‘We’ve got each other’s backs’: A blueprint for shared resilience?

In the second episode of Eco-Business’s Resilience podcast series, host and Eco-Business founder and CEO Jessica Cheam sits down with Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Janil Puthucheary, and youth sustainability advocate Man Jing Kong, to ask a key question: can the capacity to withstand, absorb and recover from shocks actually be built, and what does it take for a society to strengthen shared resilience when facing multiple crises at once?

Puthucheary, who also serves as Senior Minister of State for Education, argues the picture is not “all doom and gloom”. Pointing to the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, he notes there was an assumption that “all the international climate mitigation [and] adaptation efforts would collapse” – but that didn’t happen. Countries continued to submit their climate targets, and “institutions and organisations actually doubled down”, he says, adding that investing in people to build resilience is one of the few “no regrets” moves a government can make.

Kong, co-founder of the science and sustainability platform Just Keep Thinking (also known as Biogirl MJ), expands on how young people can respond to the mental toll of living through an age of planetary and political crisis. For her, empowerment is central: “People don’t change when they feel like it’s their responsibility, or you tell them that it’s their responsibility. But people will change when they feel that they are capable of change.”

Puthucheary adds that a resilient society needs to hold on to the idea that “we’ve got each other’s back, regardless of race, language or religion” – a mindset that becomes especially important in the future in situations where increased climate risks may threaten shared resources such as food and water.

“Each of these will need a community response and a community confidence,” he says. “So building that sense of trust in each other is going to be important.”

Tune in as we also discuss:

• How Singapore and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) are building shared resilience, with a focus on energy security
• What Singapore’s 2026 Year of Adaptation means for communities, and how will such initiatives be financed 
• The promise and backlash of artificial intelligence (AI) disruption
• The challenges of policymaking and the art of ‘being patient’
• How today’s youth are processing ecological grief and climate anxiety

You can also listen to this podcast on Soundcloud and Spotify.

Here’s the edited transcript:

Jessica: This past year in particular, we’ve seen an unprecedented velocity of change globally – geopolitical tensions, conflict, trade uncertainty, as well as an accelerating climate crisis, along with social instability in many communities. There’s a certain mental toll to living in an age of planetary and political crisis. Dr Janil, if I can invite you to share your thoughts: how can Singaporeans, and those in our region, actually start to respond in such an age?

Dr Janil: Indeed, the geopolitics is changing. We can see climate change happening in front of us — but the situation has always been changing. Singapore as a nation, and Singaporeans as a society, have always had this narrative of being open to the world and exposed to its risks: a small, vulnerable city-state with no natural resources. That’s been our National Day narrative for as long as we’ve been independent. The sense that we’re exposed to these risks because of what other people or other countries are doing, and that we have a part to play, that’s not new for us. But now we have to turn our attention to what that means for climate change, and what we can do about it.

We’ve designated 2026 as the Year of Climate Adaptation. That in itself is an important signal for our sense of agency, that mitigation efforts have to continue, we have to keep doing everything we can to mitigate, but now is also the time to focus on what we can do to adapt. In truth, the polycrisis isn’t all doom and gloom; there’s still a ray of hope. When the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement, for example, there was an assumption that international climate mitigation and adaptation efforts would collapse. That didn’t happen. Countries continued to submit NDCs, people remained committed to sustainability as a cause, and institutions and organisations actually doubled down and found other ways to keep things going. Here in Singapore, it’s no different.

One small example: our commitment to solar deployment was ahead of schedule, and we’ve now raised our ambition even further. So I think we have to take the view that the road towards sustainability isn’t going to be smooth, and it isn’t going to be a single trajectory: there will be ups and downs, and we have to find our way to do what we can, when we can, and get it done effectively.

Jessica: I love your sense of optimism because I think it’s easy to fall into doom and gloom when you read the headlines today, especially if you’ve worked in the impact space for a long time. MJ, let me bring you in here, you’re one of the leading youth voices in our society, and through your work you interact with a whole spectrum of people. Do you find that Singaporeans, and people in the region, are responding to this in a healthy way?

