Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 15.
“Other jurisdictions with large foreign worker populations, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, already have schemes in place that are similar. This approach will go a long way towards rebalancing the perceived wage differential between the foreign and local workforce. Attracting Talent and Developing Workforce”
“Another resident shared her belief that the salary cap may have inadvertently led to accelerated pay raises for foreign hires at her workplace as her company chose to pay foreign workers slightly more rather than incur the additional cost of hiring a new local. Existing solutions to spur local hiring appear to be targeting only symptoms. But the reason favouring the hiring of a foreign talent is that simply, without CPF, foreign talents are often just cheaper. There are good reasons why the Government may not wish to offer CPF for foreigners. After all, the system was designed and meant for locals. Incorporating potentially transient account holders into the system could also mess with actual real assumptions and the goal of stable, long-term returns. Enfolding foreigners into CPF could easily turn into an unnecessary logistical and financial nightmare. Yet, there is a simpler solution. We can set aside the CPF-equivalent payouts into individual specific accounts under an escrow, which will be returned to the foreign worker once they depart. We will not be shortchanging them in any way other than the modest amount of potentially foregone returns. If this is a significant concern, we could place the escrow principal into an ultra-safe, highly-liquid asset, such as Singapore Government Securities, which offer the prevailing market risk-free interest rate. No additional management of these funds will be required beyond tracking the account holders as well as their outstanding balances, and disbursing the amounts when the worker leaves the country for good. Of course, a small administration fee may be levied for this purpose annually.”
“Some are frustrated with how foreign companies seem to favour hiring their own nationals, perhaps even simply going through the regulatory motions with a designated candidate already in mind. Others point to how international companies place a greater weight on qualifications acquired from their home countries. Yet others flag how foreign hires are favoured because they are willing to work for lower salaries than the prevailing market rate. The Ministry has tried to address some of these issues. The Fair Consideration Framework is designed to arrest discriminatory job advertising. MOM has also instituted foreign worker quotas and levies for S Passes and the points-based COMPASS for assessing EP hires. Ostensibly, the raised salary cap was an effort to keep foreign talent earnings in line with PMET wages locally. It is unclear whether these strategies have been successful. Between 2014 and 2021, the TAFEP received an average of 379 complaints a year, but only a third warranted additional investigations and a mere 41 were found in breach of guidelines. If there is no underreporting, this seems to suggest that alleged cases have no merit. Yet, the sentiment about unfair foreign competition in the workplace stubbornly remains. Part of the reason is that the various restrictions on hiring foreigners do not appear to have contained their increase. The skilled foreign workforce has steadily grown over the 2010s and it took the shock of COVID-19 before we saw a scaling back. One resident I spoke to even shared that it was only during this period that he was meaningfully considered for jobs that he had long been qualified for.”
“Chairman, on the topic of enhancing CPF returns, I would like to, once again, take the chance to raise concerns that I have previously voiced out in Parliament in each of the past four years and also earlier this year during the Budget debate. While I have been going on like a broken record, I hope we can urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, which was first accepted by the Government back in 2016. With Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighting this issue in a recent interview by Lianhe Zaobao earlier this year, I hope that the Minister will not respond to this cut once again by saying that he will provide updates when ready, but that he is now ready to provide updates. I am sure Singaporeans and the civil servants working at on the scheme alike will appreciate a deadline from the Minister. Moreover, if the Government is not confident that our own investment entities, be it Temasek Holdings or GIC, can produce better risk-adjusted returns that are better than CPF returns over the long term, then we are in serious trouble. I appreciate that Prime Minister Wong mentioned in his round-up speech last week that we will certainly continue to review, finetune and improve the CPF system. But I hope the Government can do so expeditiously and set a deadline for this, as the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and the real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings. Levelling the CPF Playing Field Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): One common concern Singaporeans have is the sense that foreign talents do not compete on a level playing field with our local graduates.”
“Lowering the cost of the travel pass could better incentivise Singaporeans currently taking less environmentally friendly private vehicle options, regardless of whether it is cars, taxis or private hire vehicles (PHVs), to make the switch to public transport. This is ultimately our goal, as expressed by the LTA, if the plan is to meet and exceed the 75% public transport mode share. Therefore, would the Government consider reducing the price of the adult monthly travel pass to further incentivise greater public transport use? Alternatively, could the scheme be expanded to include City Direct and Express fares as well, given an expansion of such travel options as part of the commuting mix and that these two are green public transport options as well. I recognise that building a people-centric public transport network may require funding from the Government's purse, which also includes sustainability-linked revenue sources such as carbon taxes. Hence, with carbon taxes aimed at supporting our decarbonisation efforts set to increase in the future, would the additional revenue generated help fund enhancements to our public transport network? As Singapore accelerates towards a car lite future, building a transportation network centred around affordable, comfortable and reliable public transit should be the Transport Ministry's utmost priority.”
“In 2019, the LTA reported that they were on track to meet its 2030 target of a 75% public transport mode share for all peak period commutes. In 2016, the public transport mode share for MRT, Light Rail Transit (LRT) and buses was 62%. This increased marginally to 65% in 2023. I am concerned about the pace of progress in encouraging public transport use, given we are just five years away from 2030. Regardless, however, we should aim to ambitiously exceed our current car lite light targets by enhancing the affordability, comfort and reliability of our public transport network. Commuting via public transport should be made more economical for regular commuters, especially given the high cost of car ownership. However, the adult monthly travel pass is still considered expensive by many frequent commuters, many of whom are also being squeezed by the high cost of living. As it is for existing adult monthly travel pass holders, their average expenditure without the pass would be about $140 per month, compared to the price of the pass at $128 per month, just a $12 savings a month, on average, for heavy users of public transport. The average monthly expenditure for adult commuters, on the other hand, is estimated to be only about $45, based on the response to my Parliamentary Question earlier. Even for lower-wage workers who qualify for a monthly concession pass at $96 a month, this is barely economical for average users, without even considering that they already received discounts of up to 25% of adult public transport fares.”
