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 3 of 8.
“] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill we are debating today marks a significant change in Singapore's tax policy. PSP supports this Bill. We believe that more profitable companies should pay more taxes. As I have pointed out in my 2023 Budget speech, our current corporate tax system is highly inequitable, with the most profitable companies paying the lowest percentage of their profits in income tax. Companies with pre-tax profits between $200,000 and $10 million pay an average of 8% to 9% of their profits as taxes, while companies with profits exceeding $1 billion pay less than 1%. The minimum effective tax rate introduced by this Bill will top up the effective tax rate of the high-profit multinational enterprises in Singapore to 15%. For a long time, our country has relied on low tax rates and tax incentives to attract foreign investments. After this Bill is passed, we will no longer be able to rely on these measures to attract foreign investment. This Bill provides our country with a rare opportunity to transform our corporate tax and incentive structure as well as our policies for attracting foreign investment. Our corporate tax revenue currently heavily depends on foreign multinational enterprises. PSP believes that we should invest the additional tax revenue brought by this Bill into our SMEs, helping them utilise artificial intelligence and other new technologies to improve productivity and international competitiveness, potentially helping them to become multinational companies. We must also create a fairer competition environment between local companies and multinational corporations.”
“But such a strategy could never have lasted forever. Other countries could and did replicate Singapore's tax incentives, in whole or in part, creating a destructive race to the bottom where governments across the world slashed corporate tax rates to attract businesses. This trend has only stabilised in recent years with BEPS 2.0. This imposition of a global minimum corporate tax regime is a step in the right direction that has hastened the inevitable for our nation, which is, the need to make ourselves competitive and attractive to foreign investments in ways other than providing them with economic incentives and low taxes. As I mentioned earlier, we still have strong advantages as a nation. But the additional economic resources that this Bill provides will allow us to do more. With the additional tax revenue from this Bill, we can help to create a more level playing field between domestic companies and MNEs. The OECD's Corporate Tax Statistics report found that we are the fourth-most dependent economy on large MNEs for corporate tax revenue. Many of the MNEs in Singapore are foreign-owned, and this dependency has increased in recent years. Instead of pouring all the additional tax revenue back into more economic support for MNEs, we can invest part of the additional revenue in our SMEs, which employed 71% of our workforce as of 2023, and help them leverage on AI and other new technologies, so that they can become more productive and internationally competitive, and hopefully grow into local MNEs of our own. And finally, we can take steps to address our high cost structure. In particular, PSP feels that the rising rent and cost of property is an area that requires urgent attention. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“If investments and business activities in Singapore remain the same, then we are likely to soon see a very substantial increase in corporate tax revenues. During the Budget debate in 2022, the Finance Minister cautioned that "BEPS 2.0 represents a fundamental change in the competitive environment for Singapore" and we would likely "need to find other ways to stay competitive, from investing even more in our workers to building new infrastructure and incentivising R&D", and any additional tax revenue from Pillars One and Two would need to be reinvested to ensure Singapore remains competitive. In 2023, he again said that "we cannot afford to price ourselves out of the competition, or else Singapore and Singaporeans will end up the biggest losers". Singapore does have inherent disadvantages, such as limited land, a small population and a high-cost structure. But we also have strong advantages compared to other countries in the region, such as a highly educated workforce, a well-developed and globally-connected financial system, excellent international connectivity for the movement of people and cargo, respect for rule of law and strong property rights. These advantages will not go away, even after the provisions of the Bill come into effect. It is highly unlikely that all the MNEs in Singapore will pack up and leave overnight just because there will be a minimum effective tax rate after this Bill is passed. What this Bill does represent is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape our tax and incentive structure for companies and our policy towards attracting foreign investments. For many decades, we have used various tax incentives and schemes to lower effective corporate tax rates and attract foreign investments, especially from MNEs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the MMT Bill seeks to give effect to Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0. One of the key provisions of the Bill is the introduction of a minimum effective tax rate of 15% for large MNEs that have a consolidated group revenue of at least €750 million annually in at least two of the four preceding financial years. This will mark a major shift in Singapore's taxation policy, which the Progressive Singapore Party (PSP) supports. PSP believes that more profitable companies should pay more taxes. I first articulated this policy position during my Budget speech in 2023. During that speech, I also spoke about the highly inequitable nature of our corporate tax system, where companies with the highest profits pay the lowest percentage of their profits as tax. For