MOS Jasmin Lau 就「人工智慧轉型不容無就業式增長」國會動議的發言

Newsroom Speech by MOS Jasmin Lau for Parliamentary Motion on “An AI Transition with No Jobless Growth” Speeches Speech by MOS Jasmin Lau for Parliamentary Motion on “An AI Transition with No Jobless Growth” 6 May 2026

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to Members today.

There is genuine concern across the House about what AI will mean for our workers. And these concerns are real, the Government shares them.

We cannot slow down the development of AI. But we will not leave its outcomes to chance.

We will work hard to secure a different deal, between the companies that prosper here and the workers whose effort makes that prosperity possible.

Where companies benefit from operating and growing in Singapore, we will expect a fair deal for workers. Not just in words, but in how jobs are designed, how people are trained, and how gains are shared.

Where public resources and policies are used in support of business transformation, we expect companies to deliver clear and meaningful outcomes for workers.

In my conversations and engagements across MDDI and MOE work, and through the Economic Strategy Review, the same concerns come up again and again.

Will my job exist in five years’ time?

Will AI widen inequality, and leave the vulnerable behind?

And if AI makes companies more productive, will workers share in the gains?

These are not unreasonable fears. They come from people who have worked hard, built up skills and experience over time, and now sense that the ground is shifting beneath them.

I will take each of these questions in turn.

First, on whether today’s jobs will continue to exist.

Let me be honest. Some roles will change substantially, roles built primarily around repeating the same steps are the most exposed.

Now this is not a verdict on the value of the people who do that work. It is also a signal to us in government, and to employers, that we need to act now, and not after the disruption arrives. And act, we will.

But AI is more than just a technological advancement that replaces jobs. At the same time, it is opening up entirely new ways of working, and new kinds of roles that did not exist before.

Some academics have described AI as an “invention of a method of invention”. It expands the space of problems that can be solved, the products that can be built, and industries that we can create.

A small biotech team in Singapore can run experiments that would have required a national lab a decade ago.

A solo founder can ship software that took a hundred-man firm to deliver 3 years ago.

So competition sharpens, but the frontier also moves outward.

That is why the Economic Strategy Review (ESR) Committee that SPS Goh Hanyan and I co-chaired, focused on identifying new areas where Singapore can use AI to build a real competitive edge. The Prime Minister’s National AI Council will take this forward.

Members have pointed out the impact of AI on PMEs – Professionals, Managers and Executives, as AI automates routine and analytical tasks.

The ESR team recognised this, which is why helping businesses and workers to proactively navigate the transition was the focus of the committee chaired by MOS Goh Pei Ming and MOS Desmond Choo.

For displaced workers, the committee studied how the government, employers, and unions could offer more timely help. As mentioned in our mid-term update, the ESR is studying ways to encourage earlier retrenchment notifications as raised by Mr Ng Chee Meng.

On PMEs specifically, the committee recognises that they may face greater job uncertainties, and will recommend more targeted support. This includes considering enhancements to the Jobseeker Support Scheme, as Mr Patrick Tay suggested, and tapping on private sector expertise to strengthen placement support for this group.

For workers at risk of displacement, the ESR will recommend practical ways to help them move into more resilient roles with stronger demand.

We will identify sectors with sustained labour demand and lower AI displacement risk, and we will work with unions and employers in those sectors to create clear, supported entry points for workers making the transition.

We must make these pathways walkable, and not just visible.

To illustrate, a mid-career worker in a routine administrative role, for example in data entry or customer service, could be worried about AI displacing him. With job facilitation and reskilling support, the worker should be able to move into a sector where there are roles that build on his existing skillsets. For example, the worker could explore adjacent roles in healthcare administration. This is where we are seeing robust demand given the growth of our population healthcare needs, and healthcare requires uniquely human skills that are more resilient to disruption.

All this requires more than courses. It requires employers, unions, training providers and placement support working closely together, so that workers do not fall through the cracks during transition.

No government in the world has all the answers to this transition, and I would be wary of any that claims otherwise.

What we in Singapore can commit to is this: we will not wait for perfect solutions before acting. We are starting now, and we will adjust our efforts along the way.

Second, on inequality.

Members are right to worry.

Technologies that amplify capability can also amplify gaps – between those who adapt quickly and those who struggle to keep up.

As Mr Mark Lee points out – some risks we face are that productivity gains accrue more to those already ahead, while the bottom of the career ladder may face erosion.

Our response is to raise the floor and to widen the door.

This means starting earlier – building AI literacy into our schools, so that all students develop confidence with AI, not just those who have access to resources.

