emboldening them to make comments online in a way that they do not dare to say or do to someone directly. Many such cases have been reported, one of which involved a lewd survey on local female asatizah in 2021. Communicating judiciously, as well as having better awareness and support for victims of online harms, will certainly have a big impact as we try to create a safe online space for all segments of society.

( In English ): Sir, every technological advancement comes with its risks. The question is not how we stem the tide but how we can rapidly change the way we respect and protect one another as a digital community, as equal participants of an online world. To this end, I hope that as a country, we continue to pursue a national digital strategy that is agile and collaborative in approach as well as inclusive, empowering and human-centered.

Mr Speaker : Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

3.08 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member, Ms Tin Pei Ling, for moving this important Motion together with Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Alex Yam.

Ms Tin, in her speech, suggested several strategies and emphasised the need to adopt a comprehensive whole-of-nation approach, working together with private and public sectors in developing an inclusive and safe digital society.

I stand in support of this Motion. My speech comes from an educational perspective and focuses on shared responsibility, awareness and accountability.

In 2014, Singapore embarked on the Smart Nation initiative, with the vision to develop a "Singapore where people will be more empowered to live meaningful and fulfilled lives, enabled seamlessly by technology, offering exciting opportunities for all".

Over the years, we have progressed well, with notable transformation in key domains such as health, transport, finance and education. Singapore is recognised for its success. According to the 2023 Smart City Index published by Swiss Business School, Institute for Management Development, Singapore is the smartest Asian city and the seventh in the world.

Mr Speaker, this is a remarkable achievement and our continuous success is contingent upon inclusivity and our commitment to ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from the technological advancements that define our Smart Nation landscape. We must, however, do more to guarantee that everyone, regardless of age, race or social background, fully benefits from digital services and is able to meaningfully participate in the digital world.

Before sharing my perspective on what more can be done to build an inclusive and safe digital society, I would like to note some concerns.

Sir, as we move toward a digitally interconnected future, cybersecurity threats have increased. Digital fraud attacks are on the rise, with Singapore receiving 32 million such attacks last year. According to Singapore Police Force data, in the first half of 2023, there were close to 25,000 scam and cyber crime cases, an increase of almost 70% from the same period in 2022. Point of concern, more than 50% of the victims of these crimes were young adults aged 20 to 39.

Tactics adopted by the scammers are also changing. Just last week, the media reported a cyber-kidnapping scam that took place in the US. In that case, the victim was a 17-year-old foreign student.

The digital space is not immune to the social issues that exist in the physical world. Online harassment, discrimination and hate speech are widespread, affecting individuals of all ages and from diverse backgrounds.

In a recent survey conducted by SG Her Empowerment, a local independent non-profit organisation, 52% of respondents who reported a personal experience of online harassment or discrimination were between 15 and 24 years of age. In the same survey, two in five victims reported experiencing at least one severe consequence as a result of the harassment or discrimination, including physical and mental health issues and suicidal ideation.

Mr Speaker, the data shows that young people are at greater risk. This was highlighted by the hon Member Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Nadia Samdin. The data also shows that we are aware of the extent of the problem and that we have been progressively trying to mitigate the situation with robust legislation and regulations.

At this juncture, I would like to commend the Government for being proactive and for constantly keeping track of these issues. I would also like to thank the many community agencies who continue to support victims of crime and provide preventive education programmes. Their involvement reinforces the need to work collaboratively and in partnership with the community sector. As we adopt a whole-of-nation approach, it is crucial to recognise the role played by community agencies in working with victims and potential perpetrators.

Now that I have highlighted some of the current challenges, I would like to share my thoughts on potential strategies.

First, digital trust. Mr Speaker, the era of digital advancement presents many possibilities for innovation, connectivity and economic expansion. Yet, to unlock these potentials requires trust and shared responsibility. Unlike most other nations where technological innovation is driven by the private sector, in Singapore, the Government has taken a central role in this space. This approach has yielded notable results, placing Singapore at the forefront of global advancements.

For example, with over half a million Police surveillance cameras and web-based Police portals, Singapore is regarded as one of the world's safest countries. As we know, safety is fundamental in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Here, in Singapore, we have met this need very well.

As we continue to embrace digitalisation, we have also been working towards the active engagement of citizens. We have been focusing on co-creation. However, we also need to work towards cultivating a shared sense of responsibility and nurture active citizenry. Mr Speaker, let me provide an example.

As the Head of Public Safety and Security programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences, I have been working with several groups of students to address issues of cyber crime, scams and specifically, technology-facilitated sexual violence. I am proud to share that since 2020, students from my programme have, with support from community agencies, developed several community engagement projects to raise awareness on technology-facilitated sexual violence.

One of the key learning points from this project is the need to engage young people to be proactive and to tap on their connections to raise awareness.

It is critical to foster a culture of inclusivity by involving those who are likely to use digital services and be harmed by such services, as well as suggesting and implementing effective mechanisms to prevent unlawful behaviours, young people are also able to assist to address the root causes of such behaviours by educating those who may become perpetrators. Such initiatives also provide opportunities to engage young people who may experience mental health issues to come forward and seek assistance.

Second, digital literacy. Mr Speaker, to build a secure digital society, governments and businesses must cooperate both domestically and internationally to prioritise cybersecurity. However, while the Government and the private sector, including companies, have a role to play, cybersecurity attacks are often directed at consumers. As such, consumer cybersecurity awareness is critical.

Empowering individuals with the knowledge and skills to navigate the digital world is fundamental. As we progress with our Smart Nation initiative, with a focus on innovation and increasing productivity, we should simultaneously strengthen digital literacy for all. By doing so, we can ensure that everyone, regardless of age or background, can harness the benefits of technology while understanding the associated risks.

It is equally important to recognise that empowerment is not just about having the power to do certain things. It is also about developing responsible behaviours and accountability. It is more than just sharing and informing individuals the "dos and don'ts". More needs to be done to truly empower individuals to act and be responsible in safeguarding their privacy and the privacy of others in the digital world.

One way to move forward is to consider introducing incentives for responsible online behavior, whether through recognition programmes or other tangible rewards. Positive reinforcement can motivate citizens to actively contribute to the well-being of their communities.

Third, digital citizenship. Mr Speaker, everyone who uses electronic devices to go online and interact with others is participating in a digital world as a digital citizen. Digital citizenship requires individuals to act responsibly online by adhering to the law, protecting privacy, managing reputation and considering how one's online behaviour impacts on oneself, acquaintances and the broader digital community. Mr Speaker, briefly in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Digital citizenship refers to a concept where individuals are responsible and act judiciously when using technology and in the virtual world.

Parents play an important role in shaping a generation that acts wisely and responsibly in the digital world by providing good guidance and support.

Values that need to be taught to children within this context include awareness of the law, safeguarding privacy, managing reputation, as well as considering the impact of their online behaviour on themselves and the global digital community.

( In English ): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of digital tools became a necessity. Digital tools allowed the world to continue moving, to remain economically viable by allowing work to be done remotely. Adults were not the only recipient of this advancement. Children and young people relied on digital tools extensively for education and for play.

We were in a crisis mode then, and we had to react and improvise quickly. Now that we are in a stable environment, it is important that parents and teachers support and guide children on how to communicate and collaborate safely and responsibly in online environments.

Just as all children need help from their parents and teachers to become good citizens, today's young people, known as digital natives, also need guidance to learn how to apply citizenship principles in the digital world. Promoting digital citizenship values, emphasising empathy, tolerance and inclusivity will foster a positive online culture and ensure a safe and more harmonious digital society.

Mr Speaker, in summary, constructing a secure and inclusive digital society is a complex challenge that requires a whole-of-nation approach, including cooperation among individuals, communities, governments and businesses. By increasing digital trust, advancing digital literacy and nurturing a culture of digital citizenship, we can lay the foundation for a future where everyone all can engage and thrive in the digital world.

Together, let us shape a Singapore, a Smart Nation that is also a safe nation, with digital society embodying the finest qualities of humanity – a society that is resilient, inclusive and founded on the principles of equality and respect. With this, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker : Ms Hany Soh.

3.20 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee) : Mr Speaker, in order to build an inclusive and safe digital society, the 3Ps must each play their part. And as what Assoc Prof Razwana has just shared with us earlier, it is with mutual trust and shared responsibility, with corporations and community partners continuing to equip users with the right skillsets to function in this rapidly-transforming digital society or providing accessibility options for those who are unable to do so, while helping to deter online threats, such as scams, and educating the public about them at the same time.

I am pleased to note that in the recent years, several of our Woodgrove community partners are already making efforts to make this digital society more accessible for all in our community. One good example can be found in the POSB Woodlands West branch, situated in Woodgrove's Fuchun Neighbourhood Centre. After its renovation, the branch now exclusively offers self-service banking options that are available 24/7, with branch staff continuing to be present during the bank's usual operating hours to guide customers, especially our seniors, on how to access their desired services with the new teller machines. The branch also features a community space specially for conducting talks and seminars in various languages that aim to educate residents further regarding digital banking and e-payment services.

I must also register my appreciation for the Singapore Digital Office (SDO)'s Digital Ambassadors who, in 2023, have supported a total of 12 senior-centric community events in Woodgrove, such as our Seniors' Carnival and digital upskilling workshops.

Notwithstanding that the SG Digital Community Hub at our Fuchun Community Centre had to be closed due to the Community Centre's ongoing major upgrading works, the SDOs continue to work closely with our grassroots organisation to operate roving counters at various Woodgrove locations to raise awareness and motivate our residents to adopt digital technologies and enhance their digital skills.

Despite these efforts, however, many of our seniors in Woodgrove have shared with me that, notwithstanding that they are now equipped with smart phones, they are still apprehensive about exploring and navigating the digital world on their own, even though they are now well capable of using mobile apps like Facebook and WhatsApp to stay in touch with their family and friends. This does not come as a surprise to me, as they are constantly made aware of heart-wrenching stories from fellow Singaporeans who have suffered great financial loss after falling prey to online scams.

A sobering example comes from one of my Woodgrove residents in his late 60s, who had lost close to $800,000 of his and his wife's life savings due to an impersonation scam. The amount was meant to enable the couple to go on their Haj pilgrimage and to see them through their remaining years after retirement.

With news and anecdotes of scams like these being reported on an almost daily basis, how do we ensure that Singaporeans, especially our seniors, attain sufficient trust in the safety of the various digital platforms to begin to use them confidently, yet remain vigilant against the ever-evolving risks?

I believe that large organisations, such as banks and e-commerce platforms, will need to do more to prevent losses from online scams and bear their consequences. Just like what Dr Tan Wu Meng had shared earlier, the approach ought to be consumer protection-centric.

Just two days ago, I attended to one of my Woodgrove residents, Mr Yu, during our weekly Meet-the-People Session, where he shared about his unpleasant experience with his bank since June last year. Back then, Mr Yu was making an online hotel booking when he fell prey to a malware by entering his OTP on a bogus website. He promptly contacted the bank's customer service upon discovering several unauthorised transactions amounting to over $6,000 charged to his credit card. But despite his request to terminate them immediately, Mr Yu was advised by the bank's customer service officer that because the monies have yet to be received by the scammer, he would have to wait until he received his next monthly statement of account as proof before raising a dispute on the fraudulent credit card transactions.

Mr Yu took this officer's advice. Almost six months later, the bank replied after completing their investigations to inform him that he is expected to bear 50% of the unauthorised transacted sum. To add insult to injury, the bank in their written response reminded him "to always take care of your credentials and refer to the bank's website for more information about how to protect from scams."

It is, therefore, understandable that Mr Yu remains aggrieved and perplexed as to why the bank had refused his request to terminate these fraudulent transactions in time. What else could he have done or done better? What should others who find themselves in similar situations do?

Meanwhile, in a recent news article where another bank was interviewed after one of its customers lost his entire life savings due to another malware scam, the bank likewise took a similar position that their customers "remain the singular most effective defence and strongly urged them to exercise vigilance and caution in this ever-evolving threat landscape."

I disagree with the position taken by the banks in both cases, in that they conveniently expected their individual customers to fend for themselves. By taking such an approach, it could deter more from becoming active participants in our digital society and cause more to lose faith in our banks' credibility.

It is the joint responsibility of all stakeholders to commit towards adopting a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society. Therefore, the banks could and should do more to contribute, such as adopting better anti-phishing solutions, improving authenticity verifications, and being extra vigilant towards abnormal transactions to keep accounts secure and prevent the likelihood of scams.

The children of the elderly couple I spoke about earlier who had lost their entire life savings due to an impersonation scam, have shared with me that banks could have done more to prevent these unauthorised transactions from taking place. Amongst other efforts, the banks ought to have paid more attention to each customer's regular banking patterns. In their parents' case, the couple's bank account had zero withdrawal activity for years until the scammers wiped out over half a million dollars of their savings through two large transactions. The bank should have made calls to them to seek confirmation on the abnormal request before releasing the funds.

There are other solutions that may help in terms of safeguarding funds against scams. In November last year, OCBC introduced its anti-scam security feature called OCBC Money Lock, which allows customers to lock away funds in their bank accounts and can only be unlocked after the customer's identity has been verified by the bank. This is a good initiative which I hope MAS can mandate to be rolled out across all of the banks in Singapore and to encourage sign-ups by our seniors.

In addition, MAS can also consider working with banks and insurance companies to introduce an insurance scheme akin to the concept of Deposit Insurance Scheme, which anyone with a bank account can purchase to protect their monies in the event that they fall prey to an online scam.