example, I pointed out that companies earning profits before tax of between $200,000 and $10 million paid on average 8% to 9% of their profits as taxes, whereas companies with profits beyond $1 billion pay less than 1% of their profits as taxes. We hope that the introduction of a minimum effective tax rate for MNEs under this Bill will make for a more equitable corporate taxation system where large MNEs pay their fair share of taxes relative to their profits. We have debated the impact of this Bill on tax revenue before in this House and it is likely to be substantial, especially considering recent data showing strong corporate earnings following the post-COVID-19 economic recovery. IRAS announced last month that corporate tax revenues increased by $5.9 billion in FY2023, reaching $29 billion or 36% of total tax revenues. The OECD's 2024 Corporate Tax Statistics report showed that large MNEs accounted for 73% of total corporate income tax revenue in 2021. The percentage is likely similar today.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that the need for more capital was the basis to justify the corporatisation of Income and then again, subsequently, to justify the sale of Income to Allianz which is in direct contradiction with the plan to reduce capital, will any action be taken against those responsible for misleading the public and the Government?”
“The Minister mentioned just now that the trend of bullying in the past five years has remained steady. As trends for social behaviours may take some time, this five-year timeframe may not be sufficient. Does the Minister have figures over a longer timeframe like, for example, 20 years? Secondly, have there been studies into why children or young people engage in bullying behaviour, with a view to identifying whether there are any ways of pre-empting such behaviour?”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether are there any learning points from this episode with respect to the service provider assessment process?”
“I would like to correct an error in my speech at the Second Reading of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill on 6 August 2024. [Please refer to "Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill", Official Report, 6 August 2024, Vol 95, Issue 138, Second Reading Bills section.] The statistics that one in 10 households in Singapore experienced food insecurity did not come from the National Population Health Survey. It came from a report published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation, SMU and supported by the Food Bank Singapore. I apologise for the error, thank the Ministry of Health for alerting me to the error and thank the Speaker for this opportunity to rectify it.”
“I thank the Minister for answering my PQ. I have a couple of follow-up questions. The Minister has said that in this case, they have decided to extend the same benefits to PRs and SCs and quoted a few examples where it is also same benefits for both groups. But at the same time, we do have schemes that differentiate between these two groups. So, how does the Government decide which scheme will give the same benefits for SCs and PRs and which will be differentiated? Secondly, it is about the requirement that the applicant must not have received this assistance in the past three years. In certain industries, where the pace of change and disruption is more frequent, the workers in those industries may experience retrenchment more frequently than those in other industries. So, would the Minister also consider this on a case-by-case basis?”
“As a small nation, we are keenly aware of the importance of fair and just approaches when it comes to competition in the international arena. As a country, we believe in upholding meritocracy and fair competition is an important pillar to upholding meritocracy. It also pushes all of us to be better than we thought we can be. In this same spirit, we can see our Olympians bringing out the best versions of themselves in Paris. As Singapore enters a new chapter with the appointment of a new Prime Minister, let us renew our push for values that are important to us. And fairness in GE starts with the boundary review process. I call on all hon Members to support the Motion. [Applause.] 5.19 pm”
“In our proposal, we are merely asking for major boundaries based on guidance from HDB town boundaries, URA planning boundaries, which, in fact, if it were implemented, would imply changes, for example, in the West Coast GRC. So, please, do not attribute things to us that we did not ask for. He also said that if he were to do that – to not change a constituency so that the opposition can go back again – then that would be gerrymandering. I would like to point out that the definition of gerrymandering is to change boundaries. To ask for not changing it, cannot be gerrymandering. Finally, the Minister took issue with the words in the Motion statement "for political parties" and concluded that therefore, this Motion is all for the benefit of political parties and not for Singapore. I wish to point out that that would be focusing on semantics. What we are arguing for in this Motion is for fairness, transparency and accountability. It is very important to assure that there is fair competition in the political arena because this can only give Singapore a healthier democracy and that is definitely in the national interest. Sir, in closing, I believe that PSP's proposal is balanced and considered, and will enhance the transparency and accountability of the electoral boundaries review process. It will make the process fairer for all political parties. Much of the electorate has grown accustomed to the changes of the boundaries without much justification and explanations. When conducting house visits, we often hear residents joke to us about how they kept moving constituencies in consecutive GEs without physically moving house, but underlying the joke is disagreement. As society develops, our expectations change. Fairness and good governance are gaining greater importance.”