“I understand from the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment COS earlier that there will be five more hawker centres planned in the future. There is strong justification for another hawker centre to serve the needs of residents in the central and eastern regions of Sengkang, especially when the opportunity presents itself today, and especially when we consider that this is not just about the standalone hawker centre, but potentially an integrated development that will enable us to better maximise and achieve the highest and best use for the centrally located plots of land there. On improving connectivity, BTO developments, such as Rivervale Shores, include flats targeted at both seniors and families with young children. Hence, the HDB should proactively work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to ensure that the surrounding infrastructure should be made barrier free, and also by retrofitting nearby overhead bridges with lifts ahead of the project's Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP). While there is unlikely to be many more new BTO estates in Sengkang, given limited areas for development, for the benefit of future residents of future BTO estates across Singapore, I hope that this can be included as part of tender requirements for contractors engaged by the HDB for new BTO projects.”
“The Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA’s) long-term plan review highlights the Government's strategy of building inclusive and close-knit towns by improving connectivity and injecting amenities within neighbourhoods and close to homes. Unlike older HDB estates or new BTO estates for certain neighbourhoods, all precincts within Sengkang are currently underserved when it comes to the lack of coffee shops and everyday conveniences in the immediate neighbourhood. Hence, the Sengkang team has been actively exploring opportunities to bring greater F&B and commercial conveniences to our residents. For example, we studied the possibility of converting under-utilised spaces, such as unused multi-storey carparks, although I understand that technical limitations have rendered some of these proposals unfeasible. During the 2023 COS debate, in response to my call for the MND to address the lack of amenities within Sengkang, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann noted that URA and the relevant agencies are currently reviewing plans to further develop the Sengkang Town Centre. Therefore, would the MND be able to provide a status update to these plans? Moreover, with the recent decommissioning of Compassvale Bus Interchange, the site could be used to develop amenities, such as an integrated community development. The empty plot of land next to Compass One could also be better utilised for a permanent building, rather than merely for the occasional "pasar malam" in the interest of maximising land use while rejuvenating the wider Sengkang neighbourhood. Specifically for hawker centres, the NEA today manages 121 markets and hawker centres, and after decades of waiting, residents at Buangkok and Anchorvale can finally have their own hawker centre.”
“Chairman, just two clarifications. The first is for Minister Chee. I think he prepared some comments with regard to the disclosure of the size of the reserve and assets under management. But in my speech, I specifically mentioned that actually, that was not what I was talking about. It is more about the performance figures where you have Temasek disclosing annual figures and MAS disclosing annual figures. Why is it that GIC cannot do so? Second, specific to Minister Indranee's point about the CDC Vouchers, I take her point that, yes, the cost of living hits everyone. But the point that I was trying to make is that it does not hit everyone the same, which is why, if you look at the $800 worth of vouchers, to a lower-income household versus a high-income household, it is a very different percentage of their expenditure. That is why in my gist and also in my main Budget speech yesterday, what I was saying is that we need to have a more targeted approach. An example which I have given in delivering the cut was to maybe leverage on the CHAS card scheme, because you already have the Blue CHAS card holders, Orange and Green. The different income groups, is quite nicely partitioned that way. So, that is something that we can leverage on. The question then is, would the Minister not agree that this is more in line with how the Government generally directs assistance packages?”
“Chairman. I think that that is an option which that the Ministry can consider. Whether or not we want to go back to the original CDC Vouchers; I am not sure how exactly did the original CDC Vouchers select the Singaporeans who are eligible. But the whole idea is that this is another option in which we can go back to that sort of system, whereby the so-called CDC Vouchers are given to those who are in the lower-, middle-income households.”
“Chairman, just to respond to Minister's questions. Indeed, I also mentioned in the Budget speech I gave earlier that that was the evolution of the CDC Voucher Scheme. Originally, it was lower-, middle-income households. And then, we went and basically gave it to all households. So, what I am proposing here is to make use of what we already have, in terms of the CHAS card kind of requirements, such that the scheme from hereon evolves into one focused on where we started out – be focused on the lower-, middle-income households and those who qualify for these additional subsidies.”
“Such a programme is not new. Discounts for CHAS, Merdeka and Pioneer Generation cardholders have been offered by establishments, such as FairPrice, Unity and store holders within certain hawker centres. Under the new scheme, however, these rebates will be borne by the Government instead, in a more equitable manner. Through this scheme, greater support will be rendered to low to middle-income households and residents compared to high net worth individuals. Furthermore, Government support could also be easily accessed by those experiencing difficulties obtaining CDC Vouchers via the appeal processes. By expanding the CHAS, Merdeka and Pioneer Generation programme to provide discounts for daily necessities, the cost-of-living pressures faced by Singaporeans could be easily, equitably, elegantly and efficiently paid. Foster Culture of Giving”
“Alternatively, if they use paper menus, they could simply give a 10% discount for takeaway orders instead of having 10% for dine-in orders. Some restaurants do display all-inclusive prices, but many may be reluctant to do so for fear that they will be seen as more expensive than their competitors. In the interest of ensuring a level playing field between F&B operators and improve consumers' dining experience by having greater price transparency, I urge IRAS to review this concession and to require the display of all-inclusive prices as I believe the overall real benefits to the public outweigh any perceived cost to businesses. Rethinking CDC Voucher Scheme Lastly, on rethinking the CDC Voucher Scheme. In my 2024 and the recent 2025 Budget debate speeches, I highlighted that while the CDC Vouchers Scheme has provided some support for Singaporeans amidst the high cost of living, the support rendered is broad-based, with low-income households receiving the same payout as that of a millionaire CEO. Moreover, users may face difficulties when redeeming their CDC Vouchers due to its fixed denomination and expiry dates. In lieu of the CDC Vouchers Scheme, the Government could leverage the existing Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Merdeka Generation and Pioneer Generation schemes to provide discounts for cardholders at merchants, hawkers and supermarkets that currently accept CDC Vouchers. The list of participating merchants could also be expanded to include food courts within privately owned commercial properties and pharmacies located within HDB estates. The rebate provided could vary based on the colour of one's CHAS card, with blue CHAS cardholders receiving the largest discount quantum, along with Merdeka and Pioneer Generation cardholders.”