Currently, every ITE and polytechnic student is already taught AI literacy as part of their course, and we are now bringing AI literacy and safe AI tools into primary and secondary school classrooms. This means that all students, regardless of economic background can learn about AI safely. They can also learn how AI can benefit their learning, such as to help them refine their ideas, and they also learn when they should not use AI.

As Minister Desmond pointed out earlier today, we are committed to supporting students who may not have strong family or parental supervision and support. While AI literacy in school will give them a good and strong foundation, we must continue to develop partnerships with the community and the self-help groups to make sure the supervision and support continue outside of school.

Learning must continue beyond graduation. From the second half of 2026, all of our institutes of higher learning will offer selected AI-related courses at significant discounts for their alumni, for a period of one year.

For workers already in the workforce, Singaporeans who complete selected AI training courses will receive six months of complimentary access to premium AI tools. And we will track take-up and usage, and see if we need to do more.

Every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, should have the chance to experiment with AI tools and to build fluency.

Now the third question is the hardest and the most important. Will workers share in the gains?

We should be clear: this doesn’t happen automatically.

Left on its own, technology can lead to very uneven outcomes. That is why this is not just a market question.

It is a question of how we shape norms and expectations in our economy.

So let me set out clearly what we expect.

Companies that benefit from AI should invest in their people, not just in technology. That means training as many existing workers as possible, and not just hiring new ones.

It means facilitating their employees’ access to frontier AI tools, creating communities of practice, and incentivising learning and upskilling.

It also means redesigning jobs in close consultation with workers – as suggested by Ms Yeo Wan Ling – so that people can work alongside AI, using judgement, context and experience, rather than treating workers simply as a cost to be reduced.

And where roles do change or disappear, it means making a serious effort to redeploy and reskill workers within the organisation, before turning to retrenchment.

We are not just asking our companies to do national service. We are asking them to do what is in their own long-term interest.

In an AI age, human instinct and intuition will remain key. We all know that when we work with AI, we need to steer it. Ask the right questions, and apply judgement as we refine the output iteratively.

It is not one shot. If you do not develop people who understand the context of your organisation and use this knowledge to reinforce your AI systems, you will be left with a very shallow and hollow company in future.

If companies here replace humans completely with AI, they will find themselves in future to have no competitive edge, when AI is available to all companies. They will also find themselves at the mercies of AI companies. So, what we are working towards is an approach that best positions our companies for sustainable growth in the long term.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat brought up the need for balanced regulatory approaches that do not disincentivise AI adoption. Indeed, we will not seek to legislate our way to good outcomes. That has never been Singapore's primary approach. But we are equally clear that ‘voluntary’ cannot mean ‘optional in practice’.

Where public resources are deployed, we will ask for worker outcomes.

We will work with companies to meet these expectations.

Where there are persistent gaps, we will review how our support is applied.

We will discuss with tripartite partners on how this can be done fairly and effectively, in a way that incentivises companies to invest in training, job redesign, redeployment and placement.

If we do this well, we will be able to create and sustain good jobs in the AI age.

A good job is not just a job that exists. It is one that allows a worker to progress.

It should pay fairly, and reflect the productivity gains that technology brings.

It should build skills that remain relevant, including as part of routine on-the-job training, so that workers are not stuck doing tasks that are easily replaced by automation.

It should give workers a sense of dignity and agency, not reduce their role to simply following instructions generated by machines.

We have seen that when there is strong commitment, this is possible.

At PSA, AI and automation have helped deliver record cargo volumes. At the same time, the company reskilled and redeployed more than 2,000 workers into higher-skilled roles. And they continue to hire thousands more, because they are growing faster than the competition. To Mr Andre Low, I would say - automation and augmentation are not mutually exclusive. Protecting a worker can mean being intentional about automating the tasks that are repetitive and physically demanding, AND upgrading the skills of the same worker so that technology can augment his capabilities as he takes on a higher value role.

Even smaller businesses are playing their part. Take for instance local pawnbroker Maxi-Cash. In the past, a customer wishing to trade in jewellery would interface with a sales advisor, who would pass on their case to a valuer to assess the authenticity of the jewellery. Maxi-Cash enhanced this process by reskilling 25 of their sales advisors to use an AI-enabled authentication system, which can accurately assess the composition of jewellery in just 5 seconds. Now, these sales advisors can complement the existing pool of valuers, relieving their workload and reducing the customer wait times.

This is the kind of responsible transformation we want to see in Singapore – as the norm, not as the exception.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened carefully to the many suggestions and perspectives shared in this House today, from Members on both sides.

We may differ on specific policy ideas, or on how particular measures should be designed, funded, or sequenced. That is the nature of democratic debate, and it is very healthy.

But I believe there is broad agreement across this House on a fundamental principle: that the gains from growth and progress must be shared fairly and broadly with all Singaporeans. This should not be a matter of party or ideology. It is a principle that we must uphold together as Singaporeans.