“It is up to the Prime Minister to decide on the terms of reference provided to the EBRC and it is up to him to set the standards that he expects of the EBRC, in terms of transparency and accountability. The Minister also said that the EBRC should be left to do its work independently, without fear of public pressure. We do not agree that requiring transparency from the EBRC in the form of clearer and more detailed reports would affect the functions of the EBRC. Judges provide reasons for their decisions in detailed judgments available to the public. This has not affected their ability to work independently. The Minister has also, in several instances, implied that we are doing this for personal interests. As I recall, when I did the Motion on GRC, calling for GRCs to be abolished, he remarked that I am arguing against something that benefited me because I rode on the coattails of Dr Tan Cheng Bock. At that time, my reply to him was that, it is not a matter of whether I benefited, it is whether this system is best for Singapore. Again, I would like to reiterate that now he is querying me for arguing for something that will be for my benefit. It seems that either way, I will not meet with his approval. So, again, I just want to say, let us not focus on personal interests. Let us discuss and debate based on the merits of the issues here and do not go after the person making these proposals. The Minister attributed that what we wanted is that in the constituencies where we have done well, to not change it because we want to go back there again. I would like to ask the Minister to state specifically where in our speeches did we ask for our constituencies to be unchanged.”
“Firstly, I would like to point out that when one family moves out, another family moves in. Yes, you will have shifts, but it is not quite as drastic as the Minister made it appear. It is more dependent on the number of housing units within a particular boundary, rather than how many people are shifting house each year. Secondly, no doubt narrowing the range will lead to more frequent changes to boundaries, but as with much of policy-making, a fine balance must be struck between two different priorities. We believe that this range of plus or minus 10%, as it has been implemented in other countries, should be doable and will not result in too frequent changes. Moreover, our proposal has the establishment of the major boundaries, which will not change from election to election, so, further providing stability. The Minister declared that our current system is fair and transparent. But he has not given any explanation to explain why is it that the statistics that we have mentioned, about the SMCs where the opposition did better, have a higher chance of disappearing. So, that raises doubts on the fairness. Secondly, how can it be transparent when the EBRC report does not bother to explain the changes? If there are cogent reasons for changes in boundaries, this should be made known to all Singaporeans for transparency and accountability. It would simply be a matter of recording on paper, what the Committee had discussed and agreed to. If we look overseas, the most recent report for the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries in England went into detail explaining the reasoning behind how constituencies were derived and how certain geographic features, such as the River Thames or expressways, were used as boundaries.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the WP for their support of our Motion and for sharing their proposals for greater transparency, fairness and impartiality. I would also like to thank the Minister for clarifying that the EBRC has not yet been convened and that when it is, announcements will be made. Let me now address the points made by the Minister during the debate. The Minister has said that the EBRC does not make its recommendations or boundary changes based on election results. I welcome that assurance and hope that he will accept our proposal that this be made explicitly clear in the electoral boundaries report. Secondly, he mentioned that the EBRC actually does not have access to the election results. I would just like to mention that we have given examples of how SMCs whereby opposition did better, tend to have a higher chance of disappearing. The fact is that the SMC results is open knowledge to everyone. So, naturally, the EBRC would know. Just pointing out that fact. The Minister has also said that, it is not possible for voting weightage to be exactly the same. I would just like to clarify that we are not asking for it to be exactly the same but just to narrow down the range of variation. He also mentioned that, the major and minor boundaries model would not work due to high mobility of voters and that our proposal would become immune to population shifts. I would disagree that it is immune to population shift. In fact, I have made it a point to illustrate how that model can accommodate population shifts. Secondly, he also mentioned that narrowing the range of voters per MP will lead to more frequent changes of the boundaries because of so many voters changing addresses every year.”
