Hazel Poa
Singapore
“Alright. I would like to seek confirmation that the latest round of tariff is a violation of the FTA between Singapore and the US, and if so, are we contemplating any action on that front? Given that we are a small country, are we exploring joint negotiations with other countries?”
“I urge the Government to set higher outpatient withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Chair, in Mandarin, please.”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Is the Senior Minister of State able to share what steps NCS has taken to prevent a recurrence? And has there been any impact on the execution of this policy due to the implementation being earlier than planned?”
“First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future.”
“I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporea…”
“Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes?”
The complete record
Every one of 388 lines we hold for Hazel Poa, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Alright. I would like to seek confirmation that the latest round of tariff is a violation of the FTA between Singapore and the US, and if so, are we contemplating any action on that front? Given that we are a small country, are we exploring joint negotiations with other countries? I believe there are enough common interest for this to be feasible. I also wish to note that I am glad to hear that the Government is trying to convert this challenge into an impetus to push for free trade with the rest of the world. I wish to convey my best wishes to the task force led by the Deputy Prime Minister Gan.”
“Thank you, Speaker. If I may be allowed to explain what happened earlier. I did have questions, but as clarification was going on, I was revising my questions and you caught me —”
“I welcome the increase in the MediSave outpatient withdrawal limits. I would like to check whether there will be adjustments to the MediSave $500 or $700 as well? These amounts, I believe, were also set in 2021.”
“I urge the Government to set higher outpatient withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Chair, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I urge the Government to adjust MediSave withdrawal limits every year, in line with inflation of healthcare cost. This will benefit many Singaporeans, especially seniors. Many elderly Singaporeans find the withdrawal limits for outpatient care insufficient. We should encourage people to seek outpatient treatment early before conditions deteriorate and hospitalisation becomes necessary. Hence, setting higher withdrawal limits for older Singaporeans is beneficial. I hope the Government can consider raising outpatient withdrawal limits and adjust them annually to keep up with healthcare cost inflation. Preventive Dental Care”
“Chair, last November, I asked the Minister for Health whether MediSave withdrawal limits can be adjusted every year, in line with inflation for healthcare costs, similar to the way the CPF Basic Retirement Sum and Full Retirement Sum are adjusted annually to take into account inflation. The Minister replied that the MediSave withdrawal limits for co-payment of hospital bills are typically reviewed every three years while other MediSave features are reviewed periodically. He said, "This approach is favoured over automatic annual adjustments, to better account for other healthcare financing adjustments and enhancements that are continuously being implemented." However, I hope that the Minister can reconsider this. Automatic adjustments indexed to inflation would help many Singaporeans, especially the elderly. Many elderly Singaporeans prefer to conserve their cash in retirement and pay for their healthcare needs using their MediSave savings. It is, after all, what they saved up for. However, if MediSave withdrawal limits do not keep up with inflation in healthcare costs, then the elderly may be faced with escalating out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. Automatic annual adjustments in line with inflation would only ensure that the real value of the MediSave withdrawal limits remain constant over time. The Government could still make additional adjustments based on changes in healthcare financing. These are not conflicting. I urge the Government to reconsider its position. In particular, many elderly Singaporeans find the withdrawal limit for outpatient care insufficient. It is beneficial for outpatient treatment to be sought early before conditions deteriorate and hospitalisation becomes necessary.”
“Would this not incentivise family-friendly practices so that their employees have more time to find their life partners and raise families? At the national level, we can continue to limit the supply of foreign manpower coming into Singapore, but re-allocate the quota towards employers with desired HR practices from other employers. The re-allocation can be based on the following factors. One, the recruitment and employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders, persons with disabilities, pregnant women and those seeking to return to the workforce after a long break. These are groups facing difficulties when seeking employment. Two, the utilisation of parental leave, childcare leave, caregiving leave and other family-friendly leave. Companies that offer additional family-friendly leave on top of statutory requirements should be rewarded further. And the best thing is, this incentive does not cost the Government a dime! It merely requires a review of the criteria for quotas and COMPASS points. Whereas the employment credit schemes to encourage the employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders and persons with disabilities have to be paid for with tax revenue. As the Government has said, raising our total fertility rate needs a whole-of-society approach and employers are a key component. Let the arrival of babies be a cause for celebration for employers too. Reinforcing Workforce Transformation”
“Mr Chairman, as many employers in Singapore need access to foreign manpower, this is a carrot we can use to incentivise desired human resource policies and practices. It is likely that new policies will be implemented to meet the desires of younger Singaporeans for better work-life balance. Policy changes will also be needed to deal with our plunging fertility rate. Such changes will likely impact the manpower situation for companies. For example, parents with more children have called for more days of childcare leave. While this may create manpower constraints, PSP supports such a proposal, as it is only fair. Parents with more children would naturally require more days of childcare leave. There will be more days when the children fall sick. Parents will need more days for commitments, such as attending parent-teacher meetings and their child's first day at school. As we introduce new policies to suit new times, we cannot disregard the impact on other stakeholders. For example, many employers expressed concerns over the impact on their manpower when the additional 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave was announced. If too much of the burden of our social objectives are laid on employers, there will be pushback. 6.00 pm As the Chinese saying goes, "上有政策下有对策"。Would this inadvertently make employers even more reluctant to employ married women? Even if we have laws against discriminations, we know that discrimination still exists. A more reliable way is to align the interest of employers to that of society. For example, if employers know that an employee taking 30 days of parental leave would allow them to have access to an additional foreign personnel for 60 weeks, would this not make them more welcoming of their employees taking parental leave?”