Concurrently, we should also step-up collaborations between financial institutions and our community. Upskilling workshops, such as OCBC's Digital Silvers programme, and the digital literacy partnership by DBS Foundation and IMDA, are prime examples of such initiatives. If deployed in conjunction with the previously mentioned measures, the banks can also make use of these workshop as opportunities to promote and encourage seniors to sign up for the "money-lock" features as well as enrolling for the anti-scam insurance to protect funds in their bank accounts. I hope that such workshops can be made easily available, just like those run by the SDOs, and I will explore how I can best help my Woodgrove residents benefit from them. In conclusion, in Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In recent years, scams continue to evolve, especially online scams. The ever-changing scam methods have made many Singaporeans, especially the seniors, feel very anxious and helpless.

Singapore is not the only country targeted by the scammers. As technologies progress, countries all around the world are facing the thorny issue of how to fight scams.

In October last year, The Straits Times reported that globally, the annual loss due to scams is a staggering $1.4 trillion. In Australia, in 2022, the loss amounted to about S$2.6 billion. Neighbouring countries, like Malaysia, reported in December last year that between January to November, the amount of loss amounted to as high as RM1.3 billion.

How do we prevent ourselves from becoming the next target of these scammers? Some seniors have adopted the "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to stay safe by not trying at all.

In my opinion, that is certainly not ideal and will cause them to fall behind even more in keeping up with the fast-paced transforming digital society. Today, in countries like China, online purchase and mobile payments have become an integral part of Chinese society, with cash payment becoming quickly a thing of the past.

In conclusion, combatting scams require a whole-of-society effort, starting from the public being vigilant and remaining up to date on the types of scams in the wild, assisted by Government-funded information outlets. Meanwhile, corporations such as banks should also work in tandem to enhance digital safety nets. Together, we can work our way towards boosting public confidence, and nurture an inclusive and safe digital society.

Mr Speaker : Ms Hazel Poa.

3.32 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member) : Mr Speaker Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) agrees that a whole-of-nation approach to build an inclusive and safe digital society is very much needed. As society digitalised over the past decade, there has been an increase in the prevalence of many varieties of online scams which has lowered the trust level of many Singaporeans in digital tools. Horror stories abound of people losing their life savings in a twinkling of the eye.

Last year, my parents gave me half their life savings to put in my bank account, not in theirs, because they are not confident of not losing it to scams. Their trust level in the security of their money in their bank account has never been so low in their entire lives. I am sure that many other Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Singaporeans share my parents' sentiment.

Over the years, the Government has been promoting financial self-reliance by Singaporeans. For most of us, our own savings is what we have to rely on to meet our expenses and to live in dignity. Any compromise to the security of our savings is a big deal to us. Given the gravity of the issue, I feel that the Government can do more to safeguard citizens' savings and foster a strong culture of consumer protection.

The proposed Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), which assigns financial institutions and telcos relevant duties to mitigate phishing scams and requires payouts to affected scam victims where these duties are breached, is a step in the right direction, but it is just a baby step. There are two main issues with the SRF.

Firstly, the SRF has a limited scope. It only covers phishing scams and does not cover the whole range of other scams including malware scams, Police official scams, investment and love scams. Its protection is thus rather limited. For example, in the recent case of a family losing their life savings due to downloading malware when they tried to buy organic eggs, the SRF does not help them at all.

Secondly, the duties that financial institutions and telcos are required to carry out are extremely limited. For example, under the SRF, financial institutions are directed to perform four duties:

One, impose at least a 12-hour cooling period after activation of digital token during which high-risk activities cannot be carried out.

Two, send notification alerts for activation of digital token and conduct of high-risk activities.

Three, provide outgoing transaction notifications by way of SMS, email or in-app notification selected by the consumer.

Four, provide a 24/7 reporting channel and a self-service feature for consumers to promptly block online payment transfers from their accounts.

These four duties do not create a sufficient incentive for financial institutions to proactively protect their customers and to remove potential for fraud from their systems. While vigilance and personal responsibility of the consumer are a critical line of defence against scams, the average consumer has less resources to protect themselves against scams as compared to financial institutions.

Financial institutions have the capacity to do more to protect consumers against scams with systems to monitor transactions and detect suspicious payment flows. Large overseas transactions by individuals who rarely or never perform them should immediately trigger alarm bells within the systems of financial institutions. This would not affect businesses that regularly perform such transactions and would not be difficult to implement given the scale and capacity of the IT infrastructure at financial institutions.

In contrast to Singapore's framework, jurisdictions like the UK have moved towards mandating full reimbursement to scam victims by banks, except in cases of fraud or gross negligence by the consumer. This model has also been considered in Australia and the European Union (EU).

I acknowledge that there are moral hazard issues with a full reimbursement and would thus like to suggest a co-sharing of liabilities between the bank and the consumer.

In assessing the issue of online scams, there is a trade-off between financial security on the one hand and convenience and productivity on the other. If banks are totally not liable for any losses, then they have only financial incentives to move more and more towards digital financial transactions and services due to the savings in manpower costs. The cost of digital financial transactions come in the form of greater ease of losing huge amounts of money, and it is being borne by bank customers, especially the most vulnerable. In addition, banks are in control of the security features in their banking apps and the payment processes, but customers, who have no control over those, pay the price for any inadequacies. This is clearly not balanced and hence not tenable.

In considering the trade-off between financial security and convenience and productivity, it may be difficult for the authorities to draw a line for everyone. For example, when OCBC introduced security features in their banking app that prohibited the downloading of suspicious apps, there were complaints from some customers. It is foreseeable that different customers will have different needs. But there is no need for a one-size-fits-all.

I urge the Government to consider a multiple-tiered system with different levels of security versus convenience. Banks can offer different versions of banking apps and processes; for example, one with maximum security features and low convenience, and it comes with a 75% reimbursement of financial losses by the banks in cases of online scams not covered by the SRF. Another with lower security features and comes with a 50% reimbursement for customers who need greater convenience.

Banks can adjust the security features in their apps and processes to commensurate with the different level of liabilities. For example, banks might want to re-evaluate the benefits of requiring a separate physical token. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim had spoken previously about the difficulties of getting one from the bank. Whilst the token is an additional cost for banks, it provides the added security of requiring a second device for the authorisation of transactions, not just a handphone which can be hijacked by malware. Using again the example of the family involved in the recent egg scam, if a physical token had been required, the family might not have lost their life savings.

Banks are private commercial entities. They are expected to conduct cost benefit analysis in evaluating any investments in additional security measures. But the Government can alter their cost benefit analysis by imposing a loss-sharing arrangement, which can lead to a different decision.

Reimbursements can be subject to an upper limit of a loss amount equivalent to the basic retirement sum.

Under such a model, both the banks and their customers share the liabilities of any losses due to scams and they both have incentives to be vigilant. Customers can choose the level of security they are comfortable with. Banks will have incentives to push online transactions in line with their ability to provide security, thereby ensuring that the development of digital financial transactions is a more balanced and holistic one. The maximum limit on reimbursement helps to limit the banks' exposure and at the same time, ensure that the most protection is given to the most vulnerable.

Another institution to which duties should be assigned to mitigate scams is the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, where many Singaporeans' life savings are held. It is very worrying that recently, there has been a trend where CPF accounts were emptied by scammers who had taken control of the user's Singpass and bank accounts. It was only in June 2023 that the CPF Board and GovTech introduced Singpass Face Verification as a step-up authentication challenge for certain CPF e-services.

In October 2023, my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai asked a Parliamentary Question regarding why the CPF website has not implemented security measures commonly implemented by the banks, such as transaction limits and kill switches. It is heartening to know that with effect from 30 November 2023, a default online CPF withdrawal limit of $2,000 a day will be applied to all CPF members aged 55 and above.

However, this default daily limit can still be adjusted to any amount up to $200,000 at any time online. This includes those CPF members who have activated the CPF Withdrawal Lock, which instantly sets the daily withdrawal limit to $0.

Singpass Face Verification is required for changing the withdrawal limit. I would like to ask the Government for a confirmation on whether the face verification can be passed by using a photo of the scam victim. Would it strengthen the protection to require CPF members who have activated the CPF Withdrawal Lock to change the withdrawal limits in person at a CPF service centre, similar to the arrangements for the banks' money lock accounts?

The same duties that we impose on banks to protect the savings of bank customers should also similarly be imposed on the CPF Board to protect the retirement savings of CPF members.

Finally, I would like to talk about Singpass. We have seen examples of how scammers can take control of victims' Singpass. I am concerned about the wealth of information available in Singpass. Information like family members, education background, income and CPF information and so on. If scammers took control of victims' Singpass, would they not gain very comprehensive information about individual victims and their family members, to enable them to device more ways of scamming? Is this wide range of information necessary and would the Government consider re-introducing physical tokens for Singpass? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party supports today's Motion. It is crucial for our country to establish an inclusive and secure digital society. In recent years, there has been a surge in fraud cases, causing much concern among many citizens.

Last year, my parents split half of their savings into my bank account for safekeeping, fearing that they might fall victim to fraud and lose their hard-earned money. I believe many elderly citizens share the same sentiment.

Over the years, the Government has advocated self-reliance amongst citizens. Therefore, for many citizens, their savings are the only means to ensure they can live with dignity. Online fraud has seriously affected citizens' confidence in the safety of their savings. The Government can do more to safeguard citizens' savings and protect consumers.

Under the Shared Responsibility Framework released by the MAS and IMDA, there is still insufficient incentive for financial institutions to proactively protect consumers and eliminate potential fraud within their systems.

The Progress Singapore Party urges the Government to consider implementing a multitiered Shared Responsibility Framework. In this framework, consumers can make trade-offs between security and convenience.

For example, consumers can choose to use a banking application with high security features, which may inconvenience them. But in the event of fraud losses, the bank must bear 75% of the losses. If consumers choose an application with lower security features, the losses borne by the bank will be lower. This will give consumers more choices and, at the same time, incentivise banks to provide more secure online transactions, striking a better balance between digitalisation and security in our country.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, as a nation, we need to adopt a proactive and holistic approach to fight scams and create an inclusive and safe digital society for all.

Scams have serious consequences for victims. Beyond financial losses, victims also suffer from mental and emotional trauma, such as the embarrassment of having fallen for a scam. There are also financial implications on their family members, such as a child who may by law be responsible for the maintenance of a parent who has lost their life savings to a scammer.

Society must ultimately pick up the tab when people lose their life savings to scammers and the ability to live independently and must instead rely on handouts and charity to survive.

A recent study by the Global Anti-Scam Alliance revealed that Singapore has the dubious honour of being the country with the highest amount lost to scams per victim. This makes Singaporeans the most attractive targets for scammers.

There is much more we can do as a nation to create a safer digital society. Let us all work together to achieve this.

Mr Speaker : Ms Mariam Jaafar.

3.48 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I first declare my interest as a managing director and senior partner of a management consulting firm that does work in digital and AI.

I thank the hon Member Tin Pei Ling and other members of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications and Information for securing this debate on an area of pressing importance for all of us. I think almost everyone here shares my experience of hearing gut wrenching stories of residents who have seen their life savings wiped out by online scams.

In my early days as an MP, an appeal by a group of girls whose faces had been superimposed on sexually explicit photos spreading on social media not only in Singapore but in neighbouring countries shook me to the core. I will forever be grateful to Minister Shanmugam and Minister of State Rahayu for their assistance in expediting justice.

More recently, in my engagements with Woodland seniors to encourage them to sign up for Healthier SG, I found a not insignificant number of seniors were ignoring the messages from the Ministry of Health (MOH) as they were afraid of scams. I also saw that most of them were reliant on less secure password authentication on their Singpass app, partly because they did not know how to use and partly because they did not trust biometric authentication.

I support much o f what colleagues before me have said on the need to sustain trust and build an inclusive and safe digital society. I join this debate because I believe the implications of AI and, in particular, the lightning fast development of generative AI (GenAI) on an inclusive and safe digital society deserves special consideration.

Mr Speaker, in my speech on the Motion of Thanks in April, I spoke about AI and GenAI – the opportunities as well as the risks. I said then, "The progress in AI is both exciting and worrying at the same time... we need our AI strategies, policies and people to keep pace with the breathless development. So, let us buckle up."

In relation to the online space, the rapid development of AI and GenAI poses many risks: misinformation and disinformation, lack of transparency, privacy concerns, ethical concerns, data leaks, bias, economic inequalities, copyright violations, security risk, concentration of power and more.

The accessibility of GenAI allows anyone on the Internet to manipulate the tool itself as well as the content it can produce, with potentially devastating consequences. For example, while chatbots like ChatGPT are now specifically trained to reject harmful prompts like "how to build a dirty bomb", they can still be fooled by bad actors pretending to be doing a research paper or writing a movie script.

Fake news, fake images – they are not new in online trust and safety. But as we move from fun face swapping apps and camera filters to the rapid proliferation of deepfakes being used in harmful ways, such as investment scams featuring our own Prime Minister, it is clear that AI presents a new frontier in online trust and safety.

Nowadays, we are urged to be careful and skeptical of what we take in and do online, to question everything we see online. But therein lies the rub. Some have asked, are we now to be distrustful by default? This is a very serious question, one that I hope all of us in Parliament will reflect upon.

Think back to the Ah Ma who did not open the Healthier SG enrolment SMS from MOH. In the business world, there are companies that have blocked GenAI tools from their systems. What happens when "distrustful by default" turns into "distrust and drop-out"?