“According to the 2023 Household Expenditure Survey, about 16% of Singaporeans' monthly expenditure is on food and beverage (F&B) services. Unfortunately, it is more complicated to compare prices when eating out than when making other retail purchases. While some F&B outlets display all-inclusive prices, others do not include service charge and Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the menu price. Their inconsistency can cause frustration when the customer sees the final bill, which is almost 20% higher than the menu price. It also makes it harder for customers to compare prices across different F&B operators. Tourism is a key driver of our services industry. I have, in the past, often heard feedback from my foreign friends about how they are shocked by the final prices of their F&B purchases and their taxi rides compared to the prices they were initially expecting. In the era of ride hailing apps, the shock of seeing a myriad of additional charges added to the flag-down fare is now much less likely. But when it comes to F&B establishments, the sticker shock remains. Currently, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) grants hotels and F&B outlets an administrative concession which allows them to display prices ex-GST if they also impose a service charge. This differs from other retail sectors, where the price displays must include GST. IRAS' rationale for this concession was to help restaurants manage operational challenges when waiving service charge for takeaway orders. I would like to ask the Minister when this concession was last reviewed and whether it is still relevant today. Given the prevalence of electronic menus, it is very straightforward for restaurants to display both dine-in and takeaway prices.”
“I notice that Temasek Holdings is invested in not just private markets, but many of these investment structures are also increasingly complex, perhaps a reflection of the investment landscape today. An example is that of continuation funds. A Business Times article dated 12 October 2024 was titled, "Temasek CIO Gets Behind Asset-Shuffling Funds Snubbed by Others". It further goes on to say that the chief investment officer of a Singaporean state-owned investor voiced unusual enthusiasm for continuation funds in which private equity managers shift hard-to-sell assets from an older vehicle into a brand new one. The repackaged assets are then offered to investors, such as Temasek, known as limited partners. Chairman, these harder-to-value investments need more oversight, not less. Yet, they are becoming less transparent even as investments get more complex. In accounting, Level 3 financial assets require significant use of internal models and assumptions to estimate fair value as reliable market data is not readily available. Hence, listed companies have to disclose in their annual reports details of valuation methodologies and the assumptions made in their financial statements. There is a glaring contradiction in all of these, in that even as the Government and Temasek demand good corporate governance from the companies that they invest in, they are secretive about their own performance and remuneration matrix. Chairman, we must demand better standards from the investment managers managing our Reserves. Any attempts to deflect this via operational independence must be rejected. GST Concession to Hotels and Restaurants Singaporeans compare prices to get the best value for money for their purchases and to better manage the cost of living.”
“Chairman, the reason for my cut on Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) transparency is simple. We must demand better standards from the investment managers managing our reserves and take the lead in transparency, accountability and governance standards, as these involve the stewardship of public monies for all Singaporeans, not just its funds' direct shareholders. We should aim for transparency in both our public and private market investments, regardless of whether it is held by Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) or even the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board for that matter. To many market observers, the gold standard, as in most things SWFs-related, is the largest bank investment management – Norway's sovereign wealth fund. When it comes to transparency, they publicly share a whole suite of details regarding their operations from individual investments, returns before and after fees, even their voting records. 5.45 pm Their chief executive officer (CEO) has a popular podcast, In Good Company, where he interviews portfolio companies and prefaces every interview openly discussing fund ownership details. They prove you can be transparent and perform well. On transparency, however, Singapore's sovereign funds are falling short. Unlike Temasek Holdings, GIC does not even share annual performance figures. I do not think they assess the performance of the third-party fund managers they are invested in merely on a five-year basis. I understand the rationale of not disclosing its assets on the management, but hiding performance figures does not make sense and merely raises questions. There is another dimension to transparency.”
“Just a few clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, I look forward to the next phase of the review. Hopefully, we will have our own value-up programme. Specific to the Equity Market Development Programme, I asked whether there will be sustained funding and cash injections for continued support of the equities market over the medium- to long-term. Just to get a sense of this $5 billion in terms of, are we looking at something upfront? Is this something that will be providing continued liquidity support over the medium- to long-term for it to be sustainable? Second, the Minister mentioned the direction towards non-index components. In terms of the actual implementation, how does the MAS plan to ensure that the funds are directed to the Singapore markets, specifically to this area that the Minister mentioned? And at the same time, given the current liquidity of the small mid-cap space, ensure that there is not a subsequent bubble or even a popping of the bubble if, let us say, certain counters became concentrated? Lastly, I think the Grant for Equity Market Singapore Research Talent Development Grant previously was actually focused on and at the same time developing local research talent. With the Equity Market Development Programme, is there also a similar requirement to develop the local fund management talent?”
“Further, Singapore investors, especially retail investors, need to be better equipped to make sound investment decisions and to question the board and management teams of the companies they have invested in. This can only happen with a purposeful effort to strengthen investor education and empower retail investors to make informed investment decisions in a "buyer beware" regulatory regime. Chairman, we need to do all we can if we want to revive our equity markets and this is our best chance, maybe our only chance. Bank Accounts for Ex-offenders”
“Top of mind is PSA International, which pulled the plug on its IPO in 2002 after years of preparation and this plan was never revived. Recently, Saudi Global Ports, in which PSA co-owns, is said to be aiming for an IPO worth up to US$1 billion in Riyadh too. Many families are excited to visit the new Mandai boardwalk and the upcoming Rainforest Wild Park. I am sure many will be excited to own a part of Mandai Wildlife Group. Especially when we are looking at the long-term expansion of Changi Airport and Terminal 5, tapping the global capital markets is a key avenue in which we can fund Changi Airport Group in an efficient and sustainable manner. More importantly, as MAS moves to move towards a more disclosure-based regime and a supposed pro-enterprise regulatory stance, it is imperative that we strengthen corporate governance standards and double down on investor education. In 2023, Japan introduced what The Financial Times called a radical "name and shame" regime to drive better corporate governance and stock market valuations, particularly at listed companies with a price-to-book ratio of less than one. Corporate reform since March 2023 following Tokyo Stock Exchange's directive for all companies to take "Action to Implement Management that is Conscious of Cost of Capital and Stock Price" has led to almost 90% of companies taking some kind of action by end-2024. Similarly, since 2024, South Korea has also started to tackle the "Korea discount". Singapore can certainly take a leaf or two from them, by focusing on broad-based corporate governance reforms and implementing our own "value up" programme. This will go hand in hand with a disclosure-based regime and address longstanding concerns on corporate governance.”