“Once again, I urge the Minister to consider making PSLE optional by implementing a pilot through-train programme and to reduce class sizes for the benefit of our dwindling number of children. Supporting Educators Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Madam, empowering educators to be global leaders assists to foster innovation in education, address global challenges, encourage international collaboration and prepare students for a globalised world. Providing continuous learning opportunities to educators, including collaboration across borders, as well as robust systems to support mental health and work-life balance, will assist educators remain confident and competent in the global environment. In this context, how is the Ministry supporting educators to adapt to rapidly changing global needs and adequately prepare them for future challenges in the education sector? In what ways is the Ministry facilitating the creation of an environment that fosters and promotes the importance of lifelong learning among educators, and what strategies are being implemented to guide educators towards learning and teaching driven by curiosity and passion? What initiatives are being introduced to ensure the curriculum for educators remains relevant and forward-thinking, and supports their continuous professional growth? And finally, what measures are being taken to support the mental health and well-being of educators?”
“By making PSLE optional, we may also be able to reduce academic competition and demand for tuition. In such a scenario, MOE could re-employ teachers who have left the Education Service for the private tuition industry to reduce class sizes in schools. There will always be segments of the student population that is difficult for mainstream schools to cater to. So, if a small proportion of students require tuition, that is not worrisome, but if over half require tuition then that cannot be healthy. In addition, examination preparation calls for memorising and repetition which are not skills that prepare our children well for a society that will soon be greatly changed by AI. MOE has identified the 21st Century Competencies (21CC), including values, social skills, critical thinking and so on, that are needed to prepare our students for the future. But without systemic changes, wanna bet what will be the outcome of a poll on parents which they consider more important, PSLE or 21CC? It is survival instinct to adapt our behaviour to that which brings rewards. And right now, our education system rewards efforts in preparing for PSLE more than efforts in building 21CC. Simply exhorting parents to change their mindset is not going to cut it. In a through-train programme, time freed from PSLE preparations can be channelled towards building such competencies and better prepare our students for the future. As the Minister said, learning is a continuous journey, not just for 15 years, but for 50. It is important to nurture the love of learning in our children. A high-stress, high-stakes examination like the PSLE at such a young age does not help to do that.”
“The Minister also made the point that PSLE is simply a means to help our children find a suitable learning environment. But PSLE is not the only means. Regular assessments within the school can also do this. This is being done all the time. It is well-known how stressful PSLE can be not just for students, but for parents as well. Instead of enjoying the time spent building bonds with their children, many parents, instead, spent the time nagging or disciplining their children to study harder and longer to do better in the PSLE, in their anxiety to ensure their children's future. Such stress strains family relationships and adversely affects mental well-being. It would not be surprising for anyone observing this to conclude that life is much better without children. A stressful education system can be a disincentive for parenthood. Is it a coincidence that regions known to have the most stressful education systems like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, also have the lowest fertility rates? The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) also calls for class sizes to be reduced. This will provide greater opportunities for differentiated learning and allow teachers to personalise teaching and better support students with different learning profiles. As of 2023, the average class size was 33.6 in primary schools and 32.6 in secondary schools. This is far higher than the average public primary school class in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, which is 21. With our total fertility rate falling steadily year after year, our student cohorts have been shrinking. By maintaining teacher recruitment levels and keeping schools open even as student cohorts shrink, we can reduce class sizes, without compromising on the quality of teachers.”
“Chairman, first, let me declare that I am in the private education business. Madam, this could be my last Committee of Supply (COS) debate. As such, I beg for your indulgence as I take this opportunity to make yet another call on the Government to implement a 10-year through-train programme in some schools where students can progress from primary levels to secondary levels without going through the PSLE. This is an issue that I personally feel most passionate about. 3.00 pm I assure the Minister for Education that I continue to raise this not because I did not hear his concerns, but because I remain unconvinced that those concerns outweigh the merits of creating this additional educational path as an option for parents and students. The Minister is concerned about how to cater to students with different learning abilities and needs in the 10-year through-train programme. This can be addressed in two ways: one, reducing class sizes to reduce the range of diverse learning profiles and abilities within each class; two, implementing Subject-Based Banding. At the class level, we can use these two ways to manage the range of learning profiles. But at the school level, students will still benefit from interacting with a wide range of students and learning to respect and deal with differences. With the end of streaming and introduction of Subject-Based Banding, schools are already catering to diverse learning profiles. The Minister himself said this of Subject-Based Banding: "the positive outcomes in learning and social mixing give us confidence that this is the right thing to do." If we can do it with Subject-Based Banding, we can do it with a 10-year through-train programme.”
“So, have we reviewed that policy decision to find out what are the learning points and if so, what are they?”
“Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister. Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the report tells us that the vendor was the one who appointed the independent security reviewer, not ACRA. And the report was not submitted to ACRA directly from the reviewer, but it was, in fact, the vendor who submitted the report on the test on its own product. It appears to me as if this process has huge potential for abuse. Is there no concern over this procedure? Does it meet with the governance standards for the public sector? That is my first clarification. My second clarification is: it is obvious from the report that ACRA did realise that there is a conflict between its understanding of the July CM with its obligations under IM8 and PSGA. Why did ACRA prioritise compliance with the July CM over compliance with IM8 and PSGA? And will there be instruction or guidelines given to organisations how they are to deal with such situations when they find them themselves in apparent positions of conflict? For example, it would appear from the report that ACRA sought clarification primarily over emails. Would it not be better to have a conversation or a meeting over this to sort out any misunderstandings? That is my second clarification. My final clarification is: in paragraph 26 of the report, the Committee noted that we cannot just look at the incident itself but also go upstream. But think the Committee did not go upstream enough. We need to go back and look at the decision to restrict the collection and the use of full NRIC number, which actually led to the creation of masked NRIC numbers, which then created a false sense of security and led to NRICs being used as authenticators even in the public sector.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. In view of the recent fire at the Kranji warehouse, does the Ministry feel that there is a need to adopt a tougher position against repeat offenders? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, we have always taken, like what I shared earlier, an escalatory enforcement approach. In cases like the one that the Member referred to, and also as shared by my colleague Dr Amy Khor, whereby the SCDF went to inspect 10 times during the said period. And all the non-compliance issues were rectified. So, we work with with the owners, and like what I shared in my answer, if there are serious breaches, we will take them to task. We will look at the setting, the context and at the same time, we will not hesitate, not only in taking action but will continue to do inspections, making sure that they are safe. I think at the end of the day, every case is unique and we not only take an escalatory approach, we are very serious about this, because fires not only cause damages, lives may be lost. We are very serious and we will continue to ensure that fire safety is well adhered to by owners.”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Does NEA keep track of what materials are stored by recycling companies in their warehouses and whether they rectify any fire safety violations to reduce reoccurrence of such a happening?”
“I think the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Is the Senior Minister of State able to share what steps NCS has taken to prevent a recurrence? And has there been any impact on the execution of this policy due to the implementation being earlier than planned?”
“Does each and every school measure the correlation between academic results and SES? And if so, where can we find that information?”
“Can the Minister explain the logic behind this position that it is okay to impose or to specify to EBRC that the average size of GRCs and the proportion of SMCs should be maintained at current levels, but it is overimposing on EBRC to ask them to explain the reasons for their changes? Because according to normal logic, it would actually be the other way round, that you do not impose conditions on the sizes of GRCs or the number of SMCs if you want to preserve the independence of EBRC, but simply require them to explain the reasons behind their decisions.”
“Chairman, as is the usual practice, the Prime Minister set the terms of reference for the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) when he recently convened it. EBRC has a history of adhering closely to the terms of reference set by the Prime Minister. In 2011, for example, when the terms of reference stated that "there should be at least 12 Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)", EBRC created exactly 12 SMCs. In the past three General Elections in 2020, 2015 and 2011, EBRCs were directed to reduce the average size of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and/or to increase the number of SMCs. This time, the Prime Minister directed that the EBRC "should seek to keep the average size of GRCs, the proportion of Members of Parliament (MPs) elected from SMCs and the average ratio of electors to elected MPs, all at about the same as that in the last General Election". This means that the average size of GRCs should be kept at around 4.65 and about 15% of the seats should be elected from SMCs. We think it is important to understand the reasons behind his decision. Specifically, why he did not instruct EBRC to reduce the average size of GRCs further or explicitly increase the number of SMCs, unlike the past three General Elections. Does he believe that it would be in the voters' best interests not to reduce average GRC sizes below 4.65 or increase the proportion of Members of Parliament elected from SMCs beyond 15% and, if so, why? In addition, why did the Prime Minister not see the need to direct EBRC to provide greater transparency on the reasons for boundary changes? Does he not agree that this would be conducive to building public trust and, hence, beneficial for the country?”
“As bank accounts have now more or less become a necessity, is there any recourse for any individual or even business if they are unsuccessful in their application for bank accounts with all the banks?”
“One last clarification. When will the Government be able to let us know the details of VERS? 2.33 pm”
“I wish to make another pitch to the Prime Minister to consider measures to lower cost of living. Does he not agree that if we lower cost of living, it will benefit all Singaporeans, whereas if we take the approach of investing in education and training, to raise wages, then, not everybody can benefit from that, especially older Singaporeans and retirees? Second clarification, since the Prime Minister mentioned that our CPI data is collected correctly, can I ask how our CPI calculations take into account shrinkflation – that means the price may remain the same, but the portion is smaller?”
“First of all, let me clarify that PSP is not displeased with the vouchers, because we believe that they will help Singaporeans in the short term, but not over the long term. The Prime Minister has said that he has concrete plans for the future. So, can I ask if his plans include plans to lower our high cost of living with measures that have longer-term effects rather than vouchers? Secondly, the Prime Minister, in response to questions about CPF investments, asked what happens if a person happens to retire at the point of market downturn? Does the Prime Minister not agree that this problem can be managed if we have differentiated rules based on age, for example, giving younger CPF members greater leeway in investing in higher risk, higher return instruments, and for older workers to limit their exposure to such investments?”