Mr Speaker, trust is the basis for any digital society. It is what gives us the confidence to interact and transact online. It is needed to drive innovation and adoption in order to reap the considerable benefits of digital and AI. If we want AI to uplift Singapore's economic and social potential, if we want Singapore and Singaporeans to be at the vanguard in developing, deploying, adopting and innovating technology, we need our people to be satisfied that the products and services they consume are safe. If we are going to ride in a racecar, we have got to trust the brakes.

Most, if not all major platforms, have put in some form of brakes or safeguards. Safeguards can take the form of policies, practices and tools, such as robust community guidelines, content moderation policies and ensuring that data is representative and scrubbed for bias.

Machine learning and AI itself will play a powerful role in creating new types of safeguards and building trust. Machine learning tools can be used to ensure privacy and trust by design and to detect and block fraudulent transactions. They can also be tuned to make the right tradeoffs in proportion to the risks involved.

AI tools can also reduce bias – both human bias as well as bias that has crept into machine learning models. By enabling the identification and measurement of bias, they allow platforms to take steps to reduce discrimination and bias or to de-bias the algorithms. A well-known example is Airbnb, which has used data and machine learning to reduce discrimination, for example, against black guests and black hosts and promote inclusion on its platform.

Mr Speaker, the age of AI is upon us. My position has not changed from when I made my speech in April. The response to the associated risks cannot be fear and paralysis, but rather to equip ourselves with the knowledge, strategies and tools to navigate these risks, including to use AI itself to keep propelling us forward.

To that end, I offer give suggestions, building on some of the suggestions of my colleagues, to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society in the age of AI.

First, increase safeguards and hold social media services accountable for the proliferation of harmful content, scams and malicious ads, including AI-generated content, to protect consumers, especially children.

Online safety and scams are global issues. While it will never feel timely enough for those who suffer from the harm, the Government is proactively taking steps to safeguard safety and inclusion.

The passing of the Online Safety Act in February 2023 and the subsequent release of the Online Safety Code by IMDA in July 2023 have strengthened the regulatory framework, holding social media services accountable to take preventive measures against online harm. The Government has also rolled out a series of measures to protect against online scams, including the much discussed Shared Responsibility Framework slated to be implemented this year.

The approach taken by the Government has been one of engagement and utilising a range of levers, not just legislation but also voluntary adoption of codes of practice and tools, to ensure effectiveness – and I would add sustainability – before making them mandatory. It is an approach that engenders trust and buy in, helping to take away some of the usual impediments to move.

Indeed, Singapore was one of the world's first to introduce regulations to ensure designated social media services take preventive measures to ensure online safety. In contrast, the UK Online Safety Act was delayed some five to six years, falling victim to political crises making it very hard to move.

Some of the measures to combat scam such as the mandatory registration of all alphanumberic SMS sender IDs with the Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) would be hard to pull off in many other jurisdictions.

The hon Member Sylvia Lim has said that we are moving towards a crisis of confidence in digital transactions and banking, without stronger intervention by Government regulators. I believe the Government has taken important steps, but I also believe they will continue to take more. I hope the Minister will provide an update on the implementation of recently announced measures and share additional measures the Government may be exploring, including expanding potentially the scope of some of the restrictions on other platforms such as online technology platforms.

However, this is a rapidly evolving space. Online harms related to AI-generated content such as deepfakes may not be sufficiently covered by current laws.

Singapore has taken a pragmatic approach to AI regulation – we should not rush to regulate what we do not yet understand, when the solutions are not yet clear – is how I would articulate it. Rather, the approach has been, again, one of engagement, of testing different solutions and of building capacities while recognising that legislation will come at some point. It is a sensible approach.

Notwithstanding, the Government should continue to review the adequacy of safeguards and provisions in the Online Safety Act to protect against AI-generated content. At this point, I would like to ask the Minister if she is looking to introduce any AI focused protective measures in the near future. In particular, I echo the concerns said by many on deepfakes.

Looking around, the UK Online Safety Act has made transmitting deepfake pornography illegal and platforms will need to quickly act to remove them from their platforms. The US Executive Order seeks to establish standards and best practices for detecting AI-generated content and authenticating official content, with the Department of Commerce tasked to develop guidance for content authentication and watermarking.

There seems to be momentum behind reviewing the safeguards against harmful deepfakes and parsing out accountability. There is also the risk, as highlighted by the hon Member Tan Wu Meng, on democracy itself.

Indeed, there are calls to require that in any interaction with AI, be it text, image or voice, the AI has to declare that it is AI. In addition, we have to think of how to support individual victims whose images may have been exploited in deepfakes and harmed – a highly traumatic experience.

Second, engage in a whole-of-nation partnership between all stakeholders in the online ecosystem to educate and empower our people, especially the young and the old, on scams, online harms and digital literacy, including AI literacy.

While the tech platforms can and must do more, an inclusive and safe digital society requires the concerted effort of many more stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Government, the public sector, the private sector, the tech platforms, but also telcos, banks, AI companies and other companies offering products and services online, law enforcement agencies, parents and caregivers, schools, social services and community organisations, and at the centre of it all, the individuals themselves.

AI literacy refers to as a set of competencies that enables people to critically evaluate, communicate and collaborate effectively with AI. Yesterday, Minister Chan Chin Sing shared how the Ministry of Education (MOE) is preparing students in our schools and IHLs by developing their foundational knowledge of AI, promoting safe and responsible use of AI, measures to guard against the risks of AI and teaching cyber wellness skills, such as evaluating information and identifying fake news.

There is nascent interest on AI literacy in early childhood education, with some promising effects. Some studies have highlighted how early AI literacy can improve many aspects of child development, such as creative inquiry, emotional inquiry and collaborative inquiry. Some argue that with more well-designed AI toys and services such as PopBots, Zhoria, Quickdraw, young children could explore AI-related concepts and develop their digital and AI literacy, even if they may not know and understand the knowledge behind it. Others argue that since young children are already using devices and tablets, it is important that they attain some elements of data literacy even at a young age, such as understanding the concepts of personal data and data privacy.

Yet, there are also question marks like whether age-appropriate curriculums can be developed for early childhood, the readiness of early childhood educators themselves and concerns over inequalities and inclusiveness. Does the Minister see AI literacy in early childhood as a worthwhile investigation?

Third, Government to lead the way by deploying AI at scale through high value use cases in public services and advancing research into online trust and safety.

The recently launched National AI Strategy 2.0, which I am hopeful will get a good airing in Parliament in due course articulates a vision for "AI for the Public Good, for Singapore and the World". The focus will be on directing AI towards addressing big challenges, not just locally, but globally like climate change and population health, as well on empowering individuals, business and community to use AI with confidence, discernment and trust.

Among other actions, the Government seeks to pursue meaningful use cases in both public services and industry that will deliver outsized impact to our lives. I urge the Government to make a big push to deploy high value use cases, at scale, in public services. Not only will the AI itself create value, it will build capability within the Government as multi-disciplinary product teams will learn to make adjustments and deploy solutions to address weaknesses that surface and policy teams will learn how to prevent the spread of harmful activities and to shape effective regulations by doing.

We start in an enviable position, where there is strong trust in the Government, hard earned over decades. If the Government is transparent on the value as well as the risks as it deploys these high-value use cases, if we are able to advance research into Online Trust and Safety and build and test tools and solutions, such as "Trust by Design" technologies like watermarking and content authentication and use these tools in these use cases in the public sector, Singapore can set an example for the private sector and governments around the world.

Fourth, take the lead in adopting responsible AI across the digital economy. Responsible AI is a holistic approach to developing, assessing and deploying AI systems in a safe, trustworthy and ethical way that spans the full product life cycle. It entails being transparent about when and how products leverage AI, how algorithms influence decisions and the steps being taken to mitigate bias, privacy violations and other risks. The value of responsible AI goes beyond risk mitigation; it can strengthen trust between organisations and their customers, assuring customers that the products and services they consume are safe.

The public sector and companies across sectors in the digital economy deploying AI solutions, whether in developing their products and services or supply chain AI , should operationalise responsible AI as fast as they build and deploy AI solutions. Because Responsible AI demands teams of individuals with different expertise, experiences and background and cooperation across the organisation at all levels, the Prime Minister and chief executive officers themselves leading from the top to drive and sustain investment and focus is required.

And lastly, increase the international cooperation on Online Safety, including AI governance and safety. Given the global nature of the cyberspace, driving dialogue, sharing knowledge and cooperating on solutions is important. Boosting inclusive AI governance and interoperability to achieve our shared goal of trustworthy AI is something that Singapore must commit to do and can seek to play a key role in.

The open sourcing of AI Verify, cited by the Member Ms Sylvia Lim earlier, is actually a way of promoting international cooperation and putting a claim on some intellectual leadership and legitimacy in this space. Non trivial, when parties involve actually do have some tensions.

Another global issues like climate change, Singapore has led the way on some fronts. Minister Grace Fu's leadership of negotiations on Article 6 and mitigation at successive COPs come to mind. Can the Minister provide an update on our participation in the AI governance and safety space?

Mr Speaker, I wish to end with a thank you to the many agencies and task forces across multiple Ministries involved in keeping our online space safe, inclusive and trusted today. I know it sometimes feels like you are playing whack a mole. It sometimes feels like a thankless task. I hope the nation will rise to this call for each of us to play our part in order to continue closing the trust gap between the online and physical space. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker : Minister, Dr Tan See Leng.

4.07 pm

The Minister for Manpower and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to address the Member Ms Hazel Poa's allegation. And to address the point that earlier, she mentioned that CPF accounts have been emptied. That point is not true. It is inaccurate. The way we have constructed the CPF, is, at 55, you have the Basic Retirement Sum within the Retirement Account. So, only amounts above the Basic Retirement Sum can be withdrawn from the CPF Ordinary Account or Special Account.

Our CPF safeguards are no less stringent than what banks have put in place. That being said, any amount belonging to any CPF member is precious, is hard-earned and is most important to us. And that is why CPF Board constantly looks into and constantly reviews the ways to improve security, whilst preserving flexibility for our members.

CPF Board also works very closely with a whole-of-Government to ensure this is kept tight. The Member may also take comfort in knowing that after the Singpass facial verification implementation in June 2023, no unauthorised losses was observed.

I think for the balance of the other initiatives, I will leave it to Minister Josephine Teo who will provide a summary at the end.

Mr Speaker : Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.09 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Building an Inclusive and Safe Digital Society

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

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Mr Gerald Giam.

4.30 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied) : Mdm Deputy Speaker, the rise of sophisticated online scams and the resulting financial devastation on victims is a critical concern impacting Singaporeans from all walks of life. Across our nation, residents, both young and old, tech savvy and not, have fallen victim to these fraudulent schemes. I have met constituents who have lost their entire life savings to scammers, with even fixed deposit accounts being cleared out by these criminals. Some have joint accounts with their children or parents, doubling the impact on families. These incidents demonstrate a concerning vulnerability that affects us all. While I consider myself relatively tech savvy, I have to admit that even I feel the looming threat of becoming a victim one day.

Many victims I have spoken to describe a disheartening response from their banks. Upon reporting the fraud, they frequently receive responses that are frustratingly vague or non-committal. They offer little information citing banking secrecy, and at times, a goodwill payment that does not fully cover the loss. Victims are sometimes told by the Police that the funds had been transferred overseas and nothing further can be done to retrieve the funds.

The technical nature of these scams is deeply concerning. Drive-by download attacks and the more advanced zero-day exploits make it possible for malware to be installed on phones with little or no user action. These methods exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems and applications.

In view of these sophisticated attacks, how far do the authorities investigate each reported scam, especially those involving screen reading and key logging malware? Without thorough investigations, it will not be possible to ascertain fault and ensure that innocent victims are not held responsible for losses that they did not cause. Is the default blame then placed on the victims, who have to bear most of the financial loss?

Scams have emerged as a formidable obstacle to advancing digital access for our citizens, particularly in our senior community. Numerous elderly residents I have encountered expressed a fear of using internet banking or online payments because they are apprehensive about falling prey to scams. Consequently, I find myself hesitant to advocate the use of digital banking to them, despite its convenience, due to the real risk of them losing their entire life savings if they are targeted by scammers.

This situation has precipitated what Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim, as she describes, as a crisis with confidence with the digital banking system. Unless the authorities address the issues of scams more effectively and establish stronger consumer protections, our extensive efforts to transition all our citizens into a digitally empowered society will come to naught.

One tool the Government has on hand to deal decisively with scams is the Online Criminal Harms Act. This will allow the Government to, inter alia, direct online platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. Parliament passed this Act last July. However, it is only set to be progressively rolled out this year.

When will the Online Criminal Harms Act be fully operationalised? Given that an average of 87 scams are taking place every day in Singapore, each day of delay will be one day too late for many scam victims.

Banks must shoulder a greater responsibility in protecting their customers. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim's earlier call for banks to reintroduce physical tokens as a default measure for multi-factor authentication for all their customers. Multi-factor authentication relies on a combination of something you know and something you have. However, when phones are compromised by malware, allowing scammers to view screens and keystrokes, this system collapses into a single factor. This allows scammers who have access to the password entered by the user to bypass the additional security layer. Therefore, bringing back physical tokens will reinstate the crucial second layer of security.

