Latest news with #ChristopherOng
.jpg%3Fitok%3DXGi0kX-H&w=3840&q=100)
CNA
6 days ago
- Business
- CNA
Hyflux trial: Prosecutor crosses swords with defence in re-examination of lead investigator
SINGAPORE: The prosecutor in charge of the Hyflux trial attempted to take his first witness, the lead police investigator, through clarifying questions on Wednesday (Aug 13) morning but was met with repeated objections from the defence counsel. Both senior counsels stressed their points on a certain question about what ultimately happened to a S$720 million (US$561 million) loan Maybank had extended to Hyflux in 2013. Eventually, the judge agreed with Mr Davinder Singh and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong backed down. The trial, which is in its third day, wrapped up for the week after under an hour of re-examination by Mr Ong. In the dock are six former leaders of the now-defunct water treatment plant Hyflux: company founder Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, 64, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, 56, and former independent directors Gay Chee Cheong, 68; Teo Kiang Kok, 69; Christopher Murugasu, 66; and Lee Joo Hai, 69. Except for Cho, who is on trial for only one charge, the rest are contesting two charges each for this trial under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). In essence, they are for omitting the electricity sales portion - a new business with new risks - of the Tuaspring project, whether to the Singapore exchange or to investors. According to the prosecution, Hyflux had pitched the Tuaspring project to the public as its second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas, while hiding the fact that it would fund the sale of water at a very low price to national water agency PUB, with a new business of selling electricity from a power plant it would build. When the project ran into financial problems due to weak electricity sales, Hyflux suffered losses and eventually entered liquidation, with 34,000 investors owed S$900 million. RE-EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION On Wednesday morning, Mr Ong took his first witness, Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) officer Ms Jacqueline Wei Maojun, through several answers she had given in response to Mr Singh's questioning. Under Mr Ong's questioning, Ms Wei said she had sought views from a securities expert, Mr Kevin Gin, before "overt investigations" had commenced. At one point, Mr Singh's team objected, saying the question that was asked was a leading question, and Principal District Judge Toh Han Li asked Mr Ong to rephrase his question. After Mr Ong worded his question differently, Ms Wei explained that Mr Gin's views "did help to shape" the eventual "omitted" information that made its way into the charges against the accused. "However, the actual framing of the (omitted) information was done by CAD, with consultations from various parties, including the regulators, the prosecutors," said Ms Wei. Under Mr Ong's questioning, she also stated that she had exercised her discretion in allowing Lum to review a statement she had given to another investigator four months earlier. Lum had requested to do so as she was "tired" on the day of the statement-taking and did not review it properly at the time. Mr Ong then asked about a question Mr Singh posed to Lum - where he said it was a feature of a number of Lum's answers to Ms Wei, that she said the events occurred 10 years ago and she could not recall what happened, but she still tried to be helpful. Mr Singh then said this was primarily because of the time gap, to which Ms Wei said "possibly". "Why did you say possibly?" asked Mr Ong. "As I said, it's not for me to speculate," said Ms Wei. "One of the possible reasons is the time gap." Mr Ong then asked Ms Wei what other possible reasons there were, but before she could answer, he withdrew the question, saying she had already stated that it was not for her to speculate. Mr Ong then asked Ms Wei about the very first statement recorded from Lum. He asked her to tell the court about the circumstances leading up to the recording of this statement. As Ms Wei began answering about how CAD visited Lum in early June 2020, Mr Singh got to his feet and asked: "How is that arising from any question or answer (in my cross-examination)?" The scope of questions the prosecution can ask in re-examination is very limited and has to be focused only on the questions asked by the defence and the answers provided during cross-examination. Mr Ong responded that Mr Singh had cross-examined Ms Wei regarding the nature of the answers from Lum. "I think the context from which the statement was taken is relevant," he said. "If relevant, it should be led in the examination-in-chief (by the prosecution)," countered Mr Singh. "This is re-examination of questions I asked in cross-examination. I didn't ask any questions about the circumstances leading up to this." The