Why Singapore’s AI Drive Makes Me Wonder: Shouldn’t We Have Built Stronger Human Jobs First?
Recently, Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Jasmin Lau said something that made me cringe. She warned that companies repeatedly tapping public grants (that’s our taxpayer money) to push AI growth, while treating workers unfairly, could face government intervention. The government is keeping a close watch to make sure the gains from AI are shared with workers, especially when public funds are involved.
Yao mo gao chor ah? Now then you say?
She also highlighted jobs that AI simply can’t replace easily – things like patient experience roles in hospitals, or social workers who sit with elderly folks and patiently persuade them to declutter their homes. These are deeply human jobs that need real empathy, patience, and personal connection. This is exactly the issue I flagged in my previous blog post. As Singapore goes full steam ahead to become a global AI hub, I’ve been asking myself this straightforward question from Day 1: Why didn’t the government first focus on creating and strengthening a good number of jobs that are hard for AI to take over before heavily backing companies that use AI?
The Good Side and the Real Concerns
I understand why Singapore is moving fast on AI. We’re a small country with no natural resources, so staying competitive is a must. AI can drive productivity, open new industries, and create high-value jobs. Initiatives like SkillsFuture, job redesign programmes, and tripartite partnerships (government, unions, and employers) are all part of the plan.
But there’s a bloody obvious flip side.
Meanwhile, roles that rely on genuine human touch — healthcare support, eldercare, teaching, social services, community work, and creative fields — match our aging society’s needs perfectly. These feel like areas we should have invested in more aggressively from the start.
Why Not Prioritise Human Jobs Earlier?
Because it’s easier to help companies lower their manpower needs, widen their profit margins and increase GDP. “Lower-value human capital” doesn’t matter. Helping a company realise the same productivity with 100 workers instead of 1000 is much easier than creating jobs. It’s easier to give incentives to companies than to create thousands of sustainable, well-paid human-centric jobs. You need real demand, proper funding, and long-term commitment.
There should have been a stronger safety net built upfront to reduce the risks for average Singaporeans who may be branded as “lower-value human capital”.
Where Are The Jobs?
What we could have done:
- Significantly expanding manpower in eldercare, mental health caregivers, patient care navigation, educators, and community services officers. Employ more people in these roles and for Buddha’s sake, pay them decent wages!
- Improving pay and recognition for these human-focused jobs to attract more people. Look at our special needs teachers. Most of them are unseasoned youngsters. They don’t stay on their jobs because there are no career prospects and much better deals elsewhere. That’s why our special schools are constantly short of trained and dedicated teachers.
- Employ more teachers for mainstream schools as well, break up the classes into smaller ones. The “merger” of schools because of low birth rate is one of the lamest excuses for being stingy with our budget for something as important as education.
- Expand social services and employ more counselors and caretakers to look after the super elderly while their children are also elderly and can’t retire to boot. Don’t expect volunteers to do pick up the slack.
Of course, we should also be emphasising skills like empathy, creativity, and ethical judgment in education instead of just areas where AI still falls short. But hey, it’s a very deep-seated problem we’re talking about here. Much as some people may deny it, education has been and still is treated like an investment in Singapore. Parents look at the ROI. Empathy, creativity and ethical judgment? How many marks have they awarded for all that? All our lives, we have been told and taught to be diligent and obedient. The government will guide us on the path to success. How do we suddenly get people to be creative and have empathy? The root of the problem lies in the same place as our dismal TFR.
Striking the Right Balance
This is the classic antagonism between “rapid progress” and looking after people. In this digital, automated age, the two are not interdependent anymore. Businesses want fewer people to feed. The government doesn’t really want more babies. They are just afraid they don’t have enough taxpayers in future. Is Jasmin Lau’s remark nothing more than finger-wagging? Will another political leader or “expert” jump out and gaslight us into thinking that retrenchments are good for us?
Look. This isn’t about rejecting AI. I love AI. It’s about the shock that many of us don’t deserve. It’s not fair to those who cheered for PM Wong’s glowing budget speech on AI in February, thinking that they’re in good hands. That Hokkien song, remember? PM Wong quoted: “You look after me, I look after you” and sharing that little umbrella? Sounds like something to coddle the naive now, doesn’t it? With AI, some people can have the whole umbrella to themselves while others have to endure being rained on. The video below was recorded after the National Day Rally 2025.
What are your thoughts? Has AI started changing your job or industry? Share your experiences in the comments. Let’s discuss how we can make this transition fair and inclusive for everyone.