MAS must more assertively and decisively tackle the problem of scams in the banking system to protect consumers. In my dealings with MAS, when advocating for constituents victimised by scams, I have observed that MAS tends to forward these critical cases to the banks for their follow-up instead of directly addressing and resolving the issues on behalf of victims. This delegation process then places the onus on the banks to determine who is at fault, the institution or the victim, for the occurrence of the scam. Such a practice raises serious concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness on the investigation.

I have also observed a discrepancy in MAS' approach to enforcing actions on financial institutions for different violations. On one hand, MAS imposes very punitive measures like restrictions on acquisitions and additional capital requirements on banks when there are brief downtimes in online banking and ATM services. On the other hand, this level of decisiveness and rigour is markedly absent in addressing scam cases.

MAS should require banks to tackle scams with the same level of intensity and rigour as they do in safeguarding consumers interest for system outages.

Scam victims need a comprehensive explanation from a knowledgeable and impartial entity like MAS about how the scam occurred. This explanation should detail the roles of banks, telcos, customers and other entities in both the occurrence and prevention of such scams. This will determine who is responsible and who should bear the loss, the cost of these fraudulent acts.

Furthermore, responsibility should not be limited to financial institutions, telcos and consumers. Social media companies and mobile phone handset manufacturers should be held accountable for securing their platforms again scams. All handsets sold in Singapore should be required to disable side loading of apps by default and make it difficult for end users to override critical security features. Social media platforms should be required to have processes in place to remove fraudulent posts soon after being notified.

MCI has revealed that a notable proportion of residents, approximately 37%, do not regularly update their devices. Many of these may be less tech savvy users. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone will have the technical proficiency to keep their devices updated. Therefore, consumer protection strategies must be designed on the premise that a significant number of users will not know how to keep their devices updated and should incorporate additional layers of security to safeguard these users.

A central agency should oversee all scam investigations and responses. I am aware of the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom) and the important work their officers are doing. However, given that ASCom is a department under the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force, I do not think it can be held accountable for whole-of-Government efforts to combat scams. Who therefore, is ultimately accountable for the Government's anti-scam efforts?

To summarise, my recommendations as follows. First, banks must significantly increase their responsibility towards consumer protection, including by providing physical tokens to customers. Second, MAS should take a more active role in acertaining responsibility for scams carried out on banks, digital platforms and supporting victims. Third, the Online Criminal Harms Act needs to be fully operational operationalised without further delay. Fourth, the Government needs to hold technology companies more accountable for their security of their platforms and devices. And finally, a central anti-scam agency should oversee and be ultimately accountable for the Government's anti-scam efforts.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we stand at the critical juncture in the battle against scams. Our actions in the face of this scourge will determine our commitment to protecting our citizens in the digital age. Let us act swiftly and decisively to protect our people and indeed, ourselves. I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Ms Jean See.

4.39 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank my Parliamentary colleagues for putting forth this Motion.

In 1970, economist Milton Friedman asked a fundamental question, "What is the role of business in society?" In response, he submitted an argument to the New York Times stating that, "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits."

Since then, this narrative has shaped the growth of corporations. Thankfully, the narrative was interrupted by the rise of the socially conscious investor. The socially conscious investor demanded that corporations be held accountable to higher standards of social responsibility. This has in turn, led to the emergence of corporate social responsibility and ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals as new priorities.

In response to the Motion, I would like to update Friedman’s question to today’s context: In a digital-driven economy and society, what is a socially responsible business and its role in society? As a Labour advocate, I would like to highlight three trends that are worrying and offer three suggestions of how we could respond as a society.

First, technologies will get more complicated and powerful. Many of us appreciate the convenience that technologies such as booking or buying apps bring to us. In exchange for the convenience, we might consent to our data being re-marketed by these companies behind these apps.

Given the fluid nature of data, users might find themselves at the receiving end of unsolicited marketing messages as companies seek to profit from new consumer segments. Many individuals struggle to extricate themselves from the never-ending web of marketing messages as they lack the knowledge or ability to do so. The struggle imposes mental strain on individuals who are constantly inundated by advertisements and often tempted to spend more time and more money on the apps. How might we cultivate a respectful code of ethics for commerce in the digital age?

Second, technologies will get simpler yet more complex. On the one hand, mobile technology coupled with AI tools are set to herald a new age of productivity for service frontliners; we do see resources being customised and at the fingertips of service frontliners when interacting with customers. On the other hand, workers can also be held hostage by technology. Many workers are users and operators, and unexposed or underexposed to technology's working mechanics. If companies train workers only for deployment rather than staff development, a firm’s decision to change technology provider could render its current cohort of workers struggling to become competent in a new technology within a short timeframe. This story would end with the workers being made redundant and the firm let off the hook when the firm cites incompatibility of worker skills and business needs.

How might we reduce worker precariousness arising from information asymmetry and in its place, cultivate a sense of shared responsibility between companies and workers to enhance workers’ career longevity in a digital economy?

Third, the spotlight on technology and online harm has made us more aware of our rights. However, many of us are less certain of how to exercise them. While businesses are conscious of seeking consent from users on data privacy, default privacy settings are often onerous to navigate. It is even more challenging to attempt a complete opt out from the default settings. Furthermore, users who consent to the default settings might not be aware of what the settings allow or mean.

In this regard, it would not be far off to consider that the default mindset of these companies to be, and I quote journalist Zeynep Tufekci: "to expect users to accept what they are given, not know their options or not have the constant vigilance required to keep track of the available options, however limited they may be."

Workers of technology companies, whether freelancers or employees, are also not spared. In fact, workers might be required or made to feel obliged to download their employer's or company's app and to always accede to requests to update the apps, unknowing that each update could reset their data privacy settings and void previous opt-outs.

As more companies transform into digital for businesses, how might we introduce oversight into the processes by which companies obtain data privacy permissions to ensure accountability and transparency? Central to the three trends is our expectations of what is a socially responsible business and its role in a digital economy and society.

I would like to contribute three suggestions towards the Motion's narrative of building an inclusive and safe digital society.

To address the harmful effects of unsolicited marketing and the powerlessness that users experience in relation to the data that we hand over to the companies, I would suggest that regulators take a proactive approach to educate companies on respect for user rights. For instance, a socially responsible company would ensure default settings favour user privacy and autonomy. This means that users must have unrestricted access to their own data privacy settings.

There must be avenues for users trapped in unsavoury data privacy settings to get help to set themselves free from the snares of predatory companies. Such help could be in the form of a helpdesk managed by public and private players working together.

Regulators should consider imposing punitive action on recalcitrant companies and establish guardrails to keep in check companies exhibiting such predatory behaviour.

To address the precarity of workers in the face of technological innovation and disruptions, I would urge companies to adopt a forward-looking approach. For instance, they could work closely with the unions and sector agencies to dial up the digital and technology fluency of their workers.

In this regard, a socially responsible company would work together with unions and agencies on continual training and on-the-job learning for their workforce to improve workforce mobility across technologies. This will build up workers' digital capital and is key to workers' career longevity in the digital age.

Just as Friedman's narrative was reshaped by the rise of social consciousness in society, the responsibility is upon us as workers and users to make a difference.

I would encourage workers and users to unite under representative bodies, such as the unions and associations and to put forth our updated expectations on the social responsibilities of businesses in the digital age.

By working closely with Government and like-minded businesses and organisations and leveraging the tripartite framework, we can establish updated standards and legitimise the norms to form the bedrock for a safe and inclusive digital society. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Dr Wan Rizal.

4.48 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar) : Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. In an era where digital technology permeates every aspect of our lives, today's Motion holds more relevance than ever.

As an educator and a father to teenagers and young children, I am acutely aware of the impact of a digital world. Our responsibility goes beyond technological progress. It involves safeguarding our young generation's mental health and well-being.

The digital world has transformed education and communication, offering unparalleled opportunities for learning and connection. A key player in this transformation is AI. AI has revolutionised the educational experience by personalising learning and providing real-time feedback.

In online safety, AI can detect potential dangers. It can identify patterns of cyberbullying, flag inappropriate content and even offer proactive and swift interventions to protect our young users.

When harnessed correctly, AI is a powerful ally. However, the deployment of AI has its challenges. The misuse of perpetuating cyberbullying through deepfakes or other manipulative content is a growing worry.

Furthermore, if not developed ethically, AI systems can inherit biases, leading to discriminatory practices or inadequate protection for certain groups.

Privacy is another critical issue. The balance between leveraging AI for safety and respecting individual privacy rights is delicate and requires careful navigation.

Another significant challenge in the digital world is the alarming prevalence of cyberbullying. A global report from 2020 brought to light a "cyber pandemic" affecting children worldwide.

In Singapore, this issue is particularly concerning, as studies show that four in 10 children aged eight to 12 are at risk of cyberbullying, a risk that increases for teenagers. Contributing factors include widespread smartphone ownership, excessive social media use and high gaming activity.

Reinforcing these findings, an online survey by the Sunlight Alliance for Action (AfA) revealed that a similar proportion of youths experience cyberbullying, leading to deep emotional scars. The link between social media and mental health issues like anxiety and depression in young users is increasingly evident. Our responsibility is to ensure that digital access does not compromise our children's mental health and well-being.

Madam, allow me to share an anecdotal story of Aisha, a Secondary 1 student, not much different from my daughter's age, whose experience in the digital world reflects the multi-faceted nature of online harms.

Like many of her peers, Aisha was active on various social media platforms. And despite her age, she easily bypassed the age verification processes with a falsified birth date, a common oversight in many platforms' registration procedures.

On these platforms, Aisha encountered a barrage of challenges. Despite these services claiming to have stringent content filters, she was exposed to inappropriate content. This exposure disturbed her and skewed her understanding of social norms. Furthermore, she faced cyberbullying. These were sparked after a harmless AI face swapped picture of her was posted online. Harassing messages and public ridicule and shaming from anonymous accounts became a daily ordeal, deeply affecting her.

The turning point came when the school intervened, recognising her sudden withdrawal and decline in academic performance. They worked closely with her parents to address the issues she faced online. But the question is: was it too late?

It became clear that while digital literacy at school and parental involvement at home were crucial, more accountable and stringent policies were needed to complement these efforts.

In that regard, I would like to highlight a three-pronged approach encompassing schools, homes and the Internet, which we are practising.

Firstly, in schools, we must continue to build on our successes in digital literacy and cyber-wellness education, recognised as the "gold standard" by experts around the world. We must continue to instill a culture of ethical and mindful digital engagement. Our children must understand the complexities of the online world, discern fact from fiction and build healthy digital relationships.

Topics like online privacy, recognising misinformation and understanding the ethics and psychological impact of digital media are crucial. We must continue to creatively integrate these digital literacy programmes into the core curriculum of our education system at all levels. This integration should not be limited to just IT lessons. Rather, it should be woven into the fabric of all subjects, where appropriate, to ensure that our children are equipped with digital skills and ethics as a fundamental aspect of their education.

Secondly, in homes, the engagement and education of parents in digital safety must be intensified. The home environment is equally critical in shaping children's digital experiences. Parents and guardians must be well-informed but most importantly, actively involved. This can be achieved through regular workshops and resources that empower them to create a safe digital environment at home.

These initiatives should focus on educating parents about online risks, appropriate content monitoring, which many are shy to do and strategies for open communication with their children about their online activities and experiences, a skill not many are willing to do but is crucial in a child's development. The aim is to foster a collaborative approach between schools and families, ensuring consistency in the messages and practices regarding digital safety and usage.

Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is the Internet itself. The gateway to digital experiences must be fortified. Stringent measures to protect children from online harm, age-appropriate content filters and stricter regulations on digital platforms are necessary to create a safer digital environment. Policies and regulations must be robust, holding social media services and application developers accountable.

Therefore, I applaud MCI for the Code of Practice for Online Safety, which is crucial in governing digital content and interactions to create a safer online environment. The Code mandates social media services like Meta and Google, which have significant reach in Singapore, to establish systems and processes to shield users, especially children, from online harm.

However, while social media services and application developers have policies specifically for young users, a critical gap remains, the challenge of accurately determining the age of users. Beyond self-declaration, these platforms need reliable age assurance measures, as the current system is easily circumvented.

Therefore, I urge social media services and application developers to intensify their age assurance measures. They must be more vigilant in safeguarding young users from harmful content.

Furthermore, it is essential that social media services improve their response time to user reports, ensuring that flagged harmful content is acted upon promptly. It is worth considering how long these services take to remove harmful content and should we establish a specific timeframe for them to take down such content. Should we implement stricter implications for non-compliance?

Aisha's story underscores the importance of a robust age verification system, effective content filtering and proactive measures against cyberbullying by these platforms to safeguard our children.

As legislators, we must support and enforce such initiatives. We must ensure that social media services and application developers comply with these practices and continually evolve their strategies to address emerging online safety challenges. Madam, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Sir, we live in a rapidly-evolving digital age, where digital technology touches every aspect of our lives.

However, we must ensure that this digital world is a safe and inclusive space, especially for our younger generation.

In our efforts to build an inclusive and safe digital society, I propose three strategic steps,

First, in school, it is important to integrate digital literacy into the curriculum. This is not just about teaching how to use technology, but also about digital ethics, online security and the skills to navigate the digital world responsibly.

Second, at home, where the role of parents is critical. They need to be equipped with knowledge and resources to create a safe digital environment at home, as well as becoming a partner in their children's digital education.

Third, on the internet, we should fortify the gateway into the digital world. This means that legislation and policies should be tightened to ensure that Social Media Services and application developers shoulder more responsibility in protecting our children from harmful online content.