MJ: I’ve seen a range of emotions. Different people have different lived experiences, so there’s anger, sadness, frustration, but I also see hope in people, and I think that’s key. When we talk about resilience — what can I do in this situation, my role, and the role of youth, isn’t to remove these uncomfortable emotions. Emotions are important; they make us concerned, and that’s why we care, that’s what gets us to take action. But with these emotions, what can we do next? That’s the important question, and it’s something I tell many of the youths I work with: acknowledge your emotions, acknowledge each other’s feelings — but (ask) what can we do next? How do we turn this emotion into action, into curiosity, into community, and bring people together? That’s the key part when it comes to everything we’re feeling right now.

Jessica: I really like that. I was speaking at the Climate Youth Development Programme last week, organised by NYC (National Youth Council) and MSE (Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment) for a group of about 40 youths who were really energised about the future. But I could also tell, through their questions, that they had real anxieties: what jobs would be there for them, and someone asked about ecological grief and climate anxiety. How do you actually process the fact that the world is changing at such an alarming rate, and that we seem to be reaching these planetary boundaries?

Dr Janil: I think the point about emotions, and getting people involved, is very real, and young people are indeed getting involved. There’s a sense that some of them are experiencing ecological grief or anxiety, and if you’re not a youth, you might assume that’s the end of it. But that’s not what we’re seeing. They’re actually stepping forward, getting involved, and contributing to how we can solve some of these issues. We’ve had lots of ground-up groups — Earthopia, for instance. You see the ones you know about, and every time you go to these events, you see new groups of young people stepping forward.

Jessica: The crucial thing is for youth not to fall into apathy, to feel that deep sense of anxiety and not do anything about it. I think the Year of Adaptation has been a really interesting one for Singapore. I’ve covered the COP (United Nations Conference of the Parties) negotiations for two decades now, and I’ve seen that conversation move from being mostly about mitigation to climate now being a lived reality, with countries acknowledging that they need to look seriously at adaptation. But adaptation is extremely local, and it has to be funded by local governments as well, so there’s a conversation about how adaptation actually gets funded.

How is Singapore thinking about the funding aspect of this? Singapore has been a small country for many decades, living this existential experience, and there have always been trade-offs in our development journey. Now, on top of mitigation, we have adaptation. How do you, as a policymaker, think about the trade-offs a small nation has to make?

Dr Janil: The word ‘trade-offs’ gets used a lot, but the reality is there isn’t really a trade-off between mitigation and adaptation – you need both. Ongoing mitigation efforts, if successful, mean you need to buffer in less effort around adaptation. And the better our adaptation is, the more impact our mitigation efforts will have. There’s a reinforcement between the two; it’s not that you do one or the other, you have to do both. Where there is a trade-off is in the actual resources, financing, for example, so you do have to think carefully about where your investments go and what the returns are.

One thing that holds true across climate and every other existential crisis we’ve faced is that investing in developing people is always a no-regrets move. Whatever the challenge, having the opportunity to develop — and supporting that opportunity — is going to be useful to us as a society and a nation. Coming back to young people, we have things like the SG Eco Fund, resources that help young people develop their skills, get exposure to real-world challenges, work with groups, go to COP, represent Singapore at COP. That’s real-world exposure and capability development, helping young people translate that into action. That kind of investment, developing our people, is always going to be important.

On the bigger picture of climate financing: this is one of those areas where people ask, is it all doom and gloom, has everybody withdrawn? The answer is no. Internationally, a lot of organisations continue to put money into transition financing. Here in Southeast Asia, Singapore had the FAST-P financing arrangement, we saw financing commitments made at COP, and commitments continue to come in.

So these efforts suggest that yes, people recognise the difficulty. But whether it’s developing young people, balancing adaptation and mitigation, or financing the climate transition, we’re having to do all of it. We think carefully about each piece so we get the right kind of return, but it’s not that we can only do part of it.

“

Is it all doom and gloom, has everybody withdrawn? The answer is no. Internationally, a lot of organisations continue to put money into transition financing.