“To avoid suspicion, the EBRC should not report to the Prime Minister but should submit the report directly to Parliament. Upon receiving the report, Parliament should immediately approve and implement it without any modifications to ensure fairness and transparency of the process. (In English): In summary, PSP's proposal seeks to: (a) increase transparency and accountability by: one, requiring the formation of EBRC to be publicly announced immediately; two, requiring EBRC to, upon its formation, publish the current number of voters in each constituency based on boundaries in the last GE; and three, requiring EBRC to publicly and sufficiently explain all changes; (b) ensure fairness to voters by narrowing the range of number of voters per MP; (c) respect voters and reduce the potential for gerrymandering by: one, implementing fixed rules through major and minor boundaries; and two, requiring changes of major boundaries to be approved by a bipartisan committee; (d) increase political fairness by imposing a minimum timeframe from finalising boundaries to GE; and (e) enhance the independence of EBRC. With that, I urge all hon Members to support the Motion. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“For example, in the 2020 general election, the number of voters in Sengkang GRC was almost the same as in East Coast GRC, but Sengkang GRC has four seats in Parliament while East Coast GRC has five seats. The existing electoral boundaries mean that some MPs represent almost twice as many voters as other MPs. The PSP proposes legislation to stipulate that each MP can only represent between 27,000 and 33,000 voters to reduce the current significant disparity and unfairness to voters and MPs. Thirdly, PSP proposes that, in order to reduce the possibility of drawing the electoral boundaries unfairly, we should establish two types of electoral boundaries: major boundaries and minor boundaries. Major boundaries can encompass multiple constituencies, and these boundaries should be stable and rarely changed to ensure community cohesion and reduce unfair constituency delineation. If changes to major boundaries are necessary, they should require the consent of a committee with equal representation from the ruling party and the opposition. Minor boundaries are the boundaries between constituencies covered by major boundaries. Minor boundaries can be adjusted based on changes in the population of constituencies. Fourthly, the release of the EBRC report should be at least three months before the dissolution of Parliament to allow all political parties sufficient time to prepare for the GE. Fifthly, currently, there are no explicit regulations on the members of the EBRC. To ensure fairness and transparency, we believe that legislation should stipulate that the EBRC should be chaired by a High Court Judge, with members being the CEO of ELD, HDB and SLA, as well as the Chief Statistician.”
“The changes will be approved and implemented without modification by Parliament to ensure that the process remains fair and transparent. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, over the years, the Prime Minister has appointed the EBRC before a GE, and the establishment of the EBRC and the release of its report also signal the upcoming GE. PSP is proposing this Motion today because we believe that there are many areas in our country's electoral boundaries review system that can be improved to enhance the transparency, independence, and fairness of the system. Firstly, the EBRC should provide a more detailed explanation to the public as to why the boundaries of certain constituencies have changed. Since independence, the EBRC's reports have become increasingly concise and in recent years, the explanations for changes in constituency boundaries have been brief and vague. This makes it difficult to determine whether the changes in electoral boundaries are solely due to changes in population and housing development. For example, looking at the election results from 1988 to 2015, we find that the probability of opposition-held constituencies with a vote share between 40% and 50% disappearing in the next election is higher than constituencies where the opposition's vote share is below 40%. Due to the overly concise nature of the EBRC's report, suspicions of unfair constituency delineation naturally arise. If the EBRC's report were more detailed, these doubts would naturally dissipate. Secondly, currently, each MP can represent between 20,000 and 38,000 voters. This results in significant disparities in voter representation.”