“PSP has also proposed reducing hawker stalls' rentals to lower food prices at hawker centres, reducing GST to 7% and having the Government pay for healthcare insurance to reduce the burden of medical expenses on citizens. These are long-term measures based on social considerations, not one-off solutions. We also need more structural changes to create a more family-friendly environment for citizens. To help Singaporeans better balance life and work, PSP proposes legislating the Right to Disconnect, giving citizens the right not to respond to work-related messages and emails. PSP also proposes increasing public holidays from 11 to 14 days. While the Government can discuss with various ethnic groups which specific holidays to add, PSP suggests considering Chinese New Year's eve, the day after Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam. (In English): Mr Speaker Sir, PSP believes that our cost of living issues should be addressed through structural policy changes, of which we have proposed several, rather than the band-aid approach of ad hoc gifts and handouts. Notwithstanding our reservations, PSP will support the Budget because short-term assistance is necessary for Singaporeans to cope with the rising cost of living, until structural changes are implemented.”
“We can also do more to create work environments that are friendly to parents, especially single parents, and improve childcare arrangements. Mr Leong Mun Wai will speak more on this during his speech. These changes also need to be coupled with changes to the education system to reduce the stress and competition for students and parents. I will speak more on this during the COS debates. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this year's Budget continues to use vouchers to help Singaporeans cope with rising costs of living. While these vouchers can provide short-term relief, they cannot offer long-term assistance nor address structural cost issues. As Singaporeans become increasingly dependent on these temporary benefits, it would not be a healthy trend. Vouchers are not a sustainable solution. The Prime Minister said that the Budget would help Singaporeans cope with living costs, but the result has fallen short of people’s raised expectations. In contrast, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has proposed a series of structural measures to reduce cost. Our policies consider not just economic factors but also carefully weighed social factors. These policies aim to enable Singaporeans to achieve economic independence rather than creating dependency on temporary Government subsidies. For instance, regarding public housing, PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme, where new HDB flats will be priced at construction cost only, excluding land cost. Compared to PAP's policies, we are more concerned about whether Singaporeans can afford their HDB flats. The Affordable Homes Scheme would also give Singaporeans more financial resources to pursue their dreams rather than letting a 30-year mortgage become a lifelong burden.”
“Today, we would like to make two new proposals to improve Singaporeans' work-life balance, by increasing the number of public holidays and enacting the right of workers to disconnect. The number of public holidays in Singapore has remained unchanged since 1968, when the Government reduced the number of public holidays from 16 to 11 to improve Singapore's competitiveness. Since then, Singaporeans have worked hard and our nation has prospered. Now, we face new problems, such as a lack of work-life balance and overwork that are impacting family formation. PSP proposes to increase the number of public holidays from 11 to 14, with one additional holiday for each of the three major races in Singapore. The exact holidays should be determined in consultation with each community, but we can consider the possibilities of observing Chinese New Year's Eve, the second day of Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam as public holidays. With the increased 14 days of public holidays, it will still be in line with the norms in the region and globally. Next, PSP would like to lend its support for "right to disconnect" legislation to be progressively implemented in Singapore. Workers in Singapore already work very long hours compared to others around the world, but this may not even include time spent at home responding to work-related texts or emails, which prevent workers from spending quality time with their families. We can first introduce the "right to disconnect" legislation for employees who are on paid leave and eventually extend to the "right to disconnect" between 7.00 pm and 7.00 am or outside the normal working hours of the employee. These would allow employers and employees to adjust to these new workplace norms.”
“The Government has said on many occasions that the tax revenue from different sources all go into the same Consolidated Fund, from which all expenditures are then paid for. We do not designate specific revenue streams for specific purposes. So, there is nothing linking the GST to the GST Voucher scheme. The vouchers can still be paid for even if we raise the additional revenue for it by increasing corporate income tax on the most profitable companies, instead of by raising GST. This will make our tax system even more progressive. The Government's $6.4 billion surplus for FY2024/2025 and the expected $6.8 billion surplus for the next FY further underlines that there was no necessity to raise GST from 7% to 9% Let us also not forget that larger surpluses that go into the reserves mean bigger cost burdens on taxpayers when the Government collects more than is needed to spend on public programmes. Finally, I wish to touch on the Large Families Scheme introduced to support married couples who have, or aspire to have, three or more children. The Government has said that this scheme is not intended to incentivise more couples to have three or more children, and, drawing from past experience when large baby bonuses have failed to raise the TFR, PSP also believes that it will not. What we need are structural changes to incentivise employers to be more family-friendly and to create better work-life balance so that Singaporeans have more time to find life partners and to raise families. What we need is to move the needle for those who want children but do not currently feel ready or that they have sufficient resources to have children. PSP has previously urged the Government to introduce incentives to family-friendly employers. We will pursue this further during the COS debates.”
“Finally, the current policy of awarding Certificate of Entitlement (COEs) to the highest bidder is also purely based on economic considerations. PSP has proposed a new system that incorporates needs factors with bidding, so that those who have greater needs for a car will have a better chance of obtaining one and can do so at a lower cost. This, again, better balances social and economic considerations. Another contributor to higher cost of living is the raising of GST from 7% to 9% in 2023 and 2024, at a time when Singaporeans were hit with high inflation. PSP has long proposed to either maintain GST at 7% or to reduce GST from 9% to 7%. We believe that any additional revenue required for higher social expenditures can be raised from reforming the corporate income tax. We have stated before, in my Budget speech in 2023, that under our current corporate income tax regime, companies with the highest profits actually pay the lowest percentage of their profits in corporate income tax. This is inequitable. The global agreement on a minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises has compelled us to adjust the taxes on the largest companies. We hope that it will not be affected by the US President’s Executive Order that has no force and effect in the US. Even under this agreement, many companies are not covered, because it applies only to very large companies with a group revenue of at least €750 million annually. Adjustments will still need to be made to make our corporate tax regime to make it more progressive and equitable. Corporate income tax reform would allow us to reduce GST, which is a regressive tax, even though the Government says that the GST Voucher scheme makes it not regressive.”
