Debate Details
- Date: 18 February 2019
- Parliament: 13
- Session: 2
- Sitting: 92
- Type of proceedings: Oral Answers to Questions
- Topic: Jobs lost to technologies and automation versus jobs created
- Questioner: Miss Cheng Li Hui
- Minister: Mrs Josephine Teo, Minister for Manpower
- Keywords: jobs, lost, technologies, automation, created, minister, manpower, number
What Was This Debate About?
This parliamentary exchange concerned how Singapore measures and manages the labour-market impact of technological change—specifically, whether the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) monitors and tracks the number of jobs displaced by new technologies and automation, and compares that with the number of jobs created as a result of such developments. The question reflects a policy tension that is central to modern labour regulation: technological progress can both destroy certain roles and create new ones, but the net effect on employment, job quality, and worker transitions is not self-evident without systematic measurement.
In legislative context, this exchange falls under “Oral Answers to Questions,” which are not themselves bills or amendments but are nonetheless part of the parliamentary oversight function. Such questions often elicit the Government’s operational approach to policy implementation—here, the data and monitoring framework underpinning workforce planning, reskilling initiatives, and employment support. For legal researchers, these answers can illuminate how administrative agencies interpret their mandates and how they justify regulatory or programme choices in response to economic and technological change.
What Were the Key Points Raised?
The core issue raised by Miss Cheng Li Hui was whether MOM keeps track of job losses attributable to automation and new technologies, and whether it also tracks job creation resulting from the same technological shifts. The question is framed in comparative terms (“vis-à-vis”), indicating that the Member was not merely interested in whether automation causes displacement, but in whether the Government can quantify the balance between displacement and creation.
This matters because labour-market statistics and monitoring practices can influence how policies are designed and evaluated. If job losses are tracked, the Government can identify sectors or occupations most at risk, target training and transition assistance, and potentially calibrate labour-market interventions. If job creation is tracked, the Government can align skills development and employment services with emerging demand, thereby reducing structural unemployment and mismatch between workers’ skills and available roles.
From a legal research perspective, the question also implicitly probes the evidentiary basis for policy claims. When Government statements are later relied upon in parliamentary debates, policy documents, or even judicial reasoning, the underlying data practices become relevant. For example, if MOM’s monitoring is limited to certain datasets, relies on employer reporting, or uses proxies rather than direct counts, that affects the strength of any inference about the extent of automation-driven displacement. Conversely, robust monitoring could support more confident policy rationales and more defensible administrative decisions.
Although the debate record provided is truncated (the Minister’s response begins but is not fully reproduced), the framing of the question suggests that the Member sought clarity on the existence, scope, and methodology of MOM’s monitoring. In practice, such monitoring could involve labour force surveys, administrative employment data, sectoral employment trends, and analysis of job postings or occupational shifts. The legal significance lies in whether the Government treats job displacement and job creation as measurable outcomes within its administrative remit, and whether it uses those measurements to guide statutory or regulatory functions relating to employment, training, and manpower development.
What Was the Government's Position?
The Government’s position, as indicated by the start of the Minister’s answer (“Mr Speaker, there...”), would be expected to address whether MOM monitors job losses and job creation, and how it does so. In similar parliamentary exchanges, Ministers typically explain the data sources and analytical approach used to understand labour-market transitions, and may also describe how this information informs manpower policies and programmes.
Even without the full text of the Minister’s response, the structure of the question indicates that the Government would likely respond by describing the monitoring framework (or the limitations of direct measurement) and by situating it within broader manpower planning efforts. Such responses often emphasise that while direct “job loss due to automation” may be difficult to attribute precisely, the Government can still track employment trends, occupational changes, and the demand for new skills to manage transitions.
Why Are These Proceedings Important for Legal Research?
First, this exchange is a window into legislative intent and administrative interpretation, even though it is not a statute-making process. Oral answers can reveal how the executive branch understands its responsibilities under the manpower and employment ecosystem—particularly the extent to which it treats labour-market monitoring as a continuous, evidence-based function. For lawyers, such information can be relevant when interpreting the purpose and scope of manpower-related legislation and policies, especially where statutory objectives involve employment promotion, workforce development, and support for workers during economic transitions.
Second, the debate highlights the evidentiary dimension of policy justification. In legal disputes—whether administrative law challenges, employment-related disputes, or litigation involving training and transition measures—courts and practitioners may consider whether the Government’s actions are grounded in reasonable assessment of labour-market realities. Parliamentary records can therefore be used to contextualise the Government’s rationale, including what it claims to measure and what it does not. Where the Government acknowledges measurement constraints, that can inform arguments about reasonableness, proportionality, and the adequacy of consultation or planning.
Third, the question underscores how automation and technology are treated within Singapore’s regulatory and policy framework. As automation affects job structures, the legal system must grapple with issues such as retraining obligations, employment support, and the governance of skills ecosystems. Parliamentary discussions like this can guide legal researchers in identifying the policy premises that underpin administrative programmes and statutory schemes—such as whether the Government anticipates net job creation, how it manages transitional risks, and what metrics it uses to evaluate outcomes.
Source Documents
This article summarises parliamentary proceedings for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute an official record.