The latest initiative by IMDA, including the Code of Practice for Online Security, is an important step to improve online safety, especially for children.

Through this approach, I hope we can work together as a society to build a digital domain that is not only technologically advanced, but also one that has peace, understanding, and inclusion for all, especially for our younger generation.

( In English ): Madam, in conclusion, this is a call to action for service providers, lawmakers, educators, parents and the tech industry. We must work together to create policies, educational curricula and technological solutions that safeguard our digital spaces.

Ensuring the safety of our children in the digital world is a shared responsibility. My vision is simple – to see our children safe to explore, to learn and grow without fear and harm. With that, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Mr Ong Hua Han.

4.59 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member) : Madam, in light of the recent news coverage highlighting the dangers of deepfakes and the rise of scams in general, the timing of this Motion is, indeed, fitting.

The Motion tabled today has two key thrusts – that our digital society is both inclusive and safe.

Between 2018 to 2022, scam incidences have been reported to increase fivefold. Losses to scams in 2023 will likely again cost us more than half a billion dollars. E-commerce, job and phishing scams have quickly become the most prevalent scam types through popular channels like messaging apps, social media and online shopping platforms.

Clearly, as our society becomes more digital, having a safe online environment is of utmost priority. Numerous phishing websites and mobile applications have emerged recently. Scammers create fake websites that are almost indistinguishable from the real ones. Fake websites deceive users into entering their credentials, targeting those who seek to use messaging, email and banking services. Link shorteners are frequently used by scammers to make these links appear legitimate.

One way to identify fake websites is to carefully examine the domain name. An example of a legitimate domain name is ".gov.sg", which cannot be replicated by scammers. "Go.gov.sg" is the official link shortener used by Government agencies and users are prompted to pause and check their browser address bar when they click on the shortened Government link for the first time. The Government also publishes and updates a list of trusted sites and clearly highlights that people should look out for ".gov.sg" in the URL of Government websites.

For a more holistic approach, would it be feasible for the Government to require consumer banking and messaging services to publish such clear advisories and implement measures similar to the "pause and check" feature? In January 2022, MAS and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) announced additional measures to bolster the security of digital banking. Among these measures, banks in Singapore have removed clickable links in emails or SMSes sent to customers.

Now, the question arises – in an environment where phishing scams involving clickable links still take place, how do we ensure that all retail banking users, particularly seniors, are aware of this initiative? Furthermore, these measures do not apply to non-bank financial institutions, such as digital investment platforms. Could the Government consider widening the scope of these measures to ensure that non-bank financial institutions serving retail customers also conform to the same standards? After all, it is in the interest of end users and service providers when scammers fail in their attempts.

Having considered online safety, I would like to now turn our attention to the other equally important tenet of this Motion. In the rest of my speech I will raise certain issues to ensure that our digital society is also inclusive to disadvantaged groups. This is especially important as daily life becomes digitalised over time. Today, the Internet has become a significant and unparalleled source of data. All of us in this Chamber would not think twice to search something up on the web or add to its content through social media. In day-to-day living, instant payments via our smartphones are second nature. For some in society, it is not quite the same.

According to MCI, seniors in Singapore continue to find using technology for purposes, such as contactless payment, a challenge. For seniors over the age of 60, this struggle is even more prevalent. The SG Digital Office (SDO) set up in June 2020 by IMDA runs a Seniors Go Digital programme that aims to help our seniors navigate the digital landscape with ease and confidence. Given that some seniors still express hesitancy over the use of technology, can the Government clarify if such programmes have been successful in achieving their objectives and what more can be done?

Moving on to our friends with sensory disabilities, more attention is required to ensure that they are not left behind as we develop what we call our Digital Social Compact. I will begin by addressing the concerns of the deaf community, followed by a discussion on issues relating to the visually impaired (VI).

In September last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question on whether the Government will consider providing Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) interpretation services during significant Government live TV broadcasts. It was noted in the reply that since April 2020, MCI has required TV broadcasts of significant national and public interest to be accompanied by SgSL interpretation. This move marked a crucial step towards inclusivity and events, such as the National Day Rally and Budget speeches, have, indeed, become more accessible to the deaf community. However, there had been significant live events where SgSL interpretation was absent or only provided in a delayed broadcast.

For instance, during the most recent Presidential Forum in 2023, I understand that SgSL interpretation was not available in realtime but only in a delayed broadcast. This was despite the fact that the Presidential Election 2023 was the first contested Presidential Elections in over a decade in Singapore.

Critical live broadcasts, such as the initial COVID-19 briefings during the outbreak of the pandemic, also lacked sign language interpretation. Although it was eventually provided in later briefings, it is essential we recognise the challenging and unsettling environment the deaf community faced during those early, deeply uncertain moments.

Beyond TV broadcasts, there has also been feedback highlighting the disadvantages faced by the deaf community. Today, in our digital first but not digital only approach, there are still Government services that involve face-to-face or phone interaction. This includes reporting flat damage to HDB, consulting MOH or health clusters or addressing issues with CPF, ICA, LTA, among others. These are not fully accessible to the deaf. The deaf often have no choice but to hire a sign language interpreter at their own expense in order to communicate with Government agencies through these channels.

Given these persistent challenges, it is easy to empathise with the deaf community. It is natural for them to feel that their social participation in day-to-day living, access to essential services or time-sensitive information lag behind those of their hearing peers currently. I am aware and grateful for the ongoing collaboration between ServiceSG and SADeaf in addressing these accessibility challenges. That being said, it is necessary that we continue to push for inclusive and timely solutions. We must ensure that no one in the deaf community feels left behind as our world becomes digital.

I will use the final part of my speech to highlight issues on behalf of the visually impaired (VI) community. According to the Enabling Masterplan 2030 report, about 61% of all high traffic Government websites are accessible. These high traffic websites are defined as those with at least one million visits per year. The Enabling Masterplan 2030 rightfully acknowledges the existing gap in digital accessibility. It commits to designing accessible websites and applications for Government services. Additionally, it aims to raise the adoption of e-accessibility by the non-Government sectors.

Despite this, on the ground, many of those with VI continue to provide feedback that digital inaccessibility remains a big issue. People with VI consume digital content in a different way. For those with low to no vision remaining, they use a type of software called a screen reader. A screen reader is a text-to-speech software that turns a user's phone or computer into a talking machine. It scans all available text and reads the contents out loud. For images and buttons, the screen reader needs clear, user-friendly labels or alternate text to enable meaningful audio playback of screen content.

Speaking with the VI community, their experience with accessing digital content in Singapore via their screen readers is riddled with inconsistencies. For example, following the latest update of the HealthHub application, I am told that, unfortunately, blind users can no longer access the app like before. Previously, the app featured well-labelled buttons, enabling blind users to easily book hospital appointments or make bill payments seamlessly. After the update, the buttons somehow became unlabelled and the screen reader could only announce "button" or "unlabelled graphic" without any helpful context. Currently, blind users are left to navigate the app by trial and error, leading to an inefficient and often frustrating experience.

Thankfully, there is a brighter side. Visually impaired users have reported positive experiences with other Government websites like IRAS and CPF, showing that with the right focus and consideration, our digital services can, indeed, be made accessible.

Apart from Government services, many websites and applications from local companies are not screen-reader friendly. For most of us, consuming Government services is not the most significant proportion of our online activity. This also applies to those who have visual impairments, who engage in diverse online interactions.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is an international standard to ensure online content is accessible to persons with disabilities. In Singapore, our Digital Service Standard (DSS) aligns with WCAG 2.1 at the AA level. The WCAG standards have three levels of conformance: "A" being the minimum; "AA" being mid-range; and "AAA" is highest.

The DSS framework in Singapore applies exclusively to Government agencies. We do not have legislation in Singapore that requires companies to make their products and services accessible to persons with disabilities. There is also no direct incentive for companies to make them accessible for all users or consumers.

Without these, companies do not spare enough thought or consideration for disadvantaged groups in their online offerings. For instance, some e-commerce websites use puzzles or sliders to verify that users are, indeed, human. These methods often do not meet the basic level "A" of the WCAG standard, which requires alternative challenge-response authentication to cater to different types of sensory perception. Examples like this cause persons with disabilities to frequently find themselves relying on others when using the simplest of online services. They, too, yearn for the autonomy to independently manage their day-to-day activities like you and I.

In our physical built environment, we have the BCA Accessibility Code, which sets minimum accessibility requirements for new developments. The BCA-administered Accessibility Fund provides capital incentive to improve building accessibility. These measures benefit everyone, including the physically disadvantaged.

As goods and services become more digitalised, it becomes equally if not more important to implement similar standards and incentives in the digital domain to ensure accessibility for all. I fully agree with the hon Member Ms Tin Pei Ling in her opening speech: why should the digital world be different from the real one?

Looking abroad, Singapore can draw inspiration from internationally established frameworks for online accessibility. An example is the 2019 EU Directive, which sets accessibility standards for consumer banking and e-commerce services, among others. This directive ensures that services are designed for easy use by persons with disabilities. Key measures include providing information in a way that can be perceived by everyone. This means offering alternatives to supplement non-textual content, using easily readable fonts, ensuring high contrast and allowing adjustable spacing in text.

Shifting our focus from online accessibility frameworks, we must also guarantee that future designers are educated on accessible user experience design and digital inclusion. To move towards a future where digital accessibility is the norm, it is crucial that these principles are integrated from the very beginning of any new digital venture. Thoughtful, or should I say, universal design, must be considerate towards those with diverse usage requirements.

Having discussed various challenges and the need for inclusive digital design, I would like to propose three key suggestions.

First, could we consider requiring non-Government, essential services, starting with high traffic online platforms to conform with an accessibility framework similar to DSS?

Second, to encourage smaller businesses, could the Government consider expanding the scope of the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) to support the development and improvement of websites, mobile applications, digital products and services and make them accessible to all?

Third, could the Government work with Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure that future web designers and programmers are sufficiently trained on digital accessibility?

With the application of these suggestions, we take significant steps towards ensuring that the VI community will, one day, enjoy full inclusion in every aspect of our digital society.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the issues we have addressed today – ensuring safety, supporting the elderly, accommodating the deaf and including the visually impaired – all underscore the need for a whole-of-nation approach. While the Government takes the lead, sets the example and facilitates this agenda, we also need corporates, programmers, UX designers and end-users to implement this in practice, safeguard online activity and confidently participate in the digital landscape.

I share the hope of those in the community that with a concerted effort, this digital utopia will not remain a dream, but soon become reality. I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.16 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) : Mdm Deputy Speaker, the digital realm, powered by AI, offers unprecedented opportunities for connection, growth and progress. It fuels our economy, empowers our communities and enriches our lives in countless ways. But, like any frontier, the digital world also harbors hidden dangers and challenges.

I stand before you today to advocate for a cause close to my heart and one that deserves our urgent attention: ensuring a safe and inclusive digital world for our senior citizens.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, our Silver Generation has built the Singapore we know and love. They worked tirelessly, sacrificed immensely and laid the foundation for our nation's success. Now, as they navigate the twilight of their lives, it is our duty to ensure they can enjoy the fruits of their labor in a world increasingly shaped by technology. However, for many seniors, the digital revolution presents challenges. Confusing interfaces, complex online procedures and the ever-present threat of online scams can leave them feeling overwhelmed and excluded.

Given the rapid pace of society and the push towards digitalisation, many may have no choice but to go digital to transact, communicate and stay connected. While many seniors possess smartphones, not all know how to use them effectively. They may struggle with basic concepts like data versus wi-fi, digital tokens and password management.

I understand this from first-hand experience from helping my parents set up new accounts on their handphones. Downloading the apps and creating the accounts, is but the first step. The real challenge lies in navigating the maze of features, logins and verifications. Even with patience and repetition, committing the steps to memory is not easy. The troubleshooting, the fear of getting locked out – they have so many questions and it is not just a one-time fix. My parents, thankfully, have me. But, what about countless others who face this digital divide without a familiar voice to guide them?

I witness these struggles at my Yio Chu Kang Meet-the-People sessions (MPS). Imagine Mdm Tan, who spent her life nurturing her family, grappling to access online Government services just to pay a bill, due to a lack of accessibility to physical options or clear information about it.

Picture Mr Lim, a veteran of our nation's independence who built an honest living from little resources, now feeling a gnawing helplessness as he struggles to decipher a phishing email.

Consider Mr Ahmad and his wife, pillars of our community, building their lives on hard work and friendly smiles. Years of working at their nasi lemak store, saw their five children through school, only for their dreams of retirement to vanish in a single tap. A scammer's cunning app devoured their life savings, leaving them helpless and heartbroken. These are not hypothetical situations; these are the lived realities of countless seniors in Yio Chu Kang and across Singapore.

The digital divide is not just a matter of convenience; it is a barrier to essential services, financial independence and social connection. Without proper digital literacy and support, our seniors risk being left behind, isolated and vulnerable to exploitation. Over the years, the SG Digital Office (SDO) have done much to equip seniors with necessary digital skills. I wish to ask for an update on how many seniors have been reached and how many more do we need to reach? How do we measure success? Are we moving fast enough?

Measuring digital literacy for seniors should not be a mere tally of workshops attended or apps downloaded. Just like learning to cook as a life skill takes more than a single class, using digital tools as a life skill too, requires sustained practice, advancement and exploration. The stakes, however, are higher in the digital realm. A misguided click can vanish years of hard-earned savings, understandably instilling fear and doubt. This creates a cruel contradiction: urging seniors towards digital dependence on one hand and then, blaming or even mocking them for the costly mistakes made. Imagine the bewilderment, when the promised convenience suddenly morphs into potential peril. It is no wonder that some seniors, despite making initial progress, choose to retreat entirely.