Jessica: This demonstrates how important political leadership is. Fortunately, Singapore thinks long-term, and we have a government that looks at the financing and technical aspects, and we’re fiscally in a good position to do that. But around us, our neighbours in the region, and in the wider world where there are so many conflicts… it’s quite hard for some governments to grapple with that sense of urgency for adaptation. MJ, I’m curious, from your perspective as a citizen, are you assured that adaptation measures are being implemented at the right pace, that they protect future generations? Are we adequately thinking about it and giving it enough attention?

MJ: I love FAST-P, by the way. When I first heard about it, I was like, wow, who thought of this? It’s about investing in people, having the right group of people to come up with solutions that actually help the future, and everyone around it.

The conversation about mitigation versus adaptation has always been a highlight in the climate community, and at COP, because adaptation has always been overlooked. It’s not as flashy as mitigation… investors are looking for high-tech solutions, and it’s easier to quantify. Those are the challenges we’ve been facing for the longest time.

So the fact that Singapore designated this year the Year of Adaptation sends a strong signal that we’re now taking adaptation seriously, because we can’t stop all the impacts of climate change from happening. So how do we prepare the nation, and citizens, to adapt to that impact? For the longest time, I’d go into conversations asking where the adaptation measures were, and hear ‘oh, we need a few billion’ and I think, yes, but where’s the follow-through? But things are moving now, and Singapore is finding ways to make adaptation measures more than just a loss of money.

Can we actually create a win-win, where adaptation measures also help bring economic development to Singapore? Take the Long Island project, for example. To put it simply, it’s building a strip of land off the East Coast. But through conversations with people involved, we’ve been reimagining ways to make it more than just a piece of land: housing estates, F&B, a more vibrant space with recreational activities, somewhere we can actually generate revenue from. So it’s not just a loss of money because of adaptation, there can be a win. These kinds of innovative discussions and solutions genuinely excite me, especially as someone who’s going to inherit this planet.

Jessica: With life expectancy going up, I fear for my kids. They’re 14 and 12 now, and they’ll be around in 2100. I do wonder what landscape they’ll inherit, and what kind of economy they’ll live in. Broadening this out a little: we’ve talked about Singapore and adaptation, but climate impacts are uneven — they’re also regional and global. In Southeast Asia, we’re seeing the impact pronounced in some of our neighbours. Going back to that word resilience – how do we create shared resilience? With Singapore taking over the Asean Chair next year, are there regional alliances we can build to strengthen that shared resilience across the region?

Dr Janil: We are doing exactly that. Asean is a vehicle for thinking about sustainability and resilience – those mechanisms are there, those conversations are ongoing, and there’s interest from our Asean member states. Sometimes it happens on a multilateral basis through Asean itself, sometimes bilaterally. Singapore and Indonesia recently signed a couple of MOUs, for example, and sustainability was a big part of that. Bilateralism and multilateralism go together, and there’s interest from our Asean member states.

The resilience component is a little harder to think about on a regional basis, because our challenges are very different. We’re small and resource-constrained, an island city-state, very different from, say, Vietnam, with its own physical geography, constraints and needs. But there are some components we can think about regionally, and energy is the main one we’re focused on.

One example is green or cleaner electricity coming in from the region. Singapore has already granted approval for 1 gigawatt (GW) of low-carbon electricity from Sarawak, and we have another potential 8 GWs of agreements, approvals and projects across a variety of partners in Southeast Asia. This is the kind of thing we need to build energy resilience, and that’s important, because energy allows so many other things to happen: maintenance of the economy, public services, utilities. We’ve talked about an Asean power grid, and some of those discussions need to continue, connecting places with high and low demand, and places with high and low supply, to provide resilience across the region. That’s going to be an important part of the discussion.

Jessica: That’s reassuring to hear. As a policymaker, what do you think is your biggest obstacle to convincing Singaporeans, or building that sense of shared resilience in society? Do we have any blind spots, are we looking at the wrong things? What keeps you up at night?

Dr Janil: Convincing Singaporeans that something needs to be done isn’t much of a challenge, I think. Singaporeans are rational, reasonable. They read the news, they see what’s happening, they can see the climate changing around them and around the world. They know this is important. What we have to convince them of is that they can do something. Younger Singaporeans, in particular, have a real sense of agency: they know they can recycle, reduce consumption, take action, that individually they have agency, and collectively we can change the world.