“In the interest of enhancing the independence of EBRC, PSP proposes that the membership of EBRC should be codified into law to prevent any future abuses. In the UK, for example, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 specifies that the Boundary Commissions are chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the deputy chair must be a High Court Judge. Some legal constraints are necessary to prevent the appointment of partisan members onto the committee. PSP proposes that EBRC be chaired by a High Court Judge with four other members being the CEOs of ELD, HDB and SLA, and the Chief Statistician. If EBRC is proposing changes to the major boundaries, then these changes must be approved by a committee to be chaired by the Speaker of Parliament by right of his office, but he will not play any part in the review. The other members of the committee will be appointed by the President and comprise equal numbers of representatives from: one, the ruling party; and two, the other political parties that have won at least 5% of the votes at the previous GE. This committee could be bipartisan or multi-partisan. For the sake of simplicity, I shall refer to this committee as "the bipartisan committee" within this debate. If the EBRC's proposed electoral boundary changes do not impact the major boundaries, then these changes do not need to be approved by a bipartisan committee. At the end of the process, the changes will be compiled into a report by EBRC and submitted to Parliament. The report by the Boundary Commission for England contained a paragraph assuring that election results are not taken into consideration in the review of boundaries. We should do the same to enhance public trust.”
“By altering the minor boundaries, EBRC can change the GRC to either a five-member GRC + one SMC; or a four-member GRC + two SMCs; or a three-member GRC + three SMCs; or two three-member GRCs. The justification for the option chosen should be provided by EBRC. Three, ensure political fairness by imposing a minimum timeframe from finalising boundaries to GE. We propose a minimum period of three months between the publishing of EBRC report to the dissolution of Parliament. This will ensure a more level playing field by giving all political parties more time to prepare for the GE. In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) earlier, Minister Chan Chun Sing had assured Parliament that "there will be sufficient time between the release of EBRC's report to the time of election." Does the Minister agree that a minimum of three months is a very reasonable time frame? Four, enhancing independence in the composition, appointment and reporting structure of EBRC. In our system, the Prime Minister has full control over the electoral boundary review process. This starts with who gets to be appointed to EBRC. There is no law stating who gets to be appointed to EBRC, even though in recent years, EBRC has always consisted of the Cabinet Secretary, the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the Elections Department (ELD), HDB and the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), and the Chief Statistician. These are senior civil servants with deep domain knowledge that enable them to make decisions on how to redraw electoral boundaries in a practical way and we have no objection to them sitting on EBRC. There are concerns about potential conflict of interest for EBRC to report to the Prime Minister.”
“To achieve this, PSP makes the following proposal. Just like houses and buildings have structural walls that cannot be demolished in renovations and non-structural walls that can be demolished, we propose the introduction of major boundaries and minor boundaries. Major boundaries are meant to remain unchanged for many elections. Each region bound by major boundaries could contain one or two GRCs and a few SMCs. These major boundaries should correspond closely to local ties and geographical considerations and could take reference from existing HDB town boundaries, URA planning area boundaries and postal district boundaries. We propose that these major boundaries cannot be changed unless agreed to by a bipartisan committee. I will elaborate on this later. The introduction of major boundaries that will not change frequently also make it easier for MPs to build community identities and bond. Minor boundaries lie within the major boundaries and can be changed by EBRC based on the criteria mentioned earlier. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that a region enclosed by major boundaries is as follows: the number of voters was 200,000 in the previous GE and there was a five-member GRC with 140,000 voters plus two SMCs with 30,000 voters each. Suppose that before the next GE, the number of voters changed as follows: (a) the number of voters grew to 220,000; (b) the number of voters in the GRC grew to 166,000 and the two SMCs dropped to 27,000 voters each. Under the proposed system, the boundaries of the two SMCs need not be changed as they are still within the range. But the boundaries for the GRC must change as it has gone beyond 33,000 per MP. The GRC must now be served by six MPs instead of five.”