Sadly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the digital world also harbours malicious actors who prey on the seniors' vulnerabilities. From fake investment schemes to impersonation scams, these predators exploit their trust, inflicting financial and emotional harm. The rise of deepfakes further underscores the need to shield our seniors from online predators.

We have seen recent troubling instances of deepfakes targeting high-profile figures like our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, promoting dubious investment schemes. These malicious attempts not only sow confusion and erode trust in online information, but also prey on seniors' susceptibility to such scams. We must not let our seniors become easy targets. We must equip them with the knowledge and tools to navigate the digital landscape safely and confidently.

The Motion rightly puts that bridging the digital divide and combating online scams require a multi-pronged, whole-of-nation approach. I have the following proposals.

First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must continue to empower seniors. We have started the journey and we must persist. Building digital literacy for seniors is an ongoing work. We need sustainable, engaging programmes woven into the fabric of their lives. Programmes tailored to their needs and interests, where trusted mentors guide them step-by-step, refresh their memories and nurture their confidence.

These ongoing journeys will empower seniors to slowly but surely unlock the full potential of technology, one click or one tap at a time. It is about empowering them to build critical thinking skills and encourage source verification to be more discerning in the online space. Do not just forward messages; check email addresses and never share passwords. Importantly, our seniors themselves must inculcate a mindset of continuous learning and exercise vigilance about technology and new threats.

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must build support systems for our seniors. Dedicated helplines and support networks are critical for seniors to seek assistance with digital issues and report scams without fear. To address the prevalence of online scams, can the Government consider a centralized agency managing these support networks and helplines? Can we consider something like the Municipal Services Office (MSO) or the OneService App?

Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must strengthen enforcement. Law enforcement agencies must actively crack down on cyber criminals targeting seniors, bringing them to justice and deterring future scams. We know seniors often approach their MPs for help in expediting police investigations to recover lost funds. However, once perpetrators acquire money, retrieval is understandably difficult. I have previously advocated in this House for timelines for law enforcement agencies to update residents on such matters, especially seniors impacted by online scams.

Mdm R, a senior resident of mine, wrote to me and expressed her frustration about waiting for an outcome after reporting a scam at my MPS. Her words reflect the emotional toll these situations take, and I quote, "What is the update so far? I feel restless, stressed and worried. It is my hard-earned money. I need the update. I need my money back." Our seniors deserve timely updates and having the confidence that our processes can deliver results.

Fourth, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must improve our infrastructure and cyber resilience. We need to review the approach to victims of scams by unauthorised transactions. Placing the sole blame on scam victims for such transactions is unfair. While education is essential, in today's complex digital landscape, losses can stem from vulnerabilities within the system itself. Larger players, from telcos to banks and app developers, must share responsibility and invest in robust security measures.

The recent government interventions and efforts are welcome. Nonetheless, more time and resources are needed to upgrade our infrastructure and ecosystem. Can the Minister share some of the plans to further strengthen cyber resilience and infrastructure?

On this note, I wish to ask how does our fight against financial scams compare to other cities like Hong Kong, New York and London? What about in China, where even elderly citizens are known to navigate online payments with ease? Learning from best practices abroad can help us build a more secure and inclusive digital ecosystem for all, where convenience does not come at the cost of vulnerability.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, while we diligently work to bridge the digital divide and protect our seniors online, building and maintaining their trust in our efforts is paramount. This requires transparency in how we address their concerns. It also demands swift and decisive action to combat these threats, demonstrating that we are truly committed to their well-being.

A timely response to their anxieties and frustrations, like providing updates on investigations to Mdm R, reaffirms their faith in our agencies and processes. By prioritising their safety and empowerment, we can build a digital future where our seniors feel not only included, but also that they are protected and are valued members of the community.

In the meantime, seniors and vulnerable citizens must not bear the brunt of digital progress. While building cyber resilience takes time, essential services must remain accessible, even if it means facilitating physical options. We cannot celebrate digital convenience while leaving our elderly behind, inconvenienced and frustrated.

In conclusion, imagine this Mdm Deputy Speaker. Mdm Tan confidently navigating online forms, a smile on her face as she pays her bills without needing help. Picture Mr Lim laughing alongside his grandchildren in a distant land, brought together by technology. Mr Ahmad, enjoying the convenience of purchasing online without fearing that he will lose his life savings from it.

This is not just a vision; it is a promise we can make to our seniors, a promise of a digital world where they are not left behind, but empowered and embraced. This journey requires action, not just words. We must accelerate digital literacy programmes, equipping every senior with the tools they need. We must establish a centralised support network, a single point of contact for their digital anxieties and fears. We must hold accountable, those who target our seniors with swift and decisive action.

Let this be our pledge today: we will bridge the digital divide, hand in hand with our Silver Generation. We will weave a digital tapestry where their voices are heard, their concerns addressed and their safety enshrined. This is not just about technology; it is about respect, inclusion and honouring the legacy they have built.

Let us, together, build a digital Singapore where every senior, from Mdm Tan to Mr Lim to Mr Ahmad, walks confidently into the future, empowered and as valued members of our community. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us support this Motion, let us make this promise a reality.

Mdm Deputy Speaker : Ms Usha Chandradas.

5.28 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member) : Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Motion and I, too, would like particularly to speak about the way our society has considered our seniors in the creation of our safe and inclusive digital society. This is a point that has been raised by many other hon Members today and I would like to add my views as well, to this discussion.

According to the annual Population In Brief report, Singapore citizens aged 65 and above make up around 19% of our demographic. That figure is expected to increase and by 2030, around 24% of our citizens will be aged 65 and above. These are large numbers, and by now, I am sure everybody in the House is quite familiar with them.

Our approach is for Singapore to be a "Digital First" society, and not a "Digital Only" society. Accordingly, there is a need to make sure that our non-digital options – where we choose to provide them – are effective and thoughtful ones. Again, this is not a new point at all, it has been addressed and acknowledged in this House many times in the past.

I would like to add two further points to the discussion. First, in the context of building inclusivity, I would like to re-emphasise the need to think about the digital experience as a whole and not just in respect of the functionality of specific services and apps. Let us take a step back and consider for a moment – what does the larger digital environment look like right now, for a senior trying to live out their retirement years?

In spite of posting record profits, banks continue to cite cost factors as the reason why they have decided to do away with physical cheques or to implement charges for their use – never mind that this is a mode of payment that generations of Singaporeans have been used to.

A number of bank branches have closed and self-service video teller machines have replaced human bank tellers. Medical appointments, prescription refills, health records – these are all accessible through apps such as HealthHub and Health Buddy. Shops, supermarkets and cafes have started to go cashless and smartphone apps are also used for the collection of points and allocation of discounts. If you go to a restaurant, chances are that you have to scan a QR code to access the menu and sometimes even to order and pay. And while your entire life is condensed into your tiny smartphone, there is an additional fear and worry that you will be targeted by scammers.

All of these digital initiatives, while improving efficiency, do not necessarily improve overall experiences for our seniors. It is perhaps easy to say that elderly folks unfamiliar with technological developments in banking, healthcare and other sectors should simply be educated on how to improve their digital skills or seek to depend on trusted family members for help. This approach, however, ignores a few things.

First, it overlooks the fact that not everyone has caregivers whom they can rely on. For some of our seniors, doing their banking or shopping in person might be the only form of social interaction that they have in a single day.

Secondly, dignity and agency are imperative in ageing well. No one wants to feel like a burden or like they need re-education to just continue on with functions that they have managed independently for years.

While reported figures may indicate that more seniors are engaging in digital transactions, how many of these are in fact carried out by caregivers, friends or family members on their behalf?

There is a case to be made, I feel, for allowing seniors who wish to carry on with non-digital options to simply live out their lives as they wish in the way that they are used to. They can learn to adopt digital solutions if they want, but they should be gradual and they should do this in their own time.

I acknowledge that there are many good avenues for learning, such as the Seniors Go Digital initiative, and the Government has done well here. But we must remember not to move too quickly.

This idea echoes a principle that can be found in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights report entitled "Ensuring Access to Public Services in Digital Societies". In this report, it says that while "member states should proactively support all initiatives by opening lifelong learning opportunities to older persons of all ages... individuals should not be obliged to acquire the necessary digital skills for access to digital services." The report then goes on to state that public administrations should always provide other access channels for citizens who cannot or do not want to acquire these skills.

Mr Speaker, Sir, true inclusivity is about choice and agency. Even if adaptability is required in a changing world, a positive choice needs to be made by a person to acquire new skills. His or her community then needs to provide the right environment for this learning to take place.

This is, of course, not to say that we should all be Luddites who reject technological advances. In fact, there are many ways in which technology can be deployed to create inclusivity and safety for our seniors.

Singapore's Digital Readiness Blueprint emphasises the need for user-centric design, which is absolutely spot on, but we need to remember to apply this thinking in an expansive way and not just in a piece-meal fashion. We need to step into the shoes of our seniors in all the different demographics, seriously think through each of their respective lived experiences and apply our minds to how this technology can help them.

This brings me to my second point, which is about how arts-related related initiatives can assist in building digital literacy, inclusivity and safety for our seniors in our digital society. Three examples come to mind, which I would like to share with you today.

In 2021, the National Gallery Singapore launched a superb project called The People's Gallery. Here, through the use of augmented reality (AR) technology, the gallery transformed more than 25 HDB void decks across heartland neighbourhoods into virtual art galleries.

All you had to do was point your phone camera at a QR code on a void deck wall and an artwork from the National Collection would appear before you as if it had been hung on that wall. In one magical swoop, viewers could suspend physical reality for a moment and enjoy the experience of having a beautiful piece of art appear right in front of them. They did not have to pay a single cent. All they had to do was simply turn on their phone cameras.

This is technology which is easy to use and something that, to my mind, we could use just as easily in different scenarios, for example, in hospital waiting areas of geriatric clinics, where elderly folk are required to wait for lengthy periods of time. These long waits can create huge amounts of stress for seniors whether they are alone or with caregivers and it is quite possible that access to digital art could alleviate some of that tension while familiarising our seniors with digital tools. This is a great example of how technology can be inclusive, easily accessible and applied in a way that makes sense in order to serve the real needs of our seniors.

The next example I would like to talk about is the use of technology in dementia care. Artist and programmer Eugene Soh is one such person who is working in this space. Specifically, he helps patients to cope with dementia using virtual reality (VR) technology. In his Mind Palace social enterprise, Eugene and his team are able to virtually transport nursing home residents to evocative places which are familiar to them, such as their old homes or neighbourhoods or even places of interest such as Haw Par Villa and Chinatown. They are also able to incorporate family members in created VR scenes, which helps the elderly patients to trigger memories, relieve social isolation and expand their physical boundaries.

But that is not all. Being mindful of the fact that wearable VR goggles may not be attractive to seniors and may come with the risk of spreading viruses, Mind Palace decided to convert entire rooms into immersive interactive environments where interaction with fitness and meditative experiences is done via motion sensors. So, to summarise, the whole experience is totally contactless and in line with what users of this service require and prefer.

To date, Mind Palace has conducted hundreds of trials and built five permanent immersive rooms at various eldercare facilities. It is, again, another great example of solution-based and user-centric design thinking.

As Eugene described to me, his creativity is a compulsion. It is about using technology as a way of facilitating story-telling and expression, in a way that can reach out to communities in need in order to do some good.

The final example I would like to refer to is that of HSBC Bank in Hong Kong, which last November, organised an art exhibition aimed at promoting public awareness on fraud prevention and online scams. Amongst others, the show featured an art piece that leveraged on face-swapping technology to show exhibition visitors how their images could be transformed into those of famous local celebrities. The point of this exhibit was to educate visitors about deepfake video call scams.

In Singapore, the Government engages with popular creators on YouTube to raise awareness on scams and disseminates information through innovative mediums such as music videos. This is indeed a good step in the right direction to raise awareness amongst digital natives. But I also read with interest earlier this week that the DBS Foundation and POSB have engaged with getai performers to entertain and educate seniors on digital literacy.

I applaud these steps and I hope that the Government takes note of our large arts community in Singapore and the talents that they have to offer. Creative, entertaining and empathetic storytelling can result in much better outreach on digital literacy to different segments of society, including harder to reach groups like our seniors.

While we progress in our Smart Nation goals towards inclusivity and safety, let us not forget these two points: first, that design thinking should always be applied in a holistic and empathetic manner to honour the full lived experiences of our seniors; and secondly, in our whole-of-nation Government strategies, especially when we think about the allocation of funding and other resources, let us not forget the important role that our artists and creatives play in crafting inclusivity and safety within our digital society.

Mr Speaker : Mr Sharael Taha.

5.39 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful that in Singapore, we live in a high-trust society where our trust transcends barriers of race, language, religion and differences. It is notable that this trust extends to our institutions. Based on a study by the Edelman Trust in 2023, our Government remains the most trusted institution in Singapore.

Only with trust, can we remain united. In a 2022 Pew Research, 75% of Singaporeans polled shared that they felt more united after COVID-19, topping the list of 13 countries. This is remarkable, considering an increasingly divided world where trust for state and government institutions is hard to come by.

We have been able to maintain a high degree of trust between people, Government, organisations and businesses through many years of working and facing challenges together.