I think that’s something we can convince more Singaporeans of – that every little bit of action counts, and collectively we can make a big difference. Older generations have had experience with this. Singapore was one of the most water-stressed nations in the world in 1965, and the collective efforts of all Singaporeans have improved things considerably since. Now, in 2026, we have our Four National Taps, we have desalination, we have NEWater (reclaimed water), but we also still have a sense that we need to continue saving water and reducing consumption. That’s baked into the older generation: even as the whole of Singapore works towards our national resilience through international agreements and infrastructure, each of us can still do something individually.

I think on sustainability, we need to arrive at that same sense nationally. We’re doing what we can… the Year of Climate Adaptation, investing in Long Island, putting together financing instruments, working with international partners, but at the same time, individual actions by individual Singaporeans and families will make a difference.

Jessica: Yes, there’s something in the culture, in the DNA of our society, to feel that we have agency and can do something. MJ, you work in this space, you tell stories and engage youth. What obstacles have you found in your storytelling, and what’s worked better than others?

MJ: When it comes to storytelling, the reason I started the channel is because I felt there was a huge gap between the environment and nature community and the mass audience. I didn’t see that gap being bridged, so I thought: social media has the power to reach millions of people, and I could do it in a way that’s more relatable. That’s why I started the channel, to translate that knowledge into something palatable for a mainstream audience.

When scientists get together – and I’ve talked to plenty of them, many of them great… (but) some of them speak in a different language. They’re speaking apples, and everyone else is speaking oranges. So I think our role as communicators is to turn their apples into oranges, something people can understand. I think there are three key factors that help make storytelling effective.

First, make it personable. You can talk about melting glaciers, everyone knows about that, but if they don’t see it, they think, ‘okay, let it melt then.’ So make it relatable, especially in Singapore’s context. A couple of years ago we hit the highest recorded temperature in May, 40°C, and everyone felt it. I put out a video about it and it went viral… people started realising: dengue cases are rising, the elderly are falling sick more easily in the heat. Those are the kinds of points that are relatable to Singaporeans.

Second, make it as easy to understand as possible. Sometimes the scientific community uses a lot of jargon, because that’s how they’re trained… I remember being in research and thinking, wow, there are ten jargon terms in one sentence. That turns off a mainstream audience; people wonder what you’re trying to show off. So for my videos, I try to use as little jargon as possible. I want it to feel like, hey, this is just a girl trying to share knowledge with you, not something foreign.

And last but not least: give people hope, or help them feel capable of taking action. People don’t change when they’re told it’s their responsibility, they change when they feel capable of change. So in my videos, I try to give people the knowledge, but also show them what they can do, what’s happening in the world, and what we can do together as a community.

Those three ingredients – personable, easy to understand, and empowering – have been the best way I’ve found to communicate with everyone out there.

Dr Janil: I have to defend scientists, as a scientist. But I do have to say: dengue cases are reducing, not increasing – thanks to Project Wolbachia.  

MJ: Okay, okay – thank you.

“

People don’t change when they’re told it’s their responsibility– they change when they feel capable of change. I try to give people the knowledge, but also show them what they can do, what’s happening in the world, and what we can do together as a community.

Jessica: I love that, because what you’re saying is that we need to make content fun. That’s actually an issue we grapple with at Eco-Business. We cover a lot of deep policy and business news, and someone would rather watch an AI cat video than learn about sustainable finance these days. So we’re always thinking about how to make sustainability content really fun and engaging.

Dr Janil: That’s important.

Jessica: Yes, it’s very important. On that note, I want to bring in the mental health aspect, because we’re having so many conversations now about an AI-driven economy, and how the lines between online and offline are blurring. Young people are on social media all the time, and that’s also causing some mental distress. When we think about mental health for our society, because that comes back to resilience, how do we encourage a generation of young people to have healthy relationships with digital spaces, and to develop the kind of resilience we’re talking about?

We talked about 1965 and Singapore’s birth as an independent nation, an era where our forefathers were genuinely resilient in the face of a lot of crises. One thing I hear people say is that our generation, or future generations, aren’t as resilient. Is that true?