“One, upon formation of EBRC, announce the formation immediately and publish the current number of voters in each constituency based on boundaries in the last GE. Further, identify the constituencies that require boundary changes based on fixed criteria. First, constituencies with the number of voters falling outside the specified range can have its boundaries changed. The current range of 20,000 to 38,000 per MP is too wide, with the maximum number being 90% higher than, or nearly twice, that of the minimum. This means that some MPs are taking the load of nearly twice that of other MPs. This is not an ideal situation. PSP proposes that one MP should represent 30,000 voters, with a deviation of plus or minus 10%, such that each MP represents 27,000 to 33,000 voters. As such, the maximum is limited to 22% higher than the minimum. This is a fairer distribution of duties amongst MPs and fairer to voters in terms of their voting weightage. Second, the boundaries of constituencies with number of voters within specified range cannot be changed unless justified on the basis of necessity due to an adjacent constituency having voters falling outside that specified range. The basis for such changes must be published. Two, respect voters by reducing the potential for gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is an attempt to manipulate the outcome of elections. It is an act of disrespect for voters. Instead of working harder to make things better, serving the people better and being more responsive to the needs of the voters, gerrymandering seeks the easy way out of changing the rules. The genuine concerns of voters are not addressed and respect for voters is eroded. This is not acceptable and we should reduce the potential for gerrymandering in our system.”
“For example, an SMC could have 20,000 to 38,000 voters while a five-member GRC could have 100,000 to 190,000 voters. This is unequal representation and unfair to voters. Let me illustrate with some real examples in the last GE. In 2020, Sengkang GRC had 120,100 voters and elected four MPs, while East Coast GRC had 121,644 voters, only slightly more, but elected five MPs. Yuhua SMC had 21,351 voters, while Bukit Panjang SMC had 35,437 voters. This means that the votes of Sengkang and Bukit Panjang voters counted for less compared to East Coast and Yuhua voters. In 1963, the EBRC adopted a rule allowing the numbers of voters in each electoral division to differ by no more than 20%. The permitted deviation was increased to 30% in 1980. This deviation should be narrower so that each electoral divisions has approximately equal numbers of voters. This is important as the electors' votes need to carry the same weight. The electors' votes should be respected and not be unduly diluted by having larger deviation in each electoral division. The average number of voters per MP and the allowable deviations should be fixed into law. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, there must be 650 MPs and the average number of voters per MP can only deviate by plus or minus 5%. In Australia, the average number of voters per MP can only deviate by plus or minus 10% under the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No 2) 1973. Putting aside the issue of unequal workload for each MP, we should adopt tighter limits on deviation to ensure that every Singaporean's vote carries the same weightage and is represented fairly in this House. In the interest of transparency, accountability and fairness to voters, PSP proposes the following changes.”
“I still remember when I first entered politics more than a decade ago, a veteran in an opposition party told me how hard he walked the ground in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) for four years, only to have that SMC disappear on him when boundaries were reviewed and the SMC was absorbed into a GRC. Is this an isolated incident or is there a pattern? We examined the data on SMCs from GE1988 to GE2015, spanning seven GEs. Excluding opposition-held SMCs at the point of boundary review, we find that amongst the SMCs where opposition scored below 40% of the votes, on average, 58% were retained as SMCs. In comparison, where opposition scored between 40% and 50% of the votes, only 33% were retained on average. SMCs in GE2020 cannot be included here because the decision on whether they will be retained is yet to be made. We hope that these statistics will not be maintained or further aggravated by the next boundary review. Without clear justifications for its decisions, it is difficult to tell whether the EBRC has changed the boundaries simply because of population shifts and housing developments, or for other reasons. Suspicions of gerrymandering naturally surface and erode public trust. The number of voters in each constituency is often used as the justification for boundary changes. The average number of voters per Member of Parliament (MP) is not codified into law. In 2020, the EBRC worked with a ratio of one MP to about 29,000 voters. Since 1980, the EBRC has also allowed the average number of voters per MP to deviate by plus or minus 30%, up from 20% previously. This is very wide and creates the possibility that a constituency could be almost twice as large as another and still return the same number of MPs.”