“This is unlike Malaysia's Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), which is the largest investor in its domestic market, supporting Malaysian companies' capital needs and the economy as a whole. In the grand scheme of things, $5 billion is just a small fraction of the free-float market capitalisation of the Singapore market. How does MAS intend to use this seed funding to draw in investments from other investors? Moreover, the number of Singapore-focused equity funds have dwindled over the years. Singapore represents just a small percentage of the Asia ex Japan and World indices. How does MAS intend to evaluate and allocate the funds to the fund managers, and how will these funds be disbursed? Will there be sustained funding and cash injections for continued support of the equities market over the medium to long term? I also wish to propose two key reforms to ensure long-term sustainability. While MAS has taken the lead on the demand side with the Equity Market Development Programme, on the supply side, I urge the Government, via its investment entities, to similarly take the lead for its companies to list on the Singapore Exchange (SGX). This has been done before, through the listing of various Government-linked companies in the early years. Even the Singtel Special Discounted Shares Scheme in 1993, aimed at making Singapore a share-owning society by giving Singaporean CPF members the opportunity to buy discounted Singtel shares. For all intents and purposes, the scheme worked well. We can give this current generation of Singaporeans a stake in the country via a meaningful Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the next wave of various private companies held by Temasek and encouraging them to list on the Singapore exchange.”
“Chairman, as late as May 2024, I asked the Prime Minister about the Government's assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of existing measures to increase the attractiveness of the Singapore equities market, and whether the Government will take the lead in promoting our equities market by encouraging the privately-owned companies in which it holds equity through its investment vehicles to list in Singapore. Back then, Prime Minister Wong responded that notwithstanding the Government's efforts, the conditions remain challenging for the Singapore equities market, as they are for stock exchanges in many other countries, and that we have to be realistic about what we can do to change them. It was a disappointing response, but I was comforted to hear in August 2024 that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has set up a Review Group to recommend measures to strengthen equities market development in Singapore. Chairman, capital flow is more mobile and global than ever, seeking the best return wherever it may find. Our measures must be bold enough to bring our equity markets into the future, in order to give us the best chance of success. I welcome the measures announced thus far but have some clarifications for the latest measures announced in February 2025. On the launch of the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme ddressing demand issues, it is a case of better than nothing. As we all know, the Government has long held that directing GIC to invest in locally-listed firms is "not the solution" to improve the attractiveness of the local equity market and its mandate specifically excludes the Singapore market.”
“Speaker, just one clarification, but a bit of a long one. I mentioned the point about the top-ups to endowment and trust funds, about how just in these two years, we can set aside close to about $42 billion. I mentioned, not in the context of earnings management of companies, but how if you look at it in the context of transparency and the matching principle, in the sense that if you look at these top-ups to the funds, they are to meet our spending needs in the future, similar to how if you look at our SINGA expenditure, our development expenditures, these are also spendings that are meant for longer-term needs and purposes. But in the sense that if you have the spending made from the endowment and trust funds, we get a lot less granularity versus the regular expenditures. I mean, those who go to the Budget website can see the whole full Heads of Expenditure under the different Ministries, under different spending categories. So, in that context, under the whole premise of greater transparency and the matching of the expenses against the periods in which they are incurred. Would the Prime Minister be able to share the rationale behind this?”
“] First, when the Government has consistently been collecting more than it spends year after year and generated substantial budget surpluses, Singaporeans cannot help but to question the wisdom and urgency of the tax increases, such as raising the GST, during a period of high inflation and cost of living. Secondly, I hope the Government can implement structural reforms to our CPF system. Many Singaporeans are deeply concerned about whether they will have sufficient retirement funds. Given our rapidly ageing society, this issue will become increasingly important. I hope we can expedite the implementation of the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), which the Government first accepted in 2016, to allow Singaporeans who desire higher investment returns but lack the financial knowledge to participate. Finally, I believe that the most serious divide in today's society is not based on race, language or religion, but on socioeconomic statuses. I hope we can address this issue head on and explore bolder policies, such as strengthening the minimum wage framework, further improving wage subsidies and continuing to implement more proactive redistribution measures. Otherwise, this divide will deepen over time.”
“Therefore, beyond income in inequality, we must also address wealth inequality, which has widened in recent years. Based on the UBS report from 2024, across 29 major countries covered by the report, Singapore saw the highest growth in wealth inequality from 2008 to 2023, increasing by nearly 23%. To quote from the same report, in markets where average wealth growth strongly exceeds median growth like Singapore, it appears that much of the rise in wealth has benefited the upper-income brackets. Even as we welcome family offices and high net worth individuals to our shores, we must also explore bolder policies, such as stronger minimum wage frameworks, further enhancements to wage supplements and more aggressive redistributive measures on a sustained basis. We should also examine how wealth taxes can play a greater role in narrowing the gap and ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources. Beyond income and wealth, we must also look at other forms of inequality: educational access, job opportunities and social mobility. While we have taken steps to improve the inclusivity in our education system, more must be done to ensure that every child, regardless of background, has a fair shot at success. And this begins all the way in primary school, where it should not matter as much as today who your parents are and what school they went to in determining primary school placements. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“Moreover, much can be said about how median and average household incomes have been growing over the years, but there are several interesting statistics which I wish to highlight from the latest key household income trends report published by SingStat. After more than a decade since the Progressive Wage Model, which was launched in Singapore, our minimum wage equivalent, the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), there still appears to be a significant number of households whose household income is less than the equivalent of what is estimated to be the average living wage per worker of $2,990 per month, as estimated in a study in 2022. Putting aside households with no employed persons, as this could include retirees, there continues to be an estimated 17,600 households earning less than $1,000 a month, 61,500 households earning $1,000 to $1,999 per month, and 57,100 households earning between $2,000 and $2,999 per month. Based on the average household size today, this group of locals represent close to half a million people. Can we truly say that all Singaporeans will be able to adequately pay for just their basic needs? Let us also contrast this with the other end of the spectrum. From 2014 to 2024, the total number of resident households in Singapore has grown by close to 263,000, from 1.2 million households in 2014 to 1.46 million households in 2024. When we break down this growth by monthly household employment income, the household income group that saw the largest increase over the same period is those earning $20,000 and over, jumping by close to 158,000 households from 2014 to 2024, far surpassing any other income group. Behind the Gini coefficient statistics lies a stratified reality where we are seeing a widening income and wealth disparity in our society.”