However, this trust is fragile and can erode if our differences are manipulated. Racial or religious tensions, increasing income gaps, fake news, deepfakes, as shared by fellow Parliamentarian Dr Tan, perceived unfairness and unaddressed anxieties can very easily unravel the trust we have meticulously built over the years. In this Motion, our GPC thus calls for the House to reaffirm our commitment to adopt a whole-of-nation approach to sustain trust by building an inclusive and safe digital society.

How do we ensure that amidst increased global digitalisation, everyone feels secure and feels part of our society? How do we tackle falsehoods that threaten social cohesion? How do we combat technology-based scams? How can we provide equal and equitable opportunities such that the opportunities do not only benefit the few at the top?

I would like to focus on just three critical points to help sustain trust by building a safe and inclusive digital society.

Firstly, redefining employment. Redefining employment is essential as the employment landscape is evolving. The landscape is multifaceted and dynamic and any business owner in Singapore will tell you that we face challenges in securing the right manpower due to our limited population and an ageing demographic.

It has been mentioned repeatedly that by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be above the age of 60. Currently, jobs for seniors are typically manual in nature, such as cleaners and pump attendants, possibly because of the lack of digital skillset of the current seniors. However, what is different compared to what we are experiencing now is our young seniors now are digitally literate and can continue to contribute to the economy in a different way.

At one of my house visits, I met a resident in her early 50s doing accounts for companies. She shared that since COVID-19, she has not been to her office. She hopes that she can continue to do so, well into post-retirement. She wishes to continue working as she enjoys the interaction but wants to spend time with her grandchildren too.

COVID-19 has expedited the concept of flexible work arrangements in Singapore. Guidelines on flexible work arrangements have been shared by Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Some degree of telecommuting is accepted as the norm at the workplace now. However, job sharing, staggered time, part-time work have yet to be embraced in earnest.

So, how do we bring all of these different elements together and leverage digitalisation to meet the needs of our future seniors to have meaningful employment with a comfortable work-life balance when they retire, to meet the needs of future retirees to continue to build their retirement nest egg and to meet the manpower needs of our economy?

To do so, we must take a structured, whole-of-nation approach to rethink the definition of employment to encourage flexible work arrangements like job sharing, staggered time, part-time work, where possible, to truly unlock the potential of digitally abled young seniors. Moreover, individuals with disabilities and back-to-work moms can stand to benefit too from such arrangements, helping to foster inclusivity while ensuring economic activity continues.

Secondly, while our digital connectivity is commendable, we must ensure every school-going child has digital access and digital skillsets required in the future economy.

The latest Singapore Digital Society Report indicates that through schemes such as DigitalAccess@Home and NEU PC, Singapore has a 99% internet connectivity rate for all households and 98% of households with school-going children have access to computers. At the grassroots level, we work with community partners to provide lower-income families with digital access. An example is in Pasir Ris East, where we worked with Schneider Electric to distribute 100 laptops to children from lower-income families.

However, what I find surprising is that, despite all these programmes only 98% of household with school-going kids have access to computers. This represents two out of every 100 households with kids in school still not having access to computers for whatsoever reason.

This is worrying, especially when we consider that these households may likely be from the lower-income families. How do we ensure that all households with school-going children have access to computers?

While ensuring connectivity and accessibility to digital devices is an undoubted priority, we must also ensure that our education system provides essential digital skills as early as at primary and secondary school levels. After all, when Singapore pursued compulsory 10 years education, the intent is to ensure that our school-going children has the necessary basic knowledge and skills for their future.

Typically, more affluent families send their kids to extra classes on coding, AI, AR and robotics. The access to such expensive extra-curricular activities, especially at a young age, may not be available to the lower-income families who face hurdles in accessing resources as well as being aware of and learning these crucial digital skills. This widens the skill gap between the haves and the have-nots. How do we ensure all our youths have equal opportunities to be exposed to and to develop these digital competencies?

Can we identify essential digitals skills such as basic coding, robotics, applied AI, cybersecurity and digital wellness to be included as core curriculum in primary and secondary schools, so that all our students have access and are exposed to these essential digital skills at an early age? I fear if we do not do so, kids from lower-income families are unduly disadvantaged in the future economy.

Hence, it was reassuring to hear from Minister Chan Chun Sing yesterday, that MOE is preparing our students to develop the foundational knowledge of AI. And I hope we can have more digital skills taught formally in schools. To ease the academic load on our students, I propose that these topics are included into the core curriculum as non-examinable, while we replace topics that may not be as critical in the future economy.

Providing a platform to create awareness and knowledge of the skills required in the digital economy, is precisely one of the things M 3 @PRPG (Pasir Ris-Punggol) hopes to achieve. Through our programs such as M 3 goes digital, 3D Makers Workshop, Mentoring Program, Learning Journey and HashTech, M 3 @PRPG hopes to equip kids, especially those from the lower-income families with the awareness and basic knowledge of these skills and the possible opportunities in the future economy.

Without such platforms, how will kids from lower-income families be aware of the skillsets required in the digital economy, let alone be inspired to have a career in these growing industries? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay please.

( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] One of M 3 @Pasir Ris-Punggol’s priorities is to provide opportunities to our students, especially those from low-income families, to learn, try and upgrade their skills in the digital field. It is only through trying that our students can cultivate their interest and aspire to continue doing it as a career.

Programmes such as M 3 Does Digital and 3D Makers Space, where students learn about 3D printing; the M 3 Learning Journey where students visit engineering and technology companies; and the #Hashtech programme where students pick up skills in dashboarding, cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence; all these provide a platform for our students to acquire digital skills.

One example is the champion of the 3D Makers Challenge. The winning team comprises pupils from Madrasah Al-Arabiah Al-Islamiah who created a toy helicopter using 3D printing.

Another example is the runner-up in the #HashTech competition; a team of three siblings, Nurul Musfirah, Nurul Shahzanie and Nurul Zahirah, who presented an Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform that helps people to better understand the various support schemes currently available in Singapore.

Congratulations to all the students and I would like to thank all volunteers from M 3 @Pasir Ris-Punggol, MENDAKI, MUIS, MAEC, MMiT dan MM in Engineering for giving our students the opportunity to improve their digital skills.

A few months ago, in my capacity as a panel member of the 4PM Bestari Award and Resilience Award for our youths studying at the ITE colleges, I was very moved when I saw the determination and resolve of these students in overcoming their challenges. Many of them are also pursuing further studies in various specialised fields, such as Applied AI and cybersecurity.

To our students, please carry on pursuing digital knowledge. Our community must continue to encourage our students to explore and enhance their digital skills that are essential in the new economy.

( In English ): Moving on from digital inclusion to the need to protect Singaporeans against online scams. I would like to thank the officers from the inter-Ministries for their continuous hard work in combatting scams. While many of our fellow Parliamentarians have talked about preventing scams, I will briefly touch on two post-scam recovery efforts.

Firstly, can we review the approach of dealing with scams by unauthorised transactions? Many scams originate from transactions which the victims have been misled to authorise. However, some scams are executed without the transactions being authorised. Can we review the approach such that financial institutions bear some consequences for scams by unauthorised transactions?

Secondly, given the volume of scam cases, more than 24,000 scam cases from just January to June 2023 alone and the complexity of scams with only 10,000 regular officers, it is understandable that investigations take some time. However, during the investigation, the victims' bank accounts or account, can be frozen. This can be highly challenging for the victims especially if it is the victim's sole account. Can we review the process of freezing bank accounts for the entire duration of the investigation period?

In conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has stood as a beacon of unity amidst a world experiencing growing division. However, trust remains delicate and will falter if left unnurtured. Leveraging digital advancements responsibly is pivotal in sustaining trust within our communities. Let us collectively strive to build a safe, inclusive and trustworthy digital society where no one gets left behind. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker : Mr Mark Lee.

5.53 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member) : Mr Speaker, Sir, as we gather today to discuss the future of our nation and the digital era, it is crucial to recognise the importance and relevance of digitisation in shaping a prosperous, efficient and connected Singapore. While we are mindful of the challenges it presents, the benefits of embracing digital transformations are undeniable and pivotal for our nation's progress.

Digitalisation is a key driver of economic growth and innovation, opening doors to new markets and opportunities. It enhances operational efficiencies and productivity revolutionising how businesses operate and compete globally. It empowers businesses to offer improved customer experiences, leveraging data analytics for more effective strategies and services.

While digitalisation can lead to the automation of some jobs, it also creates new ones. The European Commission reported that for every job that is destroyed by digitalisation, 2.6 new jobs are created in that digital sector.

Digitalisation also play a significant role in the environmental sustainability, reducing our carbon footprint through innovative solutions. The resilience demonstrated by businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic largely due to their digital capabilities, underscores the importance of being digitally prepared. This readiness not only ensures business continuity in crises, but also strengthens our collective ability to adapt and thrive in changing circumstances.

As Singapore steadfastly progress towards our vision of a Smart Nation, it is imperative that our digital transformation journey is not only marked by technological advancement but is characterised by its inclusivity and safety. This holistic approach is essential in ensuring that the benefits of digitalisation are accessible and secure for all members of our society.

Businesses are an important pillar of Singapore's digital society. Many businesses are either adopting or developing digital products and services to better engage and serve the needs of consumers, and in a manpower tight situation, implementing digital solutions with automation to streamline operations to improve efficiencies.

In an age where digital transactions and interactions are integral to our daily lives, the safety and security of digital information have become paramount concerns for users worldwide, including here in Singapore. Singaporeans are increasingly vigilant about how businesses handle their digital information. Incidents like the SingHealth data breach in 2018, have left an indelible mark on the public consciousness.

Another personal incident – a close friend of mine, who owns an engineering and construction company, experienced an ordeal that brings to light the stark realities of our digital age. His company was a victim of a ransomware attack, a malicious intrusion that stole his company servers and all of his engineering blueprints locked and encrypted by hackers. This attack brought his operations to a standstill with losses escalating every minute.

In a desperate bit to regain control, he was compelled to pay a ransom of $160,000. Yet, the financial toll extended beyond the ransom, with significant downtime and disruption losses adding to his burden. Regrettably, his experience is not an isolated one that I know. Many have suffered silently.

It is a part of a growing trend of sophisticated cyber attacks that are deeply concerning the business community. These incidents are stark reminders of the vulnerabilities in our digital infrastructure, the need for robust cybersecurity measures. Yet, in the face of a swiftly changing digital landscape, achieving digital inclusivity and safety necessitates significant investments in terms of finances, time and personnel. This requirement may present considerable challenges to some companies, especially those with limited resources.

According to the most recent National Business Survey 2022/2023 by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), 64% of businesses expressed concern over the high costs associated with adopting new technologies. Additionally, businesses, regardless of their size, are grappling with challenges such as the need for upskilling staff to keep pace with technological advancements and a shortage of management expertise to effectively spearhead technological change.

While there is a growing confidence among businesses in managing cybersecurity challenges, with 80% feeling confident this year compared to 74% the previous year, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) still find themselves trailing behind their larger counterparts. According to recent data, 78% of SMEs feel confident or somewhat confident in their security measures to protect against cyber threats, which is lower compared to the 91% confidence level of larger companies.

Furthermore, a 2023 survey conducted by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) revealed that 32% of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are prioritising the strengthening of their resilience against cyber threats, marking a significant increase from 11% in 2022, indicating a growing awareness and commitment to cybersecurity in the SME sector.

Today, I aim to tackle the prevailing notion and apprehension among businesses, particularly small enterprises, that are implementing digital safety and cyber defences and feel that it is prohibitively expensive. I intend to introduce and discuss various tailored, accessible self-help tools and collaborative resources designed to enhance the cybersecurity stance of companies affordably and effectively.

The Internet Hygiene Portal (IHP), crafted by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA), serves as a comprehensive platform for businesses to utilise self-assessment tools. These tools are designed to evaluate the security of a company's websites, email services and domain configurations. Following the assessment, IHP provides tailored, actionable recommendations, enabling companies to enhance their overall internet security posture effectively.

Additionally, the IHP enhances transparency by publishing an Internet Hygiene Rating table. This feature offers a simplified overview of the cyber hygiene status of various digital platforms. By providing such critical information, it empowers businesses and consumers alike to make informed decisions regarding their digital platform usage, therefore enhancing the security of their digital transactions and protecting against cyber threats.

For SMEs who are ready to deepen their commitment to cybersecurity, CSA offers the Cybersecurity Health Plan. Under this initiative, cybersecurity consultants act as the SMEs' virtual Chief Information Security Officers, conducting cyber health audits and crafting bespoke cybersecurity health plans. To encourage participation and alleviate financial burdens, eligible SMEs can avail themselves of up to 70% co-funding under this scheme, making advanced cybersecurity more accessible and affordable.

Proper cyber risk management is pivotal for SMEs to confidently navigate their digitalisation journey. The CTO-as-a-Service (CTOaaS) initiative, a part of the SMEs Go Digital Programme developed by IMDA and managed by SBF, is designed to bolster this confidence. Through CTOaaS, SMEs gain access to a shared pool of seasoned digital consultants who provide comprehensive advisories and project management services. This support helps SMEs identify and address digitalisation gaps and seize opportunities, ensuring a more secure and efficient digital transformation.

SMEs lacking in-house IT expertise or dedicated resources have found significant benefits in this service, receiving tailored digital solutions and training roadmaps specifically to their needs. This initiative guarantees that SMEs have access to market-proven, cost-effective solutions, ensuring they are not marginalised in our collective stride towards an inclusive and safe digital society. It is a step forward in democratising digital advancement, allowing all businesses, regardless of size or resource, to partake in and contribute to our digital future.

