Architects, Not Just Adopters: Moving Beyond Concrete Infrastructure to Secure Digital Leverage and Empowered Workers

Motion on Reinforcing Singapore’s Position as a Global Transport Hub

Gerald Giam (Aljunied)

7 July 2026

Mr Speaker, I support the spirit of reinforcing Singapore’s long-term economic competitiveness as a globally-connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub. 

Physical Infrastructure vs Digital Architecture

The government’s traditional playbook focuses heavily on building world-class infrastructure like Changi Terminal 5 and the Tuas Next Generation Port. However, focusing too much on physical infrastructure carries structural risks in a changing global economy.

As my Honourable Friend the MP for Aljunied Kenneth Tiong pointed out earlier, a neutral hub port holds traffic only by staying competitive, and a port cannot pick its carriers because carriers pick their ports. We saw the reality of this structural vulnerability when Maersk shifted its transhipment hub to the Port of Tanjung Pelepas in the year 2000, and again in 2025 when the Gemini Cooperation shifted the bulk of their joint shipping volume to PTP. If we do not own the shipping lines or control the underlying cargo movements, relying solely on massive physical infrastructure leaves our economy exposed to a sunk cost dependency risk.

The global trading system is under threat from protectionism and geopolitical rivalries. In addition, there is the possibility that an opening of the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic, or the creation of a land bridge across — or a canal through — the Kra Isthmus will divert maritime traffic away from Singapore. The massive fixed cost of our expanded port may become a fiscal drag if shipping volumes fall short of the government’s projections.

The long-term justification for Changi Terminal 5’s massive capacity relies on historical hub-and-spoke models where long-distance traffic requires consolidated transit nodes. However, next-generation, hyper-efficient aircraft, such as the long-range narrowbody Airbus A321XLR, completely disrupt this model. These aircraft allow airlines to establish economically viable “long and thin” direct routes between secondary cities without requiring physical stopovers or refueling hubs like Singapore. As a result, Changi Airport may face the risk of capital expansions outpacing the growth of traditional transit passengers.

To hedge our exposure to physical trade volatility, Singapore must pivot from being just a physical gatekeeper to also becoming the sovereign digital architect of global trade. By anchoring the financial, legal and operational code of international shipping lines within Singapore’s data jurisdiction, we secure a stronger position of leverage. Even if mega alliances berth physically at regional competitors’ ports, the critical financial transaction layers and supply chain networks running those operations will still run through digital nodes owned by Singapore.

We must therefore rebalance our long-term capital spending. For every dollar spent on pouring physical concrete for Changi T5 or the Tuas berths, a fixed percentage should be redirected toward strategically acquiring, centralising and developing next-generation supply chain software patents under Singapore’s sovereign control—such as automated customs clearing platforms and predictive route-management networks. As my Honourable Friend the MP for Hougang Dennis Tan highlighted, Singapore must shift from being an outstanding adopter of foreign technology to a creator of our own proprietary systems if we want to capture high-margin value. By securing direct ownership over these foundational digital assets across key international trading jurisdictions, we can protect our economic independence and collect licensing rents globally. This allows us to successfully reduce our reliance on absolute, volatile physical cargo throughput, ensuring our national revenue is buffered even if global trade patterns shift away from our shores.

We do not just need a more competitive hub; we need a structurally resilient one that owns the software of global trade, rather than just the concrete it sits on.

Frontier technologies and Algorithmic Management

This strategic resilience must also extend to the second pillar of the motion, which champions the use of frontier technologies to anchor good jobs. While automation drives corporate efficiency, we must build a system that governs these tools to protect the daily working conditions of our workers. If we do not actively govern the code running inside our transport infrastructure, frontier technology can inadvertently lead to the extraction of productivity solely at the expense of human well-being. 

This is not a theoretical anxiety. A 2024 report titled “Algorithmic Management practices in regular workplaces: case studies in logistics and healthcare” by the International Labour Organisation and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre provides empirical evidence of what happens when algorithmic management is introduced in regular transport and logistics workspaces. The report notes that competitive pressures related to cost efficiency and timely deliveries have driven an increased centralisation of control and monitoring through corporate governance structures, shifting the power balance within organisations heavily towards management.

In advanced logistics networks across the world, we are already witnessing these technologies being used in ways that constrain worker autonomy and intensify the pace of work. For instance, the report highlights automated postal and distribution networks where algorithms generate precise, hyper-optimised itineraries, giving workers compressed, exact time slots for each delivery. These machine-generated instructions can become so detailed that they leave minimal space for human judgment or physical adjustment.

The report also underscores cases of asymmetric accountability and glitch penalisation. Workers are uniquely vulnerable to connectivity issues and system failures. The report found that when software scanners freeze or experience network disruptions, automated systems can register these technical errors as drops in worker efficiency. As a result, workers risk being unfairly held accountable for mistakes originating from computer errors rather than human errors.

The report found that the introduction of digital tools had a positive impact on job quality in some more developed countries, but a negative impact in some developing ones. The authors attributed this to differences in institutional and regulatory frameworks. Businesses in Singapore have to use digital tools to improve productivity and efficiency, but we must also ensure that these changes will benefit workers rather than harm them.

We must remain firmly pro-innovation. Our goal should not be to ban automation or turn our backs on technology, but to govern it so that productivity gains are equitably shared with workers rather than extracted solely from their physical and mental well-being. To achieve this, I wish to make three policy proposals.

First, we should update the subsidiary regulations in the Workplace Safety and Health Act to mandate that workforce management and dispatch algorithms used in critical transport hubs explicitly factor in human physiological constraints. The code must include safety buffers for ambient heat stress, which is vital for Singapore’s tarmac and port environments, alongside a mandatory human-in-the-loop override. This will give terminal safety supervisors and operations managers the clear statutory authority to adjust AI targets by a safety buffer during peak operational strain or adverse weather, without incurring penalties.

Second, we should introduce algorithmic transparency and explainability requirements under the Employment Act to give workers a statutory Right to Explanation. Any automated tracking platform used to grade performance, allocate split shifts or determine contract renewals must provide employees with a clear, plain-language breakdown of its underlying metrics. This ensures workers have open, accessible administrative channels to contest unfair automated penalties caused by network disruptions, hardware glitches or system errors.

Finally, we should consider implementing a transport sector Digital Dividend framework. When transport, logistics and aviation operators achieve major productivity breakthroughs through the use of AI, those productivity gains must be shared. Instead of squeezing headcount or expanding workloads, operators should be required to pass these gains down in the form of structured wage increases or compressed, human-centric working hours with no loss in base pay.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, we cannot allow physical infrastructure expansion to blind us to the shifting digital geography of global trade, nor should we allow frontier technology to reduce the economic agency of our transport workers. We must, instead, make it our goal to ensure that as our infrastructure and machines grow more capable, our citizens grow more secure. By implementing these targeted worker safeguards and digital asset strategies, we can ensure that technological progress serves the dignity, economic agency, and long-term resilience of every Singaporean.