“PSP's proposed Affordable Homes Scheme will price new HDB flats to recover only the construction cost but not the land cost at first purchase. Flat buyers only need to pay the land cost upon selling it in the resale market. This places a greater emphasis on social considerations of keeping housing more affordable for Singaporeans. By doing this, we are also empowering Singaporeans to have the financial resources to achieve their dreams, instead of chaining them to 30-year mortgages that are increasingly unaffordable. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, will speak more on housing later. Earlier, Mr Henry Kwek has said that PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme has the potential to destabilise the resale market. Perhaps, he does not understand our proposal well. We have already explained repeatedly that under our scheme, when the flats are resold, the owners will have to repay the land cost with interest. So, it is not going to crush the resale market. And in any case, since resale prices have increased by 50% since the last General Elections, far outpacing general inflation or wage increases despite the cooling measures that have been implemented, does the Member not think that the resale market needs some dampening? Another example is hawker rents. The Government's policy of setting rent based on the highest bid is purely based on economic considerations. But this policy has consequences on food prices. That is why PSP has advocated for a fixed rental system of $500 per month or 3% of the hawker's gross turnover per month. This places more weight on social considerations of keeping food prices lower for Singaporeans. Our proposal is a structural change to lower cost of living. In contrast, Budget 2025 provided a one-time rental support of $600.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2025 continues to help Singaporeans deal with rising cost of living through vouchers. While many Singaporeans will welcome the $600 or $800 SG60 Vouchers and additional $800 CDC Vouchers, they are not enough to help Singaporeans in the long-term or solve Singapore's structural economic issues. These vouchers and credits are ad hoc benefits given out by the Government. They are dependent on the availability of surplus collection of tax revenues and at the discretion of the government of the day. Older Singaporeans may remember the $2.6 billion Progress Package in 2006 and the $3.2 billion Grow and Share Package in 2011, before the General Elections in those years. We have gone from Growth Dividends every few years to CDC Vouchers seemingly every year. It would be unhealthy if Singaporeans become increasingly reliant on these ad hoc gifts to manage rising costs. In contrast, PSP has proposed a package of systemic measures to reduce cost of living. Our policies are structural and not ad hoc. They are intended to empower Singaporeans and allow Singaporeans to achieve as much financial independence as possible on their own, without being dependent on ad hoc handouts from the Government. PSP's policy proposals are also based on a better balance of social and economic considerations, unlike PAP's current policies, which are too heavy on economic considerations. Let me provide some examples to explain. The PAP's current policy of transferring the full market cost of land used for HDB flats into the reserves is based on economic considerations. But this places a heavy burden on Singaporeans because the land cost must be recovered from Singaporeans through the cost of flats or additional taxes.”
“Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP believes that in the face of our country's continuous declining TFR over many years, it is not enough to merely continue reviewing and updating our policies to support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations. We need to reimagine these policies to adequately support Singaporeans in building families and to reverse or stabilise the decades long trend of declining TFR. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment to the Motion today. For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. However, for those who wish to have children, the Government can take more measures to pave the way for them. Today, Mr Leong Mun Wai and I reiterated PSP's proposals to reduce the cost of living and housing cost. We also proposed that the Government should increase efforts to encourage employers to support employees with FWAs, allow family-friendly employers to receive relatively higher foreign worker quotas, provide subsidies for full-time parents or grandparents caring for young children, increase subsidies for ART treatment and better support women who choose to freeze their eggs. We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals and reimagine current policies to address the issue of continuously declining birth rate. (In English): We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals to lower cost of living, provide employer incentives, more SWT flats and greater financial support for fertility treatments and egg freezing, to support Singaporeans in their parenthood aspirations. I hope all Members will support the amended Motion.”
“Sir, the PAP Government has always prided itself on fiscal prudence. This has extended to the Government's financial support for couples facing fertility issues. If we really hope to stop our TFR from declining, or reverse the decline, we should re-think the balance between fiscal prudence and supporting couples with fertility issues. Finally, I would like to touch on egg freezing. At the Committee of Supply last year, I called on the Government to consider some level of subsidies in public hospitals and allow the use of MediSave for egg freezing. Such financial support is already being extended in countries overseas. Conditions on subsidies can be imposed to prevent abuse. Unutilised frozen eggs can be donated to other couples or used for other purposes like research or education. In a Parliamentary Question reply yesterday, Minister Ong Ye Kung said that our financing policies for egg freezing are designed on clinical grounds and from a population policy perspective, the Government does not want to inadvertently encourage young couples to delay their plans. Sir, there are many factors involved in having children, including whether a suitable partner is found. Our young people should be given the freedom to decide on their life choices, including marriage and parenthood, based on their own personal circumstances, not pushed into it before they are ready. What we can do, is to provide an environment that can help them be ready earlier and support them in their efforts to become parents. I urge the Government to reconsider our proposals. Women who choose to go through the pain and discomfort of egg freezing demonstrate strong parenthood aspirations. We should do more to support them, even if it means doing something unprecedented with regard to our health policy.”