judge then asked Mr Ong if he could "situate" his question based on what Mr Singh had asked. Mr Ong tried again and asked: "At the time Ms Lum was giving this statement recorded by you, what did Ms Lum know about the purpose of the statement?" Mr Singh objected again, asking what this clarification was about. The judge agreed and asked the prosecutor to make reference to something Mr Singh had asked before asking his question. Mr Ong then referred to a specific question Mr Singh had asked, about an answer Lum had given in her police statement. She had said that Hyflux management had "guessed" that PUB would want to focus on the desalination plant, and not focus so much on the power plant. Mr Ong asked Ms Wei to explain why she had accepted this as Lum's position. "The reason is Mr Singh added (the word) 'honest'," said Ms Wei, referring to how Mr Singh had asked her if she accepted Lum's answer as "an honest position or answer". "My role is just to accept what she answered," said Ms Wei. "It's not for me to guess at that point in time whether it's honest or dishonest. Regardless, I still have to record whatever she says in her statement." She also said in response to questions from Mr Ong that her investigation findings showed that the banks had issue with the word "approval" appearing in an in-principle commitment letter for S$527 million they issued to Hyflux for the Tuaspring project on Jan 14, 2011. "So there was some resistance from the banks, because from investigations, it shows that concerns (arose) primarily due to the power plant," said Ms Wei. Mr Singh had argued that the Jan 14, 2011 letter went against the prosecution's claim that banks were concerned about the power plant part of the project, since the letter gave in-principle commitment for S$527 million despite the so-called concerns 10 days earlier. Ms Wei continued that Hyflux "also knew the banks wanted to water down the phrasing in the 14 Jan letter and there appears to be some discussions among the banks on how best to reach a balance, a point they are comfortable with" and that Hyflux was also accepting of in order for the letter to be submitted to PUB. This was because Hyflux had won a bid in response to a tender conducted by PUB. Mr Ong then asked Ms Wei: "Later on in the cross-examination, Mr Singh suggested to you that the Maybank loan that was given to Hyflux a few years later was actually very relevant to this case. When Hyflux eventually collapsed financially, do you know what happened to this Maybank loan?" Mr Singh had raised this S$720 million loan a day ago, suggesting that the reason there were no Maybank documents produced, and that the prosecution was not calling Maybank as a witness was because it would undermine the prosecution's case. The prosecution's case is that six banks were so concerned about the power plant and electricity sales portion of the Tuaspring project that none of them eventually funded the construction of the power plant. Mr Singh objected again to this question, asking which specific question Mr Ong was referring to. The judge told Mr Ong "we all know (the loan) was extended" and asked him what the question was about. Mr Ong then said his question was the outcome, because if the giving of the loan is relevant, then the fate of the loan is also relevant. "I didn't ask any question about that," said Mr Singh. The parties wrangled over this for some time before the judge agreed with Mr Singh, saying that the collapse of Hyflux took place in 2019, six years after the loan was extended in 2013 and it was "too far" after the time in question. At one point, Ms Wei asked if she could say something and Mr Singh objected strongly, saying "the witness is trying to advocate". The judge told her to hang on and she did not speak. "At that time, 2013, there was an announcement (that Maybank was extending a loan to Hyflux)," said the judge. "But what happens in 2019, that's a whole different set of issues, right. I don't think we need to go into that now, because that's not been led." Mr Ong replied: "I stand guided. In that case, no further questions." He had no re-examination of any of the questions from the other lawyers for the other five accused. The trial will resume on Monday afternoon, with former Hyflux corporate communications officer Winnifred Heap Ah Lan taking the stand. She was originally meant to testify on Tuesday, but was sick with COVID-19. The court heard that the prosecution is likely to take a full day questioning her in their examination-in-chief, and Mr Singh said he would likely take at least two days to cross-examine her. The prosecution also handled administrative matters on which dates to vacate the trial, as they had to attend magistrate's appeals and other hearings on certain dates. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose the electricity sale information to the securities exchange, Lum can be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$250,000, or both.