Dr Janil: I think every generation looks at the next generation and worries, it’s a natural thing to do as a parent. I’m sure my parents said exactly the same thing about me and my generation. Every generation has to adapt to the challenges of its time. Part of the reason I look at my kids and worry about their resilience is that I don’t see the world the way they do, they’re growing up as internet natives, AI natives, with all the sustainability challenges out there. These are new things I have to think about, but for them, it’s just the way the world is; they understand it differently than I do.

So I’m anxious about whether they can be as resilient as my generation, just as my parents’ generation was anxious about mine. I think that worry is a very human thing. But what do we actually see? I think young people will be as resilient as our generation, and the generations before us. They’ll adapt, they’ll change, they’ll rise to the challenge, we can already see this in the youth groups coming up, some of which we fund and support. But many of which spring up entirely on their own, and then we discover them and try to get them on board. Just yesterday, I had an email exchange with a young person who’d written a very smart blog post, and we’re going to connect and think about how we can do recycling and waste management better.

But if we’re translating that spontaneous individual and group action into a resilient society, what we shouldn’t do is say, ‘it’ll be okay, young people will grow up and everything will be fine.’ We’ve got to take active steps, mobilise, engage, bring people together. A whole-of-society effort gives you a sense of resilience, not just being resilient after the fact and discovering you got through it ‘okay’, but having confidence as you go through it. That confidence matters, because it increases trust, reduces some of the mental stress and mental health issues we worry about, and builds confidence in each other.

“

I think that worry is a very human thing. But what do we actually see? I think young people will be as resilient as our generation, and the generations before us.

That means businesses need to take steps to think about adaptation, mitigation, and their own resilience, their supply chains, their funding arrangements, how they manage operations, because that’s what allows them to keep creating economic opportunities and jobs for young people. Government has a role too, which we’ve talked about a lot. But we also have to pay attention to community, what we do in our urban spaces, whether we still create opportunities for people to gather even as the weather changes and places get hotter, whether behavioural patterns shift. What do we do in our town squares, our void decks, our parks, and at what time of day? How do we bring those behaviours together?

That’s a community response, but it’s also about the idea that we have each other’s backs. It’s my favourite trope,  we’ve been doing this since independence, through a number of crises, whether it’s haze, floods or economic disruption. That idea – we’ve got each other’s backs, regardless of race, language or religion – will be important as we face heat, flood resilience, and risks to our food and water supply from climate change. Each of these will need a community response and community confidence, so building that sense of trust in each other is going to be important.

If we do all of this, and you have a sense of agency from the next generation, then you put it together, not only can they be resilient, they can have a sense of resilience.

Jessica: I really like what you said about having each other’s backs, that sense of shared responsibility feeds into the resilient spirit we want to encourage. MJ, do you agree? Do you feel we can do better in building a sense of shared resilience?

MJ: To be honest, I had a slightly differing opinion.

“

That’s a community response, but it’s also about the idea that we have each other’s backs.

MJ: Okay. I realised that every generation looks down at the next and worries: ‘oh my goodness, what’s going to happen.’ I think our society can be a little complacent sometimes, partly because the government thinks so far ahead, ten years, fifty years, and we’re victims of our own success. That’s great, we’re in a much better place than many years ago, but sometimes I do see a certain complacency in people: ‘climate change, okay, nothing’s happening, the government will take care of it.’ That worries me, sometimes quite deeply. I’ll pose this question to ministers sometimes: do you feel our society is getting more complacent? And how do we build resilience in younger people, so that when they face challenges, their first instinct isn’t just to feel it and move on, but to actually do something about it? That’s my personal take.

Jessica: What you say resonates.

Dr Janil: But, from a maybe-not-so-young person’s perspective, as long as people keep asking, are we complacent, can we do more, should we be more resilient? and you believe there’s something to be done. To me, that’s a good signal.

MJ: Yeah, that is.

Jessica: I speak to a lot of business owners behind closed doors, and they do express some concern about a sense of complacency. We’re in a very different era from 1965. Singapore used to be poor, the founding generation had to work hard for everything and never took things for granted. We’ve achieved a lot of economic success, and today Singapore is a first-world country that leads in so many areas, we don’t quite have that same sense of existential urgency.