“The EBRC needs to make public the reasons why the boundaries of certain constituencies are changed while others remain untouched. Over the years, the reports of the EBRC have become shorter and shorter, providing less and less explanation of why the boundaries have changed. The reports of the 2011, 2015 and 2020 EBRCs were only four pages long and contained six paragraphs. For example, in the 2020 report, the EBRC merely stated, "The Committee reviewed the boundaries of the current electoral divisions taking into account the current configurations, changes in the number of electors due to population shifts and housing developments." This is in stark contrast to the early years of Independence. The report of the 1971 EBRC, for example, was 12 pages long and contained 20 paragraphs, and provided more details for its decisions than present-day EBRCs. For example, the 1971 EBRC explained clearly the reasons why it did not alter the boundaries of constituencies in the central areas of the city. It even explained the names for new constituencies. Many constituencies now have strange boundaries that do not follow the boundaries of Housing and Development Board (HDB) towns or Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) planning areas, or any relation to how people on the ground live their lives. In 1971, the EBRC clearly stated that "all changes and adjustments were made in keeping with proximity, identity of interest and similarity of association". These do not appear to be considerations for the EBRCs of today. It is common to find residents of the same HDB town belonging to different constituencies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government to review the process by which electoral boundaries are determined in order to increase the transparency and fairness of the electoral boundary review process for all political parties." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. (proc text)] The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had earlier asked for Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) to be abolished. Our proposals in this debate are based on accepting the existence of GRCs as reality and how we can make things better within that reality and is not an indication of a change of position on GRCs. Sir, the process by which electoral boundaries are reviewed in Singapore has been long-standing. The Prime Minister appoints an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) and sets its terms of reference. Once the EBRC publishes its report with the new electoral boundaries, Parliament is dissolved and a General Election (GE) held shortly after. However, the Prime Minister does not have to reveal when the EBRC will be formed or whether he has formed the EBRC. On previous occasions, the Prime Minister has only revealed to the public that the EBRC has been formed months after he has convened the EBRC. In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I would first like to start by asking the Prime Minister whether he has formed the EBRC. PSP has raised this Motion today because we believe that there are many areas in this process which can be reformed, so that electoral boundaries are reviewed in a manner that incorporates transparency, accountability, independence, fairness and respect for voters. One, justify boundary changes for transparency and accountability.”
“I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, Minister of State Tan has not replied to part (c) of my question, which is why is the shuttle bus service limited to only residents of those constituencies? Secondly, like what the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, I have filed a question, which is Question No 13, but directed at the MOT and somehow it was redirected to MCCY. I would like a clarification on why this question was redirected because the question is actually under the purview of MOT.”
“At the same time, every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. Many of these discarded food items are still safe for consumption. If they can be redistributed to food-insecure households, it would benefit numerous families. Besides passing this Bill, the Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses to encourage them to donate excess food. Additionally, some food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting food. The Government can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist by providing delivery services and deliver the donated food to charities. In doing so, we can also reduce the food waste in Singapore, contributing to environmental conservation efforts. It is a win-win situation. Kindness makes us happy. I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate excess food to help the needy. (In English): Sir, I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate the excess food after their catering events or unsold food at the end of the day to the needy. There will always be someone out there who will appreciate having that food on the table. Let us reduce food waste and build a kinder Singapore together. Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.”