Malay Mail
11-08-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
Singapore Hyflux trial opens as prosecutors detail Tuaspring risk omissions, S$900m investor losses
SINGAPORE, Aug 11 — Hyflux's troubled Tuaspring water-and-power project, which ended in a collapse wiping out nearly S$900 million (RM2.97 billion) of retail investor funds, was financed through an oversubscribed preference share issue after banks refused to back its electricity-linked business model, prosecutors told a Singapore court Monday at the start of a 56-day trial of the company's former executives. As reported by The Straits Times, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong said that in 2011, a consortium of banks raised 'serious concerns' after learning Hyflux planned to sell electricity from Tuaspring's power plant to offset losses from water sales to the Public Utilities Board (PUB). Hyflux had secured the tender for Singapore's largest desalination plant by bidding just S$0.45 per cubic metre — a price at which the 'plant would operate at a loss', Ong told the court. The company planned to make up the shortfall by selling most of its electricity to the national grid, despite having no prior experience in the power market. Only three banks later offered limited financing, which Hyflux declined. 'Lum was determined that Hyflux had to win the bid and cement its status as a global leader in the water treatment and desalination industry. Hyflux was facing setbacks in its Middle Eastern ventures, and winning the Tuaspring bid was critical for strengthening the company's order book,' Ong was quoted as saying, referring to founder and then-CEO Olivia Lum. With bank funding out of reach, Hyflux raised S$400 million in April 2011 through an oversubscribed preference share issue. Prosecutors allege the offer documents omitted key risks about Tuaspring's power market exposure — information Lum allegedly withheld to avoid spooking investors. Tuaspring's desalination plant began operating in 2013, but its power plant was delayed until 2015. By then, electricity prices had plunged, contributing to a US$115.6 million after tax loss in 2017. The strain culminated in Hyflux's 2018 collapse, leaving about 34,000 perpetual securities and preference shareholders facing combined losses of roughly S$900 million. Six former directors and executives, including Lum, deny charges of failing to disclose material information. The prosecution is proceeding on 11 charges, with testimony expected from former employees, bankers, PUB officials and market experts. The trial is set to run until February 2026.
Straits Times
11-08-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Hyflux issued preference shares to fund Tuaspring as it had problems getting bank loans: Prosecution
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox SINGAPORE - Hyflux issued preference shares to fund its Tuaspring project because it had trouble getting bank loans, the prosecution said on the first day of the trial involving former senior executives of the failed water treatment plant. Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong noted that a consortium of banks had raised concerns in 2011 over Hyflux's strategy of selling electricity to subsidise the sale of water to PUB. This led Hyflux to consider other avenues of raising funds. Its eventual collapse left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares, who had sunk in a combined $900 million, with nothing. Former Hyflux employees and bank representatives who were involved in negotiations on financing the Tuaspring integrated water and power project are expected to testify for the prosection. In total, seven people have been charged over Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose information relating to Tuaspring, among other things. Six of them – Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum Ooi Lin, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and former independent directors Teo Kiang Kok, Christopher Murugasu, Gay Chee Cheong, and Lee Joo Hai – are contesting their charges in a 56-day trial scheduled to run from Aug 11 to Feb 5, 2026. The prosecution will proceed on 11 charges, including two of the six charges Lum faces. The remaining four charges against Lum are stood down. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Keppel to sell M1's telco business to Simba for $1.43b, says deal expected to benefit consumers Business Singtel, StarHub shares fall after announcement of Keppel's M1 sale Singapore ST Explains: Who owns Simba, the company that is buying M1? Singapore Simba-M1 deal is S'pore's first telco merger, after years of liberalisation Singapore S'pore Govt asks inactive political parties including Barisan Sosialis for proof of existence Singapore Man's claim amid divorce that his mother is true owner of 3 properties cuts no ice with judge Opinion Anwar's government: Full house but plenty of empty offices The prosecution, in an opening statement to the State Court on Aug 11, said Hyflux won the tender for Singapore's second and largest desalination plant with the lowest submitted bid. It had proposed to sell water to PUB at a first-year tariff price of $0.45/m3, undercutting its competitors by at least 27 per cent. 'At this price, the desalination plant would operate at a loss,' Mr Ong said. 