“Had we implemented such a scheme back then, for example, Endowas, an investment advisory firm, which is approved under the CPF investment scheme, highlighted in an advertisement that from 2014 to 2024, "We are looking at 7.99% potential returns yearly for an 80:20 equities and bonds portfolio, compared to 2.5% interest earned yearly if left invested in the CPF Ordinary Account." Third, if the Government is not confident that our investment entities, be it Temasek or the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), can over the long term produce better risk adjusted returns that are better than CPF returns, then we are in serious trouble, and the NIRC framework ought to be thoroughly re-examined. So, I hope that the Government is cognisant that the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and the real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings. Finally, let me touch on the issue of inequality. I believe the deepest divisions in our society today is not based on race, language or religion, but based on socio-economic status. If we do not take a concerted effort to address this issue head on, as we have done with racial and religious harmony, these divisions will only deepen over time. In this 2025 Budget Statement, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned that income inequality after Government taxes and transfers is at its lowest since 2000. Indeed, if measured by the Gini coefficient, after accounting for Government transfers and taxes, income inequality appears to be trending down. This is however, on the back of various short term and one-off transfers, such as the GST Assurance Package, CDC Vouchers and other temporary grants. Are these sustainable and expected to persist?”
“While I have been going on like a broken record, I hope we can urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), which was first accepted by the Government back in 2016. This is also something which I have been repeating in each of the last four years so that we can better support Singaporeans' retirement needs. For sure, CPF returns are guaranteed by the Government, but is it sufficient in today's context? Yes, CPF members have the option today to enhance their returns via the CPF investment scheme, where members can invest their Ordinary Account (OA) and Special Account (SA) balances in a selection of investment products by external providers. But can we assume that everyone is confident and capable of making sound investment decisions? I, therefore, read with interest a recent interview by Lian He Zao Bao with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, where he, too, noted that the Government has been studying the scheme for some time, and I quote, "The challenge is, can such a fund produce returns that are better than the very generous risk-free guaranteed returns that the Government already provides? And would it still have some volatility which would expose CPF members to financial market risk, especially when they retire?" I have three simple answers to this question posed by the Prime Minister. First, this has already been studied extensively by the CPF Advisory Panel about a decade ago, and they have, in my view, given a considered solution with the LRIS. Second, think about the difference to the amount of Singaporeans' retirement funds almost a decade on.”
“This is also a topic which I have repeatedly pleaded with the Government to take urgent action, as there are significant opportunity costs with the Government's inaction. How should one save up prior to their retirement? A recent DBS report provided several ballpark figures based on one's spending habits and lifestyle. For instance, a retiree who has a conservative lifestyle with a monthly expense of $1,600 would require approximately $550,000 in savings by retirement. On the other end of the spectrum, should a retiree seek to enjoy an aspirational lifestyle with a monthly expenditure of $4,000, they would need approximately $1.3 million in their nest egg. Meanwhile, someone aiming to enjoy a balanced lifestyle with $2,800 in monthly expenses would need to accrue $950,000 in retirement savings. No matter one's preferred lifestyle, I am sure most, if not all Singaporeans would like to kick back and enjoy as they enter their retirement years. However, many Singaporeans face difficulties in building up a sufficient retirement nest egg for them to do so. According to a 2024 Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (OCBC) survey, only 35% of the Singaporeans surveyed were on track with their retirement plans, while only 60% of respondents were working on their retirement plans. This is largely attributed to financial difficulties, such as increased household expenditures and debt repayments, that hinder them from saving up for their retirement. In a recent Parliamentary reply, the Manpower Minister also noted that 52% of all CPF members have at least $60,000 across their combined CPF balances. While the percentage goes up to 74%, if you only consider active CPF members, I am sure we all will agree $60,000 is a very low bar to cross.”
“While I am sure many Singaporeans appreciate cash handouts amid the cost-of-living crisis, the CDC Voucher scheme evolved from one aimed at helping Singaporean lower-income households defray their cost of living in 2020 to one where all Singaporean households are eligible for the same amounts. The amounts given have also varied quite significantly over the years, and it remains a question whether the scheme will be a permanent one and, if so, whether all households will continue to qualify, and just how much are the vouchers going to be worth? On personal income tax, I note the tax rebate worth 60% of tax payable, or up to $200, was introduced in Year of Assessment (YA) 2025, similar to YA 2024, where it was 50% of tax payable, but capped at $200, and also in YA2019. Should this be a recurring feature of the annual Budget, this would effectively raise the tax threshold from the current first $2,000 of chargeable income. The move is, however, abandoned as part of the SG60 package. Instead of a run-off rebate, we are better off raising the bottom brackets of marginal resident personal income tax rates and increasing the tax-free threshold for the first $20,000 of chargeable income to reflect inflation over time. This was what I raised in a PQ back in 2022, and also in my Budget 2024 speech last year. This is especially so when, based on my estimates, close to 80% of resident taxpayers would only receive the $200 tax rebate cap and does not sound as generous as the 60% headline rebate level highlighted. Next, I would like to now focus on how the Government can implement structural reforms to our CPF system to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, an issue that I have frequently raised, and would only grow in importance due to our rapidly ageing society.”
“Cost of living concerns are front and centre of Singaporeans' minds, and any additional support to tackle cost pressures are no doubt welcomed by many. This year appears to be the year of vouchers, be it in the form of CDC Vouchers, Climate Vouchers or the new addition to our list of vouchers, SG60 Vouchers. Given the record surpluses that the Government is enjoying, it is only right and appropriate that this is being shared to Singaporeans who have also contributed directly to the Government coffers. With the General Elections around the corner, it is only natural for Singaporeans to be cynical where these are seen as election handouts tied to the political cycle rather than the economic cycle. Therefore, I believe that, firstly, it is important to put in place structural levers in our system, as opposed to relying on one-off schemes, which may be politicised, incur a lot of administrative costs and resources to operate on the part of the Civil Service, and create much unnecessary uncertainty on the part of Singaporeans. Secondly, it is also important to direct our resources to those who need them the most, rather than broad-based handouts to everyone. I am sure many Members have seen the viral video where Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's Budget 2025 speech announcing the CDC Vouchers is being juxtaposed against an election rally speech by Minister Chan, where he put it quite elegantly, "If we give everybody the same – rich or poor – how are we helping the poor?" Take the CDC Voucher scheme, for example.”