“Currently, only couples where both spouses are Singapore Citizens are eligible to receive the full 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures. The Government will only co-fund 55% if one spouse is a PR and 35% if one spouse is a foreigner. Trans-national marriages now make up 36% of citizen marriages, as of 2023. PSP believes we can do more to support trans-national couples to start their fertility journey, especially since any child born out of such marriages will be a Singapore Citizen by birth. Thus, PSP proposes that all couples can receive up to 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures, as long as one spouse is a Singapore Citizen. Next, PSP believes that we can increase the number of ART cycles eligible for co-funding. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Louis Ng in January 2024, Minister Ong Ye Kung, said that the current co-funding limit of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles strikes a balance between providing public-funded financial support to couples aspiring to be parents and ensuring the prudent use of public funds by taking into account clinical efficacy. But given that our fertility rates are currently extremely low, we should rethink our approach towards rationing ART cycles and move closer to an Israeli approach to funding. Even if the Government provided the maximum $7,700 funding for all 10,500 ART cycles carried out in Singapore in 2022, the total cost to the Government would be less than $81 million. The Israeli experience suggests that this would be a worthwhile investment. PSP believes that we should co-fund unlimited ART cycles for women under the age of 40, until they have two children who are Singapore Citizens. For women from age 40 to 45, we should co-fund three fresh and three frozen ART cycles.”
“Based on the latest available data, about 10,500 cycles of ART treatments were carried out in Singapore in 2022. This has increased 81% since 2013. Currently, the Government provides up to 75% in co-funding for couples going through ART at public hospitals, who are under age 40 and have been assessed by a doctor to have met the clinical requirements for ART. The Government co-funds a maximum of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles. The last two co-funded cycles can be completed after age 40, as long as ART or intrauterine insemination procedures have been attempted before age 40. Sir, before I proceed, I would like to share with the House the experience of Israel. Israel is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country that is still reproducing above the replacement rate. An OECD report in 2024 found that it has a TFR of 2.9, with Mexico and France in second place at 1.8. Part of this is due to religious reasons as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have many children. But even secular women in Israel have a TFR of 2.0. It is believed that part of the reason behind this is strong state support for assisted reproduction. Israel has the world's highest per capita rate of IVF procedures and fertility clinics. This is because the Israeli government provides full public funding for an unlimited number of IVF cycles for any Israeli woman under age 45 until she has two children with her current male partner. It is estimated that at least 2% of the Israeli health budget goes towards funding IVF treatments. This is in stark contrast to our funding policies, which only provides up to 75% co-funding, with stricter age limits and co-funding limits based on the citizenship status of couples and the number of ART cycles.”
“PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme to deal with the high cost of housing, but another key impediment to raising our TFR is the long waiting time for a HDB flat, as has also been pointed out by the hon Member, Ms Nadia Samdin, just now. The waiting time under the BTO system plus the requirement to find a partner first before you can apply, can greatly delay Singaporeans' family formation. Whilst the Government has started building flats with Shorter Waiting Time (SWT), the number of such flats at 2,000 to 4,000 units per year is way too low. The number of citizen marriages in 2023 is over 24,000. We urge the Government to more aggressively increase the supply of the SWT flats. With young people prioritising career development and the long waiting time for housing, Singaporeans are getting married later and having children later. These delays can result in fertility issues, compounding the problem. The struggle with infertility is a personal one for me. I tried to conceive naturally for 10 years after getting married to no avail. I sought medical treatment after that, but my body reacted badly to the medications. Thus, my husband and I decided to turn to adoption. It seems like yesterday when we brought our two sons home as infants, but they are already 18 and 17 now. I therefore empathise deeply with couples who are struggling with infertility and going through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatments like IVF. Such treatments are often especially taxing for women, who may have to endure multiple rounds of medications, self-administered injections and hospital visits. PSP believes that as a society, we can do more to support couples going through ART.”
“I will speak on improving the attitude of employers towards their employees having children. For employers, their manpower situation is adversely impacted when employees take maternity or paternity leave. There is, therefore, a potential conflict in the interest of society and the interest of employers. We need to implement measures to instead align the interest of employers to the interest of society. PSP urges the Government to introduce incentives for employers with family-friendly policies and environment. While we exercise control over our dependence on foreign manpower at the national level, we can tilt the balance towards family-friendly employers, by giving them relatively higher access to foreign manpower. For example, one way is to give additional quota or COMPASS points. To illustrate, we can reduce the quota for S Pass from 10% to, say, 9% for all employers and give additional quotas to employers with employees going on parental leave. If the total parental leave taken by the employees is 30 weeks, then the employer can be entitled to the additional quota for 60 weeks, to more than compensate them for the loss in manpower. Employers may be incentivised to introduce policies and environment for better work life balance so that their employees have more time and energy to socialise, meet their better halves, form families and carry out parental duties. For Singaporeans to be more receptive to foreigners, Singaporeans must be able to see that the participation of foreigners in our economy improves their quality of life. I will move on next to housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion as amended by my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai. PSP absolutely agrees that a whole-of-society approach is needed to build a Singapore that is made for families. However, PSP believes that without new policy ideas or major policy shifts, we will not be able to adequately support the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, or reverse or stabilise the decline in TFR that we have seen over the last few decades. That is why we have raised an amendment to the Motion today to call for a re-imagination of the current policies which, in our view, have not been enough. For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. But for those who wish to have children, there are things the Government can do to lower the barriers and reduce the obstacles in their way. One key concern of potential parents is the cost of raising children. If our young people are struggling with the cost of living, it will dissuade them from having children which will further add to their financial burden. As the cost of living issue has been raised in this House many times before, I will today simply repeat the major calls PSP has made previously to reduce cost of living: one, reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) back to 7% and exempt basic necessities; two, pricing HDB flats without land cost, unless sold in resale market; three, manage property prices and rents, and in particular, reduce rents at hawker centres; and four, MediShield Life premiums to be paid by the Government. Another area of concern is jobs. Young people are naturally concerned about whether having children would affect their jobs and career progression. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, has already spoken about job-sharing.”