So let me say this plainly. If Singapore succeeds with our AI ambitions – and we should never assume success is automatic, because it will require sustained effort, difficult choices, adaptation, and perhaps some good fortune too! – But if we succeed, then the Government will ensure that the benefits are widely shared.

The gains must not accrue only to those who have capital, advantages or access. They must translate into better wages, better opportunities, and greater security for all Singaporeans. The best protection for workers is not only redistribution after disruption. It is shaping how gains are created and shared from the outset, and ensuring that Singaporean workers retain agency within an AI economy.

This Government has been able to deliver these outcomes over decades of Singapore’s development. And we are determined to continue doing so, as we navigate this AI transition. Our policies have never been static. We have continuously adapted, refreshed and strengthened them as circumstances changed. And that discipline will continue.

Ultimately, every Singaporean should be able to look at what Singapore has built, and say – I have a stake in this progress. I have a share in this growth. And this future, belongs to me and my family too.

This shared commitment is also what makes Singapore's approach to this transition distinctive. Our strength is not just technology. It is the way we work together, across Government, businesses and unions.

To workers watching this debate, I want to say this directly to you: the Government is on your side, and we are acting before the disruption reaches you, not after. You will not be doing this alone. Our commitment made in this House today is our commitment to you.

To our business leaders: AI gives you powerful new capabilities. How you use them will define your company's future, and your relationship with the people who built it alongside you. The companies that will lead in ten years are not those that stripped costs the fastest, but those that built stronger teams by combining human judgement with machine capability.

But I want to be clear about something else as well. Not every business needs to adopt AI, and not every pursuit needs to be seen through the lens of AI transformation. There is real value in things that are fully human created, and that value may grow, not shrink, as AI becomes more prevalent.

When everything around us is auto-generated, optimised, and scaled, the things that are not will stand out. The live performance and encore that cannot be repeated. The hand-thrown ceramic bowl that carries the mark of a human hand. The meal prepared with care and craft, not just consistency. And the conversation with the calligraphy master who has spent a lifetime honing his art.

Now I think we will see a revival of appreciation for these things. And Singapore should not just acknowledge this, we should embrace it. Our artisans, our performers, our craftsmen are not swimming against the tide of AI. In a world saturated with AI-generated content, they may find themselves exactly where the world is looking.

Beyond the near-term transition, there is a longer-term question we must answer. What do we need to do now with our education system, to prepare our students for the future world?

We must accept that AI will continue to get better at the tasks which machines do well. All the more, we need to focus on what makes us distinctly human. The curiosity that asks a question nobody has thought to ask. The creativity that connects ideas across domains in ways no training data predicts. And the empathy that reads a room, earns trust, and knows when the most efficient solution may not be the right solution.

We often call these soft skills. In an AI age, they will become the hard edge of competitive advantage for our people, and for Singapore. That is why we will review our education system, to make sure we develop these qualities with the same rigour and intentionality we have always applied to academic excellence.

We must continue to build strong foundations and make sure our students do not become overly reliant on AI shortcuts. Our human brains are muscles that require exercise, and genuine mastery – the kind that holds up under pressure and that AI cannot simply replace – comes from hard work, from practice, and from deep understanding. So it was good to hear Ms Eileen Chong agree with this, and we thank her for supporting our approach.

But rigour and exploration are not opposites. The student who has truly mastered something is precisely the one with the confidence to venture beyond it. He will ask harder questions, to take on problems without obvious answers, and he will develop interests that are genuinely his own. What we are building towards is an education system that demands both – the discipline to go deep, and the freedom to go wide. Not just because our students deserve both, but because Singapore's future depends on both.

This will not mean abandoning our standards. It will mean expanding what we count as excellence. A student who asks unexpected questions, who pursues something deeply out of genuine interest, who can hold two contradictory ideas and work through them – that student is not behind. In a world that we are building, that student may be ahead of all of us.

We are committed to doing this, together with educators, our parents, and young Singaporeans themselves.

Because if we get this right, if we develop a generation that is not just AI-literate but deeply human, then Singapore will not just survive this transition. We will be the kind of society that the next era of human progress is built around.

Mr Deputy Speaker,

We have been honest today about what this transition will demand – of government, businesses, and workers.

Not every path will be smooth. Some will face real disruption, and our responsibility is to ensure no one faces it alone.

We will make AI work for Singaporeans. And we will ensure that as our economy grows, our workers move forward with it.

But I want to end where I believe our attention must ultimately rest – on the generation that we are building.

If we develop Singaporeans who are curious, creative, and deeply human, people who can ask the questions that machines cannot, and earn the trust that algorithms never will, then we will not merely manage this transition.

We will define what comes after it.

I support this motion.