“Yet, the amount of additional resources we can set aside for endowment and trust funds in just these two years alone is close to $42 billion. In fact, it is closer to $72 billion over the last four years. And let us also not forget that Singapore's way of accounting differs from international norms, such as that of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the most notable of which is the exclusion of land sale proceeds amounting to $25 billion in FY2024 and estimated at $19.4 billion in FY2025. Higher than expected surpluses are also not a recent phenomenon. FY2021 was estimated to record a deficit of $11 billion but ended up as a surplus of $1.9 billion. FY2022 was estimated to record a deficit of about $3 billion but ended up a surplus of $1.7 billion. FY2023 estimated to record a deficit of $0.4 billion and although the deficit was wider than expected at $2.5 billion, this was after setting aside an additional $7.5 billion for the Majulah Package Fund, without which, FY2023 would have seen a $5 billion surplus instead. I do not deny that uncertainty is a fact of life and, yes, revenues and expenditures can go up and down with the economic cycle. The point of all these observations, Mr Speaker, is that if the Government consistently collects more than it needs and runs huge surpluses year after year, it leads one to question the wisdom of raising the tax burden on Singaporeans, such as via the higher GST and the urgency in implementing them, especially as many are struggling with high inflation rates and the cost of living in the past few years. On this note, last year, I touched on the importance of structural changes instead of one-off handouts.”
“Mr Speaker, as the final Budget for this term of Parliament, I thought it would be interesting to share some trends I have observed over the past four years. Let me first begin, however, by stating the obvious: that the projected surplus of $6.8 billion for FY2025 was wildly unexpected, and this on the back of a huge increase in the projected surplus in FY2024, from $0.78 billion as initially put forth last year, to the revised figure of $6.4 billion. Contrast this with a poll of private sector economists in Singapore in an article run by The Business Times with a headline that goes, "Budget 2025 may run generous deficit of up to $6.6 billion after FY2024 surplus." The combined fiscal surplus of $13.2 billion for FY2024 and FY2025 was also surprising in the context of questions in Parliament towards the end of last year. In September 2024, I asked for an update on the current cumulative fiscal position of the current term of Government, where Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that FY2024 is still ongoing, but the overall fiscal position is estimated to be $0.78 billion. The combined fiscal surplus of $13.2 billion for FY2024 and FY2025 was also surprising in the context of the sizeable $41.6 billion in top-ups to endowment and trust funds in these two years. We can say that, look, these are resources set aside to meet real needs in the future, but it does not take away the significance of these surpluses that are generated within just these two years alone. Put another way, the amount drawn down from our Reserves to combat COVID-19 amounted to about $43 billion. It was previously said that we have drawn on our Reserves equivalent to over 20 years of past Budget surpluses. We have used a generation's worth of savings to combat a crisis of a generation.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I understand the average utilisation and take-up. But for places where there is a relatively higher proportion of younger residents such as in Sengkang and Punggol, I think the utilisation will be rather high. I also understand, at least based on the centres set to open in 2025, that a lot of them are naturally in some of these new towns. So, how is this ratio going to change with the introduction of additional new childcare places in the next five years that the Ministry has announced? Especially if you look at Sengkang, based on a quick check on the Life SG app, if I look at infant care places within one kilometre of Sengkang Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, for example, a large percentage of those are full or have limited vacancies.”
“Yes, at this point, we do support the Motion.”
“Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to rethink our starting point and reimagine our policies. We must reimagine the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. The key lies in how we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", a society that values parenthood deeply. That is the question we should be pondering. (In English): Mr Speaker, beyond policies, we need to question the value that we place on work and the economy against that of parenthood and caregiving. A "Singapore Made for Families" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their child's formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to rethink our starting point and re-imagine our policies. Re-imagining the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. How can we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to build a "Singapore Made for Families" to one that champions parenthood? That is the question we should be pondering.”
“Allow me now to say a few words in Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today’s Motion calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a "Singapore Made for Families". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies. However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record-low total fertility rate of 0.97 that is before us. To achieve extraordinary results, we must make greater efforts and reimagine our approach. Three years on after the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo? Searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market. Giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living. Stressing about the rising cost of living. Facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child’s early years. These are real predicaments that many parents are facing. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real. A "Singapore Made for Families" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their children’s formative years.”
“Even for myself, I cannot imagine how my family can cope without a combination of help from full-day childcare, a domestic helper and my mother-in-law. We recognise that raising and nurturing a family is a lifelong journey, taking love, time and continual effort. Being a parent and caring for your child is a privilege and responsibility. However, the existing frame does not seem to encourage this. Instead, it prioritises the outsourcing of caregiving and incentivising parents, especially mothers, to return back to the workforce quickly. MSF's Social Compact wants families to be pillars of support and for families to be individually responsible. However, there is a fundamental disjunct between this and parents not having time or being empowered to prioritise childcare responsibilities. When we provide childcare subsidies, tax reliefs and foreign domestic worker levy reliefs for working mothers only, we are saying, "We want you back in the workforce". While this is ultimately dependent on parents' individual choice and we want to ensure that mothers are fully empowered to take charge of their own careers, parents should feel that they are empowered to make a choice to prioritise caregiving in the early years if they choose to do so. If we truly believe in a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to expand and shift our frame from one that advocates for parents to outsource caregiving starting from as young as two months for infant care due to return to work demands, to a frame that champions parenthood. We should be saying, "We want you to be proud of being a parent", and how we can rethink flexibility at work in the critical first years of a child growing up, so that parents are able to dedicate more time to directly care for their children.”
“Individual choice aside, this is a society that places much higher emphasis on work over family. We are also often reminded in this House, by the Government and some Members of Parliament (MPs), of the pushback from employers whenever we try to do better for our families, such as the impact of the parental leave enhancements on businesses and their manpower arrangements. Adults of working age, including young Singaporeans parents or parents-to-be, are viewed as labour contributing to the output of this economy. A parent that chooses to prioritise caregiving over a return to the workforce is an economic trade-off for Singapore, a role that does not contribute to gross domestic product (GDP). Our hyper-competitive economy pressures and expects new parents to return to the workforce, to pursue career growth and maximise earnings in a cycle where Singaporeans need to increase their earning ability in order to maintain living standards in an environment of rising costs. The measures we have today revolve heavily around financial support. Besides the enhanced parental leave provision and infant care leave, this includes Baby Bonuses, Government contributions to child development accounts, child relief and childcare subsidies for working mothers and foreign domestic worker levy relief, again for working mothers. I recognise that these have provided significant relief and helped many Singaporeans build and raise families over the years. However, we also know that generations of Singaporean children were primarily cared for through a mix of grandparents, domestic helpers and professional childcare, as their parents from the baby boomer generation generally prioritised work to earn a decent living.”