“I do understand the Minister's explanation with regard to clause 39 and clause 40. My main query is on clause 8 – basically, how the Minister makes his decision. As he has pointed out, and this is the Minister making the decision instead of the Courts, the Courts have their own system in the decision-making. So, what I am trying to establish is what is the system that the Minister will be using? What sort of criteria? And will they be bound by legal precedence?”
“The Minister has said that the provisions in the new Bill is largely similar to current provisions, but I think there is a big difference in clause 8. Most of my clarifications were with respect to the Restraining Order, which is in clause 8. The main difference is that under current law, decisions are made by the Court on whether it is criminal, but in clause 8, the decision is made by the Minister. Is the Minister saying that the Minister, in making a decision under clause 8, will be using largely the same procedure as the judges? Because when the Courts make the decision, they are usually bound by legal precedence and there is quite a lot of research involved and it takes time. Since the purpose of clause 8 is for speed, I do not see how that can be possible. That is why we are trying to find out what is this alternative system that the Minister will be using to make his decision.”
“But we hope greater clarity can be given in order not to dampen reasonable discussions or expressions involving race.”
“These sensitive racial topics include the impact on housing prices by HDB's EIP, our country's CMIO racial classification system, the racial distribution of death row inmates and the deployment of Malay National Servicemen. While not everyone will agree with these statements, discussing these topics in a rational, responsible, non-malicious and non-hostile manner can promote national and social development. Singapore's existing laws already limited citizens' ability to express themselves freely in many ways and we do not wish to see this Bill to further curtail speeches. We hope the Government can clearly explain under what circumstances it will issue Restriction Orders and what behaviours or expressions it will target. We hope the Minister can clarify how this Bill will strike a fair and appropriate balance between citizens' right to freedom of speech and public order and peace. (In English): Deputy Speaker, PSP has serious concerns that the powers under this Bill will dampen important discussions. I have provided several examples of speech and actions, which I hope that the Minister can clarify whether the powers in this Bill will be used against such speech or actions. The Government already has many powers under laws, such as the Internal Security Act, POFMA and FICA to act against false speech, acts that threaten national security and foreign interference in our politics. Protests are only allowed at Hong Lim Park and protest permits are not granted for sensitive topics. The ability of Singaporeans to freely express themselves is already very circumscribed and limited by existing laws. Recognising the importance of maintaining racial harmony, PSP will support this Bill despite our reservations.”
“Clause 8(2)(d) can prohibit a person from editing or contributing to "any publication". Clause 8(2)(e) goes further to prohibit a person from holding office in any editorial board. Considering that the Restraining Order can be extended "one or more times" for up to two years each, this means that an editor or journalist could potentially be kept out of his work indefinitely. Can the Minister clarify whether our concerns are valid and how these two clauses will be used? Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a long time, race and religion have been sensitive topics. When discussions about race and religion lead to disharmony, hostility or even violence between communities, it is appropriate for the Government to intervene to maintain public order and peace. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, being read the second time today, needs to strike a good balance between freedom of speech and maintaining public order, peace and racial harmony. Singapore is multiracial and multi-religious society, and our racial and religious harmony has not come easily and cannot be taken for granted. PSP, therefore, supports using legislation to maintain harmony between races and religions. However, we also cherish the freedom of speech granted to us by the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that promotes creativity, social progress and the exchange of ideas. It also allows us to hold those in power accountable. While discussions involving race can be sensitive, it is necessary to discuss racial issues in an honest and responsible manner to promote understanding and mutual respect between races.”
“For example, in 2017, Muslim imam Mr Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel Abdul Malik, was convicted under section 298A for promoting enmity between different religious groups. In 2015, Mr Amos Yee was convicted under section 298 of wounding the religious feelings of Christians for describing Jesus Christ in an offensive manner. In other cases, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) chose not to prosecute. These include Ms Amy Cheong's hurtful remarks online regarding Malay weddings in 2013 and Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's claim in 2018 that casual racism was common. Will the enactment of this Bill lead to more types of actions and speech attracting Restraining Orders or prosecutions under clause 40? Would the Minister issue Restraining Orders to Ms Amy Cheong or Ms Sangeetha Thanapal under the Bill if they said the same things today? Notably, Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's comments had been made overseas, which is now explicitly covered by the Bill under clause 38. More critically, will the Bill be used to restrict discussions of racially sensitive topics, such as EIP, the deployment of Malay national servicemen, the racial breakdown of death row inmates or the "Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others" (CMIO) model? Next, we note that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Council has 30 days to make its recommendations to the President; under this Bill, that period has been extended to 44 days. Given that a Restraining Order will take immediate effect upon its service on the person restrained before the Council makes its recommendations, we would like to ask for the reason for this extension from 30 to 44 days. We are also concerned about the effect of clause 8(2)(d) and (e) on journalists and editors.”