Dr Janil: But I don’t want to overplay this idea that everything is okay, that everybody has agency, everybody’s stepping up, we know exactly what to do. There’s actually a lot of hard work ahead of us, for adaptation and mitigation, as well as what MJ talked about in terms of resilience. The idea that we’ve got the message out there, that everybody’s on board and on track, that’s in itself a complacent approach. We shouldn’t take it lightly, whether it’s our resources, water, energy, even food. We need to make sure we don’t over-consume, and at the same time, at the government level and the whole-of-society level, diversify our supply chains and make sure we have resilient operations. We’ve got to do everything from individual to whole-of-nation, and take the view that we have to work hard at it.

Jessica: It brings me to my next question. We’re talking a lot about the future, and I’m curious what success looks like to you. Last year, when Singapore celebrated 60 years, there was a lot of reflection on what Singapore at 60 means. But what does Singapore look like at 70, 80, 90 years old?

Dr Janil: Success in terms of sustainability and resilience?

Jessica: Yes.

MJ: I think there are two aspects. When it comes to adaptation and climate change, hopefully we’ll have infrastructure that can combat climate impacts, not just for the short term, but structures we can scale up as and when needed. Singapore is definitely moving in the right direction, when we turned the concrete canal in Bishan Park into a river, we weren’t just thinking about that moment, but about whether it could handle increased rainfall in the future. That’s why I run a lot of my learning journeys there, it’s a great story about how Singapore faces its own challenges.

But community-wise, I think we’re definitely more united than ever, and I hope we continue that way into the future. When there are challenges, we look to each other for help, we band together, we see each other as a team. That’s very key, especially for a small country like Singapore – if we’re divisive, we’re going downhill. So I’m looking forward to that future too.

Jessica: That really resonates, because we’re seeing so much polarisation and divisiveness in society, and it’s honestly a bit of a surprise that we haven’t been more divided. Going into the future, having a cohesive nation is one of our biggest nation-building challenges.

Dr Janil: I completely agree, cohesive and united is certainly very important. If I look at the specific issue of sustainability, climate adaptation and climate resilience, I’d draw the parallel again with water, my favourite thing to talk about. Are we successful with water today? Actually, we shouldn’t say we’re ‘successful’, it’s an ongoing journey. Today we have our Four National Taps, we’ve increased our efficiency and resilience, but we’re already planning for what we’ll need by 2065, when water demand is likely to double. So we’re planning the infrastructure and focusing on public education to reduce consumption.

What’s different is that, socially, we have a certain confidence in our water supply. Singaporeans need to be reminded to save water precisely because they’re confident that clean drinking water will come out of the tap. So success, whether we’re talking about 2065 or 2100, isn’t about having ‘arrived’, it’s that, along the journey, we’re able to continue planning long-term, investing in our people, our infrastructure, our technology, and Singaporeans have confidence in our approach to sustainability, energy and climate adaptation. That sense of confidence is the other half of having each other’s backs as a cohesive, united society.

Jessica: I like that – our water story shows we can come together and overcome something existential. I’m curious, because there’s a lot of conversation now about water usage for data centres, and how Singapore has put AI at the top of the national agenda, while across the causeway in Johor there’s been a moratorium on data centres because of a severe water shortage. With this AI-driven economy, how do you think sustainability factors in? I’ve heard concerns, some even avoid doing an AI search because of its energy consumption, but at the same time, this is a technology that’s going to shape our future. What are your thoughts on how AI will define that future?

MJ: Whoa. The AI talk is here.

Dr Janil: I think, on the data centre and AI piece, we’re pushing very hard to make sure any new data centre in Singapore is top-in-class for efficiency, with a PUE (power usage effectiveness) of around 1.2 to 1.3. We don’t have much land, so the data centres in Singapore, or coming to Singapore, aren’t huge – they have to extract as much operational efficiency as possible from the space they have, and we want them to extract as much efficiency as possible from the energy and water we supply. High efficiency, high productivity. Then the question becomes: what about everything else we need that energy and water for?