“Yes, the manpower and operational needs of employers need to be taken into consideration, but should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, then perhaps, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution. Beyond the provision of FWAs and childcare leave, let us also take a moment to examine the lived realities of young Singaporean families: searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market; giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living; stressing about the rising cost of living; facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child's early years. The physical, emotional and mental toll of a society where parents are hard at work is very real. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real. According to an IPS' survey shared at the Singapore Perspectives conference on 29 January 2024, on Singaporeans' attitudes and views toward issues, such as family, well-being and work, seven in 10 of Singaporeans in the youngest group aged 21 to 34 feel it is not necessary to get married and have children. Across all age groups surveyed, the main reasons among this include a career focus, lacking time and energy and being deterred by the high stress and costs of doing so. The survey also highlights the trend of reluctance and disinterest among young women's views on marriage and parenthood, where respondents are worried about burning out from juggling caregiving responsibilities and work demands, without equal support from their partners.”
“Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October 2024 to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs. This would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments. FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions. If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis? In my speech in November last year, I shared that parents would need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to ECDA, could be up to eight working days a year, an increase from six days a year previously. I acknowledge that I had misspoken on this and Minister of State Sun Xueling clarified in her closing speech that there has been a net increase of only 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days, as all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays. Does this not further prove my point that the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone when our children fall sick? Moreover, it seems that many preschools now have eight designated closure days and still have half-day closures on the eves of selected public holidays, anyway. Even though Minister of State Sun further shared that a working couple would have a total of 12 days of childcare leave on top of their annual leave provisions, are we not splitting hairs a little here?”
“On specific policy measures, let me first start by reiterating the point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which came into effect back in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs "properly". Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs. On 30 November 2024, a Straits Times article reported that according to data from Blackbox Research's platform SensingSG, which polls 1,500 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) aged 18 and up every three months, 27% of respondents still enjoy hybrid work arrangements, down seven percentage points year-on-year. Ironically, despite the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines in December, Blackbox Research's head of strategy expects to see a continued gradual decline in remote and hybrid working in 2025. In the same article, KPMG's CEO Outlook, which polled 1,325 CEOs between July and August, highlighted that 83% of bosses expect a full return to office within the next three years, up from 64% in 2023. Even in the United States (US), President Donald Trump has basically signed an executive order demanding all federal employees end their remote work arrangements and return to the office on a full-time basis or lose their jobs. While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work-from-home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may be more appropriate, the point remains that I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.”
“Mr Speaker, it felt like it was not too long ago when I spoke on this topic of how we can better support Singaporeans in starting and raising families, even though this is a topic I have regularly visited throughout my term in Parliament. Specifically, it was just about three months ago when I shared my thoughts on paternity leave, Shared Parental Leave, FWAs, childcare leave provisions during the debate on the CDCA Bill in November last year. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, let me briefly recap some of the key points on these specific policy measures that I have been raising not just as a Member of Parliament reflecting the views of our residents, but also my personal experience as a father of two young boys, trying to raise a family in Singapore. To begin with, the Motion before us seeks to calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a "Singapore Made for Families". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies. However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record low TFR of 0.97 that is before us. And we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results, if we do not make a serious effort to reimagine our approach to tackling this issue. Three years on after the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two clarifications. The first is that I understand that there were about 500,000 queries, but given that we do not know actually whose NRIC number was being accessed, would the Government consider issuing individual notifications to all the different households in the four major languages, just to inform them of this incident and the necessary precautions that need to be taken just to ensure that people are prepared? And I say this also because in the case of private organisations, should there be a data breach, they are actually obligated to inform both the PDPC and the individuals affected. Secondly, it is part of my original PQ: what is the Government's assessment of the risk of NRIC numbers being potentially used to unlock large amounts of personal information. I think there was a Straits Times article that talked about how it can be used to access bank information and healthcare records. And so, has the Government given a timeline for both the Public Healthcare Institutions or private financial institutions to stop the use of the NRIC as an authenticator?”
“Aside from mitigating the risk of discrimination arising from the usage of AI systems, this would also help to assuage public scepticism towards AI's usage in recruitment due to its perceived unfairness compared to a human recruiter. On that note, while mindset changes amongst employers and employees are a key ingredient towards building a fairer workplace, the legislation that we pass in this House sends a signal about where our priorities lie and charts a direction in which society heads towards. Advisories and guidelines hold little weight compared to legislation. Therefore, I am glad that we are finally putting forth this long overdue Workplace Fairness Bill, and I hope that the suggestions that my WP colleagues and I will be taken into consideration as we await the second Bill to be passed. As cliché as it may sound, if we wish to build a society that is "based on justice and equality" that ensures "happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation", then we should take greater strides in ensuring that within every facet of society, everyone will have the opportunity to thrive and flourish.”
“For instance, an Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) could be used to filter out curriculum vitaes based on the employer's needs, while an AI-powered video-interviewing software could analyse the candidate's speech and behaviour. However, AI could also perpetuate discrimination if the algorithm or data is biased. In a Parliamentary reply late last year, Minister Tan See Leng noted that candidates could approach TAFEP to seek recourse should AI usage result in discriminatory employment practices. The Minister also highlighted the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI, which encourages AI developers to adopt data quality control measures and to disclose information regarding the AI model's make-up. Instead of adopting a "soft touch" approach towards AI usage in recruitment, we ought to pivot towards enacting robust legislation that would provide workers with greater assurance and transparency with regards to how AI is being used when hiring. After all, it is crucial to unpack the "black box" that is AI to ensure that it is not a tool deployed by employers to enable discrimination. For instance, the EU AI Act imposes obligations on employers seeking to deploy AI systems as part of their HR practices. These obligations include, amongst others, instituting the right for candidates to request an explanation of AI's role in the decision-making process, ensuring sufficient human oversight over the AI system and adhering to data management practices that eliminate biases within the input data. Candidates must also be informed when AI is being used during the hiring process.”