“Assuming the answer is yes, does this mean that there are potentially cases that could and, in practice, would attract both a Correction Direction under POFMA and a Restraining Order under this Bill if the conditions are satisfied? The second is in relation to conflicts, such as the Israel-Hamas war. I will provide three examples. Firstly, will making comments, such as "Free Palestinians Now!" online attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Such comments may be made online by a very large number of people. Considering that, what factors will push a case beyond the tipping point, such that a Restraining Order will be imposed? Furthermore, considering that millions of comments are posted every day on social media, practically speaking, how does the Ministry intend to monitor these comments? How much manpower and spending by the Ministry is justifiable to monitor comments like these? Secondly, in February 2024, the Police stated that the use of phrases, such as "from the river to the sea" can lead to racial tensions and may be an offence under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code 1871, which will be abolished under this Bill. Would individuals who use phrases, such as "from the river to sea, Palestinians will be free", online or offline, now be subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill? Finally, what about individuals using an umbrella painted with watermelon images during their day to day, or wearing a keffiyeh at their university graduation ceremony? Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill? Sir, previous prosecutions and convictions under section 298A have been for very egregious remarks or acts.”
“As such, we seek greater clarity from the Government on the type of behaviour or expressions that will be prohibited under the Bill. Firstly, can the Minister give us some examples of scenarios where, in the Ministry's view, a Restraining Order would be needed to preserve public order and peace, and where we could not use any other existing legislation to achieve the same outcome of peace and order? Secondly, while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase "an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore" is broad enough to potentially cover many instances over a whole spectrum of seriousness. Singaporeans are, therefore, naturally concerned that the Government will use such executive powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. We would like to seek the Minister's clarification on if and, if so, how, the use of this Act will be calibrated to ensure that a fair and appropriate balance will be struck between the right of Singaporeans to their freedom of speech and expression, and our public order and peace. We will set out a few examples here to frame this debate. The first is the incident involving Mr Shaik Amar who made comments about EIP on social media in July 2024. He had commented that EIP does not benefit ethnic minority households and only causes them significant financial detriment when they sell their flats. While he received a Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for this comment, would that attract a Restraining Order under this Bill?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial and religious differences have always been challenging issues. With globalisation and the spread of different cultures and information, both within countries and across borders, even more sensitivity is needed to deal with these topics. If and when discussions on race and religion cross certain boundaries and cause hurt, disharmony, hostility or even violence among communities, it would be appropriate for the state to intervene in the interest of maintaining public order and peace. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill that we are debating today needs to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the freedom of speech and expression and the preservation of public order, peace and racial harmony. This is a very fine balance. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports laws to protect our order and peace in our multiracial and multi-religious country. Harmonious and peaceful relations between different races and religions is something that we should never take for granted in Singapore. However, we also value the fact that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is freedom of speech that allows for creativity, the exchange of ideas and opinions and improvements beneficial to society. It is also freedom of speech that allows us to seek accountability from those in power. While discussions involving race can be sensitive, but honest and responsible discussions on racial relations and topics are necessary for better inter-racial understanding and mutual respect. We must not allow such discussions to be stifled and driven underground by overly restrictive legislation.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her answers. Upon a change of address, does the Ministry currently send letters to both the new and old addresses in order to verify that the change is genuine? And secondly, would the Ministry consider reinstating the venue of changing residential address to be at Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs)?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I agree with the Minister that rehabilitation is very important and it is very difficult to maintain a fine balance between punishment and rehabilitation. I would like to ask whether MOE tracks the outcome of the rehabilitation efforts, for example, in terms of how many of the bullies or attackers repeat the offence.”
“Speaker, my first supplementary question is: which Government department and Statutory Boards have been using NRIC as a factor of authentication and when will they stop? Specifically, when will Singpass stop using NRIC as a login ID? My second supplementary question is: when the review on ACRA's incident is completed, will the report be made public?”
“For example, the base fee for a Category A COE could be set at $50,000, and Category B at $70,000. This fee could increase in the future linked to inflation. Second, the base fee could be linked to the car's Open Market Value (OMV). This would make luxury cars more expensive, helping to create a fairer car ownership policy. If this option is chosen, it could be implemented by increasing the Additional Registration Fee (ARF). We also suggest that households purchasing more than one car should pay an additional fee. For fairness, some large families or multi-generational households could be exempted. PSP believes that as our country has achieved remarkable economic development in its 60 years since independence, we have the ability to create more empathetic policies in various areas such as housing, employment, and social welfare. Since the last General Election, we have been continuously proposing these alternative policies in Parliament. While these alternative policies may not be the most economically efficient when viewed purely from an economic perspective, we believe our alternative policies can treat all citizens more fairly. We call on the government to seriously consider the alternative COE policy we have proposed today. (In English): Mr Speaker, fairness should be at the heart of our public policies as our nation progresses economically. PSP believes that our proposed approach better balances economic and social considerations, and builds a system that provides a fairer and more equitable allocation of COEs for private vehicles and better matches our value system. We hope the Government will seriously consider this model.”