'To make the project financially viable, and also fulfil PUB's requirement to procure or produce electricity for the desalination plant at Hyflux's cost, Hyflux intended for the power plant to supply electricity to the desalination plant, while actually selling the vast majority of the power that it generated to the national grid.' It was only from this sale that Hyflux would be able to make up for the desalination plant's losses and make the project profitable. But Hyflux had no prior experience in power generation, much less selling electricity. The Tuaspring Project would be the first time Hyflux entered the electricity market, the prosecution said. How it all unfolded To finance the Tuaspring project, which was initially projected to cost $890 million, Hyflux sought a term loan of about $527 million from a consortium of banks. Six banks signed in-principle commitment letters in October 2010 indicating their willingness to finance the project. But they had not been told of Hyflux's plan to build a power plant and sell excess electricity to the grid at the time, Mr Ong noted. In November 2010, when they found out about Hyflux's power strategy, they 'raised serious concerns'. In January 2011, they told Hyflux that they could not lend it money on the terms previously indicated, as the power plant introduced new 'merchant sale risk and operational risk'. On 4 July 2011, only three of the original six banks - DBS, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation - extended Hyflux financing of $150 million for the construction of the desalination plant. This financing was eventually terminated by Hyflux. Tuaspring was ultimately financed by a shareholder's loan of $840.4 million by Hyflux in October 2011, which was in turn refinanced with Maybank Singapore and Maybank Kim Eng Securities in September 2013. The case against Lum In January 2011, in the midst of their negotiations with the banks, Hyflux's management began to contemplate issuing of preference shares to raise funds. On 19 January 2011, Hyflux senior vice president, legal (business) Ms Yang Ai Chian informed the Board of the need to issue preference shares to 'increase our funding options' for 'several new major projects' that Hyflux was expected to win that year. In reality, this money was meant to fund Tuaspring because of the challenges Hyflux faced in getting bank financing. On 13 April 2011, Hyflux lodged an offer information statement with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to issue up to $200 million in 6% preference shares. These were oversubscribed and the offer amount was increased. Hyflux ultimately raised $400 million. But the statement did not mention risks arising from Hyflux's entry into the electricity business, or those associated with Hyflux's strategy for Tuaspring, which could affect the company's financial position or results, the prosecution said. The information was omitted because Lum wanted to downplay Tuaspring's significant exposure to the electricity market, both in Hyflux's announcement that it had been named the 'preferred bidder' for the desalination project, as well as in the offer information statement, the prosecution said. 'Lum was determined that Hyflux had to win the bid and cement its status as a global leader in the water treatment and desalination industry. Hyflux was facing setbacks in its Middle Eastern ventures and winning the Tuaspring bid was critical for strengthening the company's order book,' Mr Ong said. 'She did not want to detract from the positive news of winning a landmark water project, by revealing the Tuaspring Project's reliance on electricity sales, and the fact that the low tariff price – the key to winning the tender – was only viable because of such electricity sales.' The prosecution also said Lum was well aware of the banks' negative reactions regarding the power plant component of the project, and feared that full disclosure might deter investors and compromise Hyflux's ability to raise funds through the planned preference shares. This, in turn, could jeopardise financial close for the project and potentially result in losing the bid, the prosecution said. The desalination plant of the Tuaspring Project became operational on September 18, 2013. But its power plant only became operational nearly two years later, on or around August 2015. It began selling electricity commercially on 18 February 2016. In March 2011, the average Uniform Singapore Energy Price had been around $187 per megawatt hour (MWh). By February 2016, this had fallen to around $49.10 per MWh. As the profitability of Tuaspring depended on electricity sales, this fall in electricity prices hit Hyflux hard. In its 2017 annual report, it reported a $115.6 million after tax loss. The report stated that the weak power market in Singapore drove losses for the first time in Hyflux's history, with the Tuaspring Project accounting for the majority of the losses. On 21 May 2018, Hyflux suspended trading of its shares. The next day, Hyflux announced that it had applied to seek court protection for debt reorganisation. On 18 May 2019, PUB took over the Tuaspring desalination plant. On 1 June 2022, a wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysia-based YTL Power International, YTL Powerseraya, completed its acquisition of the Tuaspring power plant. By 16 November 2020, Hyflux entered judicial management and into liquidation on 21 July 2021. Other witnesses include a lawyer from Stamford Law Corporation, who was Hyflux's external legal counsel on the April 2011 offer information statement; an SGX representative who will provide evidence on the sequence of events that led to this case being investigated; and a PUB representative, who will testify to PUB's dealings with Hyflux and its employees and management during the tender and award process for Tuaspring. The Prosecution will also adduce evidence from a securities expert, Mr Kevin Gin who will address why the omitted information ought to have been disclosed by Hyflux. The hearing continues.