“In fact, they might even hear it directly from the line managers in passing, but have no concrete recording or evidence of it, allowing him or her to subsequently deny having said such a thing at all. Hence, the employee would most likely have at best indirect or circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing by the employer in such cases. The establishment of a framework for the handling of indirect evidence would be helpful for workers who might be afraid of seeking redress as they feel that they lack substantial evidence. For instance, in US case law, the Mcdonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework places the burden of proof on employers to argue that there is a justification for their employment decision, after the employee has ascertained that they are rejected from a role despite being qualified for the job. Finally, let me touch on some other matters relating to the Bill, such as the FCF and the use of AI. A key tenet of this Bill is also to ensure that Singaporeans and PRs are fairly considered for employment. This is reflected in the implementation of the FCF under clause 26 of this Bill. The FCF mandates that employers who are submitting EP and S Pass applications must first advertise that position on the MyCareersFuture portal. However, employers may also pre-select a candidate and go through the motions of interviewing applicants from the MyCareersFuture portal without considering them fairly. Hence, how is the Government monitoring such employers and how would such employers be penalised? Would the Government also consider implementing a mechanism that monitors the outcomes of job postings uploaded to MyCareersFuture? On a related note, one crucial development in the HR industry is the proliferation of AI in the hiring process.”
“While the articulated aim by the Government is to preserve workplace harmony, in the case of a termination of employment, we can be clear that there is no intention by the employer to be in a continuing work relationship with the employee, much less a harmonious one and it is more likely going to be an acrimonious rather than harmonious relationship after the termination. Relying on mediation could place employees at a disadvantage, as they may lack the resources, such as time, energy, money and support to effectively challenge powerful and well-resourced employers. Mediation can often also favour the more dominant party, leading to outcomes that do not adequately address the grievances of those who experience discrimination and wrongful termination. This brings me to the third broad point I wish to highlight in that the ease at which employees can be terminated. Employment law in Singapore is such that an employer can terminate an employee's contract without cause, simply by giving notice or by paying the employee his or her base salary in lieu of the notice period. No reason whatsoever needs to be given to the employee. To successfully claim that a dismissal with notice is wrongful, where no reason is given for the dismissal, an employee must substantiate a wrongful reason for the dismissal, for example, discrimination. The point about circumstantial evidence is thus an important one, given the colossal task faced by employees in proving discrimination. It is not easy to detect workplace discrimination as employers would attempt to hide it. For example, employers would not indicate in black and white that an employee is being terminated due to their age. But rather, the said employee would perhaps hear it via word-of-mouth from a fellow colleague.”
“For example, it is "concerned about the lack of recognition of denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination on the basis of disability" in Singapore and recommends that Singapore "adopt legal provisions and create practice to recognise denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination in all areas of life and include an express definition of reasonable accommodation consistent with Article 2 of the Convention". To ensure its effective implementation, the Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations could function as a source of guidance for employers and employees alike. Besides PwDs, other workers, such as those with caregiving duties, parents and older workers, would also benefit from reasonable accommodations in the workplace. The second point I am concerned about is the requirement that TAFEP serve as the first port of call outside the firm for workers who experience discrimination. While this is a point to be covered under the second Workplace Fairness Bill, I hope that the Government can give this point due consideration, before it is being raised for First Reading. Now that we have made the all-important step to introduce legislation to combat discrimination, I am concerned that having TAFEP and TADM as the first port of call could mean that, in practice, we are back at square one and there may not be much of a difference to the current means to deal with discrimination via the TAFEP guidelines.”
“According to the CRPD, reasonable accommodations are "necessary and appropriate adjustments" to ensure that in the workplace, PwDs would be able to function "on an equal basis with others on all human rights and fundamental freedoms". Examples of reasonable accommodation include ensuring step-free access to workplaces for employees with mobility issues and work-from-home arrangements for workers with sensory impairments. There have been governmental programmes to encourage business to implement reasonable accommodations for PwDs, such as SG Enable's Job Redesign Grant. Moreover, a Tripartite Advisory on Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Persons with Disabilities, which is not legally-binding, would also be released. However, the Government has stopped short of enshrining the right to request for reasonable accommodations into law, with Manpower Minister Tan See Leng articulating that it could result in heavy litigation and prevent employers from hiring employees that require such accommodations. This approach could be seen as being reliant on the moral suasion of employers and sends a signal that reasonable accommodations are "good to have" when it is a "must-have" for PwDs to carry out their tasks. Therefore, the new Bill must reflect that aspiration by legislating the right for employees to request for reasonable accommodation, especially when Singapore has in 2013 ratified the UNCRPD. As pointed out in a report by the Disabled People's Association, in their 2022 Concluding Observations to Singapore, the UNCRPD noted on more than one occasion within their recommendations to the Singapore Government on the need to prohibit the denial of reasonable accommodations.”
“According to a UK Supreme Court ruling, employees need not prove why a Provision, Criteria or Practice (PCP) disadvantages people of a particular group in order to show indirect discrimination but instead requires a causal link between the PCP and the particular disadvantage suffered by the group and the individual. At the same time, it is open to an employer to show that their PCP is justified and there will be no finding of unlawful discrimination unless the justification is not made out. One key instance of indirect discrimination would be the denial of reasonable accommodation, which would be useful for certain workers, such as those with disabilities and older workers. Clause 15 of the Bill refers to someone with a disability as an individual who has any one or more of the following, namely autism, any intellectual disability, any physical disability and/or any sensory disability. PwDs face an uphill climb when navigating through the various hurdles in society. The findings of the 2024 Disability Trends report show that only 53.5% of the PwDs surveyed felt that they were included and not discriminated against. Worryingly, there was also a decrease in the percentage of respondents who expressed positive attitudes toward PwDs in the workplace compared to the last survey in 2019. It is imperative that Singaporeans ought to cultivate a society where our PwDs could feel included. While mindset shifts are certainly crucial, we also ought to strengthen our legislative tools to create a barrier-free society. The Bill's coverage of PwDs under clause 8 would certainly offer greater protection for PwDs against discrimination. However, one of the barriers that PwDs experience when seeking gainful employment is the lack of reasonable accommodations in their workplaces.”