One thing we’re seeing is that AI, and AI-based software and solutions, can make a whole range of other industries more resource-efficient and potentially more sustainable. So AI itself could be an important tool on our sustainability journey, we have to make its use as efficient as possible, but done smartly, it may end up helping us deliver the sustainability and resilience we badly need.

Jessica: I hear you, but it’s interesting how that conversation is playing out elsewhere, in Australia, the US, the UK, there’s a lot of community resistance to AI. What do you feel about this relationship with AI?

MJ: As someone with a relatively young team, there are so many conversations happening around AI. On the sustainability side, definitely, there was a news report a few months ago about a water crisis in several parts of the world, and because Singapore is pushing hard on AI, that’s part of the conversation too. I think people’s concerns about AI need to be addressed more, there’s a lot of pushing forward, but the concerns haven’t really been addressed.

On sustainability, I largely agree, I don’t think we can stop AI at this point. So since AI is coming, and there’s good that comes with it, the question becomes: how can we use it for good? We can’t control whether it happens, but we can decide how to respond, how to make it better. Using AI for sustainability is definitely an area companies, governments and individuals should look into. I recently toured Micron’s factory in Singapore, and they showed how they use AI to reduce water usage, emissions and energy consumption, and overall, it’s a net gain: yes, they’re using AI, but they’re managing to reduce so much elsewhere that it’s a genuinely positive move.

So I think looking at that side of things helps a lot, not using AI for its own sake, but for sustainability. And then there’s the other side, people just watching AI cat videos. Always back to the cat.

Jessica: So many of those (AI cat) micro-dramas, they’re super popular in China nowadays.

MJ: It is, and I think that’s actually a more challenging conversation, because it’s about society and how people feel about AI, being empathetic to people who are genuinely affected by it, instead of brushing them off with ‘why aren’t you accepting change?’ Why do they feel this way? Because they feel their jobs are being taken, or that something without a soul is taking over work they put their heart into. I actually did a video on this recently, not anti-AI, though some people read it that way, (but it’s) more about helping people understand why young people feel this way.

It’s a lot of emotion: I put my heart and soul into this one piece of artwork, but you’re willing to use AI to create something that removes all the emotion I put into it.’ It’s about building understanding, and then asking ourselves how we move forward from here. For bigger organisations too: are we willing to scale back some AI usage and work with people instead, so we can have a bit more empathy in our society?

“

Are we willing to scale back some AI usage and work with people instead, so we can have a bit more empathy in our society?

Jessica: I think this relationship with AI is going to play out for a long time, as with any new technology. When the Industrial Revolution came, it really changed how people worked, played and lived. It’s a fascinating one. But to wrap-up our conversation, I want to ask you both a similar question: Dr Janil, what’s one thing you wish younger people understood better about policymaking? And MJ, what’s one thing you wish policymakers heard more of?

MJ: Wait, wait, you go first.

Dr Janil: Young people have a real sense of drive and urgency, which is good. But policymaking and implementation take time, and it’s sometimes hard to persuade people to give it a bit more time. After you’ve done this a few rounds, you come to realise: you have great ideas and want to get going, but you need time to find out whether you’re right,  whether your ideas play out the way you thought. You also need time to find out whether other people think the same way, because you might be sitting with your group thinking this is absolutely the right thing to do and everyone should agree, but then, once you go out and start implementing, it turns out you need a lot more persuasion, communication and engagement to bring people along. That also takes time. And sometimes time is simply needed for the full success of something to be delivered, you want to give a programme, an idea or a policy change room to come to fruition.

It’s much easier to see all this in retrospect, ‘oh, it took three to five years’, but when you have a great idea and want to get going, you don’t want to hold back people’s energy and enthusiasm. Still, sometimes we have to engage and explain: maybe we think about step one and step two before we get to step three and four.

Jessica: Basically, you’re telling the youth: be patient.

Dr Janil: I don’t want to say ‘be patient, slow down’, we need the energy, the drive, the ideas… But yes, we’ve got to give it space and time to work.

MJ: I fully agree with what you just said… But I think young people don’t always understand that point, so giving them the opportunity to learn about all these other factors at play is very crucial, you don’t know what you don’t know. When we talk to different agencies, some are a lot more transparent than others. I think transparency is one thing:  young people know about trade-offs, but what they want to know is why a decision is being made. Can you explain it to me? Finding the opportunity to sit down and share that is important. Sometimes people think it’s a waste of time, but I don’t think we should view it that way, it’s an investment in younger people, in building their understanding, and who knows, they might end up being our allies, building this together.