Considering these existing initiatives, I would like to propose some recommendations to the Government to further support our SMEs: the development of resources tailored to the emerging and critical areas of digitalisation, such as cybersecurity and artificial intelligence on a sector-specific basis.

By working closely with trade associations and companies, this approach can significantly accelerate SMEs' transition into an inclusive and safe digital society. These resources should encompass sector-specific training and assessment plans, baseline tools, and solutions that are pertinent to each industry.

Also, as highlighted in the recent Singapore Business Federation (SBF)-KPMG Budget recommendations for 2024, the Government can consider adjusting existing grant schemes to support SMEs in adopting these tools and solutions. For instance, a tiered support approach with a higher grant support quantum for the adoption of advanced AI and blockchain technology may be necessary to help companies to progress along their digitalisation roadmap beyond basic process and operational automation. There is also scope to consider expanding existing schemes to support digital projects where development work is conducted outside of Singapore for operational and cost efficiency, given the tight IT manpower pool here.

Additionally, establishing a dedicated assistance channel for SMEs to reach out when addressing potential cybersecurity or AI governance breaches would provide a safety net, ensuring that SMEs have the support they need when they need it. This comprehensive strategy will not only safeguard our businesses but also empower them to confidently embrace the digital future.

As technology becomes even more integral in our daily lives, the demand for skilled workers correspondingly evolves. It is essential to cultivate a culture of learning and innovation within our workforce. As leaders and stakeholders, we must recognise and address the apprehensions of our workers, providing reassurance and support to those who may feel overwhelmed by the rapid digital changes.

We must continue to invest significantly in training our workers, ensuring that every individual, regardless of their starting point, is given the opportunity to grow and adapt. This is not just about keeping pace with the digital society; it is about empowering them to lead and innovate within it. By fostering continuous learning, providing comfort and guidance, and encouraging innovation, we would not only enhance individual careers but also drive the collective progress of our industries and the nation as a whole.

It is therefore crucial for companies to recognise that training our workforce transcends merely keeping pace with technological advancements; it is also about strategically upskilling them to unlock the full potential of technology adoption. When our workers are adept and agile, the company as a whole reaps substantial benefits.

For instance, Utracon Corporation, through its participation in the CTOaaS initiative, leveraged expert advice to implement targeted solutions, significantly enhancing real-time project monitoring and fostering improved team collaboration. This example underscores the broader value of investing in our employees' growth, leading to enhanced operational efficiency and innovative capabilities within the company.

To assist companies to continue their commitment to upskilling their workers, as proposed in the SBF-KPMG budget recommendations, the Government can also consider complementing the efforts of businesses by introducing a grant scheme to support costs related to employee upskilling and adoption of new technologies such as AI and machine learning, as well as by providing a secure and convenient centralised platform for SMEs to access these upskilling services.

Finally, in today's digital age, I would like to stress that the ethical handling of customer information has transcended beyond just a mere legal obligation. It is a fundamental aspect of building trust and maintaining the integrity of our businesses. As custodians of customer data, we must adhere to the highest standards of ethics, ensuring that every piece of information is collected, stored, and used with the utmost respect for privacy and consent.

This means being transparent about our data practices, providing customers with clear choices, and taking proactive steps to protect their information from breaches and misuse. By committing to these ethical practices, we not only comply with regulations but also fortify our reputation, foster customer loyalty, and contribute to a more trustworthy digital ecosystem. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In conclusion, as we navigate the complexities and opportunities of building an inclusive and safe digital society, let us embrace a holistic approach. This involves not only investing in robust technology and infrastructure, but also fostering a culture of continuous learning, innovation and ethical practice.

By doing so, we ensure that our journey towards a Smart Nation is one marked by trust, security and inclusivity, benefiting every individual and business within our society. Together, let us commit to a future where digital advancement equates to a safer, more prosperous and ethically grounded Singapore for all.

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

Mr Speaker : Mr Vikram Nair.

6.11 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang) : Mr Speaker, Singapore's move to a digitised society has been remarkable. Over the last few years, the Government and key players in society have kept up with and utilised technology to make our lives better and simpler.

Once upon a time, each of us had to keep physical copies of all our important documents, including birth certificates, identity cards, driver's licences, health records, marriage certificates, bank account statements and CPF statements. Now, all this information is readily available on or through apps on our mobile phones.

The Singpass app readily links us to most of our official records, while all major banks provide most of their services through mobile phone apps. For many of us, there is probably no need to carry cash or wallets anymore, or to queue up at post offices, banks, ATM or AXS machines, as almost all payments can be done on our phones, from wherever we are.

Even the marketing and shopping experience has changed completely, with online stores now bringing this experience to our fingertips. We can now shop from the comfort of home or while on public transport. Indeed, when I spoke to an executive in an online retailer, she mentioned that very significant percentage of shoppers made purchases while they were in the toilet in the morning.

These changes have also changed our business landscape significantly, with online giants such as Amazon and Alibaba replacing physical retailers such as Borders and Robinsons. For small businesses, getting goods displayed on platforms like Shopee and Lazada allows them to sell without retail shopfronts, while for those who have retail shopfronts, getting online has been an important way to supplement sales.

This Motion highlights two important issues that need to be addressed in this move to digitisation: inclusion and safety. Let me start with inclusion.

For those of us who are online and get our services online, life has never been easier. For young people too, getting online seems to be second nature. My daughter had learnt to download games on my wife's mobile phone from around the age of four or five, and shortly after that, she had learnt to make online purchases. All this, without any of us teaching her.

On the other hand, I do have many older residents who are not fully online and struggle. I used to get requests for more bank branches to remain open when banks started closing branches and transitioning people to ATMs and AXS machines. Now, banks are also pulling back on ATMs and residents who have spent a lifetime transacting with cash are now finding it more difficult to do so. The same applies to many small business owners, and while many shops in wet markets and HDB malls have gone digital, there are still a few who have not signed on to online payments or record keeping. This includes some very educated people, including, in some cases, senior doctors who prefer to practice the way they have done for many years.

There have been wide ranging initiatives by different Government agencies to bridge this divide and bring more people into the digital fold. For example, Hawkers go Digital, an initiative by the IMDA to subsidise hawkers to move their business online and accept digital platforms, was rolled out, bringing many heartland hawkers into the digital world. Seniors Go Digital, likewise, is targeted at seniors with courses available at locations throughout the heartlands and trains them in the range of functions and services they are able to access through their phones.

I believe these initiatives are working, but in order for them to work better, I think it will take the whole of society to be involved, for us to encourage people around us to go for courses, go online and become more enabled. Whenever I get requests by residents for more ATMs, I explain the challenges we face in getting more ATMs, but also gently nudge them to getting online banking apps and to move digital.

The next aspect of the Motion which has received a lot of attention is digital security. This has several facets.

One aspect is security of the systems. This includes keeping systems operating and protecting from cyber threats. There have been several instances, for example, of some of our banking systems going down, preventing transactions taking place. Where people operate largely digitally, this can create issues. For example, if a bank's payment systems are down, what happens to people who only have digital means of payment from that bank?

I suffered a minor inconvenience in this because I was at a shop the first time the system went down. I had to return the items and went back home. Not a major issue but definitely something that needs to be looked at if we are going more digital.

But more important are malicious cyber threats, including hacking and ransomware, where organisations may have systems hacked, information stolen and then demands are made for payment. Many companies and organisations have extensive personal information from individuals and if the systems on which these are stored are not secured, individuals could be exposed to attacks. On these matters, I think it is necessary to ensure that those who collect personal data are able to protect it.

The third aspect which I think has received the most attention from many speakers in this House is online scams. I have spoken on this issue several times in this House.

The challenge with scams is multi-faceted. First, the perpetrators are mostly located out of Singapore. This makes it difficult for local law enforcement agencies to take action against them. The Singapore Police is closely plugged in with Interpol and counterparts in other agencies, but it is sometimes difficult to trace exactly where each of the numerous scams originate from.

Second, victims normally have their trust taken advantage of. The types of scams include job scams, love scams and investment scams. Some in this House have spoken about how the prevalence of scams is creating a crisis of confidence in our digitisation process. I beg to differ on this.

I think digitisation is a fast moving train and most Singaporeans are on board. The victims of scams are often too trusting and take at face value the calls and messages they get, which hook them into the process.

In the course of my work, I was approached by a victim of a love scam. She had fallen in love with an individual through online exchanges and one meeting in-person. Eventually, this individual allegedly died, leaving her a massive inheritance. However, to get this inheritance, she had to and did make regular payments for various purportedly official purposes. By the time she approached me, she had spent more than $1 million dollars. It is still difficult for her to believe she has been scammed. She still wants to believe there is an inheritance waiting for her.

Scammers are essentially criminals who are trying to steal. Digitisation has simply created an easier way for them to do so. I do not think there is a crisis of confidence in digitisation, but rather this is a matter on which each consumer must learn to be more careful and vigilant. Just as in the real world, we take precautions, such as not leaving our wallets and phones lying around, or leaving our houses unlocked when we are out, we must exercise the same care digitally.

The third challenge is where the losses for these scams should fall. Generally, we are all sympathetic to the victim, who have been taken advantage of. Some have lost life savings or monies they needed for important purposes. Some of the victims I have met at the Meet-the-People Sessions have had heart wrenching stories. There are calls for more of these losses to fall on telco operators and/or banks, or generally, any other big companies that may be involved in this process.

There are several attractions to this approach. We all believe that big companies should be better able to bear losses than individuals. We also want to put more pressure on big companies to take the necessary precautions to protect individuals. I would, however, like to highlight some risks I see if we swing too far in this direction.

First, every large company, including banks and telcos, have to make money from their customers and if taking a large proportion of losses from online scams falls on them, they will have to recoup these losses from one of their customers. So, we may see prices rising across the board.

Second, this may mean that more invasive approaches by service providers to their customers. For example, if telcos are held liable for scams through phone calls or WhatsApp messages, they probably going to have to take more efforts to monitor and scan private calls and messages in order to ferret out scams. To what extent do we want banks to second guess instructions and transactions?

The third point, that of moral hazard, has been recognised. If people believe that losses may fail elsewhere, they are more likely to take less precaution.

Balancing these considerations, Singapore has taken a three-pronged approach to fight scams.

Firstly, they adopt upstream measures, including things like ScamShield, which filters and blocks scammed messages, an SMS sender identity registry regime to label non-registered scanners who are likely scammer. I think many of us already have this adopted.

Second, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) adopts downstream measures, including trying to chase down scams syndicates. I think there was a report in The Straits Times that at least one scam had been successfully cracked with this, adverting over $12.6 million in losses – a drop in the ocean but a step in the right direction.

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) have also begun working with banks to tackle this issue. One example of this the work with OCBC Bank in March 2023 to use robotic processes automation to allow them to identify potential scammers. MAS has also been involved in this approach to combat scams, working closely with banks to strengthen anti-malware controls, faults surveillance and detection capabilities. Major retail banks have enhanced their security measures. So, certainly, bigger organisations and the Government are taking steps to fight scams.

Of course, the most important approach is the third aspect, which is public education. I think SPF, Cyber Security Agency, MoneySENSE and banks have used multiple platforms, reach out to residents and many of us, Members of Parliament, have also been conducting talks and dialogues in our constituencies to encourage people to download ScamShield and to warn them about the risks of scams.

Singapore is also involved and plugged into global cooperation to fight scams. We have to play our part if we want others to assist us.

There was a recent crackdown in Singapore where large numbers of people were arrested and I believe a large part of this money is from crimes committed abroad. Of course, the full details of this are large scale arrests and seizure methods have not been released, but I think it is part of our cooperation with international work.

This is a matter that affects all countries and other countries like the UK, Australia and the United States and also similarly taking these approaches to fight scams. One initiative that caught my attention was actually "Stop Scams UK", which is an industry led collaboration of businesses, including major banks, credit card operators and big online players, such as Amazon and Google.

In the UK, just like in Singapore, fraud is the most commonly experienced crime. In the UK, one is twice as likely to be the victim of a fraud than any other crime. What is interesting here is this is a private-sector-led initiative. This may have been partly motivated by UK's legal measures to require banks to reimburse victims of authorised push payment or APP scams. This is where a payee poses as someone else and defrauds victims to make payment. By placing potential lability on private sector players, they have been financially incentivised to get together to work to stop APP scams. The jury is now whether this will work or whether it may increase moral hazard and increase the incidence of frauds, but we should keep a watch on it.

It should be noted that despite the seemingly radical approach, the UK's aim is to reduce fraud by 10%. Even they are not ambitious or claiming that it can be completely eradicated but they just want to reduce the incidence. So, this is something that is going to be with us, but with which we all have to take the necessary precautions.

In Singapore, it may be necessary for the Government to take the lead in these initiatives and/or in the passed legislation, to put adequate risk for industry players. MAS' risk-sharing framework is a start and it is one thing that can be reviewed and modified, if needed, to balance the allocation of risks amongst the different players. I believe that financially aligned industry collaboration is, in general, a sensible approach.

Mr Speaker, digitisation is important to all our lives and generally, it has made our lives better and easier. We have to embrace and ride this wave. I do not think avoiding digitisation is an option. However, in riding this wave, we need to bring in everyone we can, that is, inclusion and be aware of the new dangers that this poses, that is, security. I therefore support this Motion.

Mr Speaker : Leader of the House.