Straits Times
07-08-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Flying greener will come at a price, industry players warn
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Because of limited availability and the high cost of production, sustainable aviation fuel is two to three times pricier than normal jet fuel. SINGAPORE – Consumers will need to accept that there is added cost to flying greener, as the price of less polluting jet fuel made from waste materials, such as used cooking oil, will not fall to that of regular fossil fuels any time soon. But if investments in sustainable aviation fuel are not made today, there could be more to pay later as the planet warms. DHL Express Singapore managing director Christopher Ong made this point during a media visit on Aug 7 to the parcel delivery giant's facility in Changi Airfreight Centre which was jointly hosted by Finnish renewable fuel producer Neste. The two companies inked a deal in July for DHL Express to use sustainable aviation fuel made in Neste's refinery in Singapore on cargo flights out of Changi Airport until June 2026. Similar moves have been made by carriers like Singapore Airlines Group and Dubai-based Emirates previously, but on a smaller scale. In total, 7,400 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel, or around 9.5 million litres, will be supplied to DHL Express, accounting for 35 to 40 per cent of the total fuel used by its fleet of five Boeing 777 freighters here. This is the largest purchase of sustainable jet fuel in Asia by volume so far. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Liquor licences for F&B, nightlife venues extended to 4am in Boat Quay, Clarke Quay Singapore Chikungunya cases in Singapore double; authorities monitoring situation closely Singapore Student found with vape taken to hospital after behaving aggressively in school; HSA investigating Singapore Vape bins placed in Singapore's six autonomous universities to encourage voluntary disposal Singapore CDC, SG60 vouchers listed on e-commerce platforms will be taken down: CDC Singapore Some ageing condos in Singapore struggle with failing infrastructure, inadequate sinking funds Singapore Jail for driver who drove over leg of special needs woman in accident on church driveway Asia Australia's purchase of Japanese frigates signals a new era for Indo-Pacific security Mr Ong said sustainable fuels are a key lever to reduce DHL Express' emissions, 90 per cent of which come from its aviation activities. He believes that the price premium for greener fuels will narrow over time as production grows, but he said there are no estimates today that suggest that sustainable fuel will ever get to the same price as regular jet fuel. 'I think it is a future we need to accept – that this will be more expensive,' he said. The cost of sustainable aviation fuel is among the major barriers that have limited its widespread adoption. Because of limited availability and the high cost of production, such fuels are two to three times pricier than normal jet fuel today. Neste's Asia-Pacific head of public and regulatory affairs, Mr Steven Bartholomeusz, said sustainable fuels have environmental attributes that fossil fuels do not. For instance, apart from having a lower carbon footprint, sustainable aviation fuel has been shown to produce less soot than conventional jet fuel. In the past couple of years, Neste has faced a more challenging market amid weak demand and increased production capacity from other firms. This has pushed the price of renewable fuels down and raised demand for the raw materials needed to produce such fuels, squeezing earnings. Mr Bartholomeusz called for more 'demand certainty', noting the €1.6 billion (S$2.3 billion) Neste invested into expanding its Singapore facility. 'You can't make that kind of investment purely on the basis that you will have a company like DHL come along and (voluntarily) take our volume,' he added. Neste's refinery in Tuas can produce up to a million tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel, making it the largest of its kind in the world. But this capacity has not been fully utilised. In the first half of 2025, Neste produced 497,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel across all of its refineries globally. Things are set to change in Singapore in 2026, when all flights departing the city-state must use sustainable jet fuel , with an initial national target of 1 per cent use. Passengers will be charged a levy, which will be used by the Government to buy the fuel needed to meet this target. Early government estimates suggest that economy-class passengers may have to pay $3 more for short-haul flights, $6 more for medium-haul flights, and $16 more for long-haul flights. Mr Bartholomeusz said the reality is that the world needs more sustainable fuel manufacturing to reach its 2050 net-zero goal, and policies like Singapore's 1 per cent target help drive the industry forward. In response to earlier queries, CAAS chief sustainability officer Daniel Ng told The Straits Times that the authority is developing the legislative framework and operational details for the levy, in consultation with the industry. Asked if Neste plans to expand into other locations in South-east Asia, Mr Bartholomeusz said the company has no such investment plans for now. 'We have capability here to meet the sort of demand that we see at present in this part of the world,' he added.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Perspective: AI and the future of work looks bright