Taking the time to explain why decisions are made, as much as we can, and sharing honestly about the time these things take, is something on my mind too. Sometimes we demand solutions and want to see them happen immediately, but decisions are made to the best of our abilities, based on what we know and what we believe might work. It might not work in the end, but we try, and it needs time to prove itself. Sometimes I have to explain to younger people: give it time, things aren’t going to change in a year, maybe three or four, but you’ll start to see it coming.

And, last but not least, giving young people the opportunity to actually go through the whole process. I was part of a youth panel where I co-led a group of youths working with a ministry to co-create solutions on green issues in Singapore. We went through the whole process: stakeholder engagement, mapping, all of it… and I remember thinking, ‘oh my goodness, this is tough’. When we talked to private industry, because we had to actually come up with something concrete, we realised it’s not that easy. So I think giving young people the chance to learn these processes themselves, instead of forming their own assumptions, is very crucial. And now that we know all this, what can we do better next?

Jessica: I’m curious, once you’ve had that communication and things are explained, are the youth receptive, or do you find they already have an idea in their head that’s really hard to shift?

MJ: There are always a few people who won’t budge, regardless… and honestly, I think that’s okay. We need a spectrum of people and differing views; I don’t think a society of ‘yes men’ is a healthy one anyway. But there are definitely some shifts, it’s not that people change their stance entirely or become fully supportive, but more like: ‘okay, I hear you, I understand the challenges, here are other solutions I can propose, how else can we work together?’ I feel like showing all the cards, so we can all work together to do better for our nation, is key. That’s largely how I see things shifting among younger people.

Dr Janil: I’d say, firstly, we shouldn’t characterise all young people as the same, there isn’t one ‘youth’, one way that Singapore youth think. There’s a diversity of views, opinions and approaches among young people, just as there is in every generation. Some are harder to convince, some are very enthusiastic, we have to find a way to bring everybody together.

Jessica: The most important thing is having that debate: having platforms where you can have constructive, healthy discussions. That’s what I really value as a citizen here, that I can put forward views and there can be a healthy debate around them, without it descending into the kind of chaos we see in some other countries. On that note, I’ll ask you both my final question, for our listeners who are feeling uncertain about the future and wondering what resilience really means in the 21st century: what would you say to them?

“

That’s what I really value as a citizen here, that I can put forward views and there can be a healthy debate around them, without it descending into the kind of chaos we see in some other countries.

MJ: For me, resilience isn’t about having the answers to everything, or being okay with everything. It’s about accepting it, acknowledging it, going through the process and the emotions if you need to, but getting back up on your feet and asking: what can we do right now? Even if we can’t do much now, that doesn’t mean we can’t do more in the future. Everything is a learning experience, we build our skills as we live through the years. Something I tell primary and secondary school students: you might not be able to do much now, but just try, starting a project, a CCA (co-curricular activity), a group, teaches you so much, and that stays with you as you grow older. Who knows, next time, you might be the department head, or the CEO of a company, and that’s where you can really exercise the bigger change you hoped for when you were younger.

So that’s what I always tell young people: have hope. Collective action really helps, but it’s not just about the action itself, it’s about the experience and skills you gain along the way, which will be useful to you ten, twenty years down the road.

Jessica: It really is about the journey, isn’t it?

Dr Janil: Building on what MJ said, whether you’re worried, interested, enthusiastic or uncertain, get involved. Drop me an email, drop me a WhatsApp, I’m happy to follow up. There are plenty of opportunities for young people to get involved in all kinds of things, and the more they get involved, the more confidence they’ll have in themselves, in each other, and in our approach to sustainability.

Jessica: Thank you both so much. I’m leaving this conversation feeling really excited about the future, with a real sense of optimism, which I think is exactly what we need today. I’m going to get my 12- and 14-year-old to listen to this conversation.

Dr Janil: Sign them up!  

Jessica: Thank you both so much for joining us today.