One of the hottest guessing games in workforce development is figuring out how generative artificial intelligence will affect jobs and how to prepare students and workers for an AI-infused economy. The future of work looks bright, but the full potential of AI to increase productivity and raise wages and incomes will only be realized if we implement policies and programs that equip workers to understand and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. Forecasts about the impact of this new general-purpose technology (GPT) on jobs and skills vary widely — and, at times, even wildly. The good news is that while real-world results are still scarce, available data points toward positive trends for both high-skill and middle-skill workers. A recent paper by David Deming, Christopher Ong and Lawrence Summers reinforces the idea that AI, much like previous general-purpose technologies (GPTs) such as the steam engine, electricity and the transistor, is likely to drive major changes in the labor market over time. As the authors point out, these types of technological disruptions take decades to unfold and jobs create more work opportunities than they eliminate. Moreover, jobs improve as technology automates routine tasks, allowing workers to spend more time on higher-level and more productive tasks. We can see this happening already with AI. The technology has enabled coders to program faster, taxi drivers to locate and deliver customers more efficiently and call center workers to handle inquiries with greater ease. Deming and his co-authors highlight how AI functions as a prediction tool, able to process quantities of data that would be impossible for human researchers to manage with pre-AI technology. AI was critical to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, helping to quickly identify the 'spike' protein that made the illness so virulent and lethal. Other AI systems have been shown to improve cancer diagnosis across a range of illnesses. One MIT-developed AI system, MIRAI, has been found to predict a patient's risk of developing breast cancer up to five years before current technologies would have found it. Another system raised detection rates for skin cancers from 81% to 86%. In the infinitely complex world of medicine with billions of genetic variants, terabytes of medical images and an increasing influx of nontraditional data such as smartwatch readings, AI's ability to synthesize complex datasets could significantly accelerate innovation, reduce diagnostic errors and save lives. Outside of healthcare, AI is optimizing global supply chains by utilizing algorithmic carrier pricing and mapping efficient vehicle routes. While the increased use of AI in this sector has led to the elimination of some retail jobs, new logistics roles, such as light-truck drivers and warehouse operators, have emerged to accommodate the increased demand for online retail. These are examples of the way AI delivers incremental improvements to business processes which, when multiplied across a nearly $30 trillion economy, boost worker productivity — essential for raising incomes without causing inflation — while also creating entirely new and unforeseen categories of jobs. The bigger AI challenge is managing transitions for workers in disrupted industries and jobs. Deming and his colleagues emphasize that we are in a 'critical window,' where workforce development policies should be designed and implemented to ensure that workers have the resources and skills they need for AI-infused workplaces. Without such transition support, the gap between AI-driven job creation and displacement could widen, leaving some workers vulnerable to economic dislocation. To build better, more agile workforce development systems, we will have to create 'headlight' data and analysis that leverages AI's capacity to forecast how the technology is likely to affect skill demands. A project spearheaded by AEI, the Stanford University Digital Economy Lab and NYU is developing novel ways of connecting disparate data sets at the local, state and regional levels to provide a clearer picture of evolving employment and skill demands. As the recent National Academies report on AI and work pointed out, this enhanced data, when combined with powerful new AI and machine learning technologies, could provide us with a better understanding of current and future labor market demand. Such refinements to labor market information would form the foundation for more responsive education, training and workforce development systems. If localities and regions are forewarned of technology-driven skill obsolescence, they will be better able to adjust and adapt education and training programs to meet shifting employer needs. AI and other 21st-century technologies present tremendous opportunities to create new industries, enhance productivity and raise living standards. The choices we make today to facilitate worker transitions — through better data and improved transition supports — will determine how the benefits of tomorrow's economy are shared.