“Sir, I hope that beyond this Bill, the Government will also do more to encourage individuals and companies to donate their excess food to the needy. This will also have a positive impact on the environment. Singapore’s only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is already more than half full as of the end of last year and is projected to reach capacity by 2035. Food waste is one of our biggest waste streams, accounting for about 11% of the waste generated in Singapore in 2023. Any reduction in food waste will go towards extending the lifespan of Semakau Landfill. The Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses that donate unsold or excess food to charities, so that there is a stronger incentive for companies to do the right thing and redistribute their unsold or excess food instead of throwing it away. Additionally, would-be food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting their excess food to food distribution centres or charities. We can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist in this effort by providing food pickup and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. In February this year, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health. The Bill that we are debating today, will exempt businesses or individuals donating food from liability. This helps promote more acts of kindness in our society. It is said that food is of utmost importance to people. In prosperous Singapore, approximately one in 10 households lack sufficient access to food.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill that we are debating today helps to promote more acts of kindness in our society. Every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. This is a tremendous amount of waste, which is even more regrettable because we import more than 90% of our food. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) hopes that the enactment of this Bill will encourage more F&B premises, food producers and retailers to be kind and donate excess food instead of throwing it away. With this Bill, these donors will be shielded from liability from deaths or health issues from the consumption of cooked food, provided that four conditions are met. We believe that these conditions, which include ensuring that the food must not be unsafe at the time it was donated and the food donor must inform the food recipient of the handling requirements, are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors. The National Population Health Survey, conducted by the Health Promotion Board in 2019, found that approximately one in 10 households in Singapore lack sufficient access to food. [Please refer to "Personal Explanation", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Personal Explanation section.] Even though we live in an era of great material abundance and our country has achieved great economic progress, there are still some amongst us who are struggling to even put food on the table. As a nation, we can and should do more to help this group of vulnerable Singaporeans.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many businesses that have been affected adversely by this oil spill incident. I am glad to hear from the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment that rental assistance is currently being discussed. Apart from rental costs, businesses face other costs as well, for example, wages for their employees. Is the Government looking into possibly helping the small businesses further, for example, in seeking compensation and providing some financial schemes, like, bridging loans on preferential terms, to tie them over until they have received their compensation?”
“The Minister has said that instead of releasing the slides, MOE would prefer to explain directly to the parents. Can the Minister let us know, how many schools have organised such dialogue sessions? And secondly, I understand that the CCE materials were curated with the help of the other agencies, like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), can I ask the Minister whether there were any prior consultations, given the context of this issue, with community and religious leaders, as well as prior consultation with the teachers who are to deliver these lessons?”
“Mr Chairman, restorative justice is a process of healing from the harm caused by another person's actions. This process brings together everyone who were affected to dialogue, problem solve and rebuild their lives and relationships. Based on the premise that every individual has worth and needs to be regarded with dignity, it aims to establish social equality in relationships. When spousal violence happens, it violates the intimate relationship, resulting in harm to self and others. Counselling for spousal violence normally involves the spouses. But spousal violence does not affect the spouses alone. It also has negative impact on the well-being of the children and other family members. Therefore, there is a need to address spousal violence in the context of needs of affected parties arising from the violence and to identify the obligations required by the different stakeholders to address the issue. The restorative justice approach, therefore, involves children and other family members in the counselling process. Restorative justice seeks to restore victims, perpetrators, and families by addressing the harm caused by violence and seeking accountability and support to foster healing. Numerous countries have adopted restorative approaches, including Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, New Zealand, Norway, United States (US) and Japan. I understand that in Singapore this approach is also adopted with respect to juvenile offenders. Is the restorative justice process currently adopted in counselling sessions involving cases of spousal violence? If not, would the Minister consider offering this as an option? Building a Family-friendly Singapore”
“I have two clarifications. As the Minister has pointed out, healthcare costs have risen. So, are there plans to revise the MediSave withdrawal limits? Will the Minister consider annual adjustments pegged to healthcare inflation similar to the way the basic retirement sum is reviewed? Secondly, on the subsidy for egg freezing, I believe Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu mentioned just now that it would be unprecedented. If I heard her correctly, I would just like to clarify that this is already being done in countries, like South Korea, Japan, Australia and France.”
“This is already common in the US, where many large employers routinely provide generous coverage for fertility treatments such as egg freezing and IVF as part of their employee benefits. We should encourage this to become the norm in a Singapore made for families. Secondly, we can also do more to increase the resources available to young women who wish to go through egg freezing, which can be physically, psychologically, and financially taxing. Young women should be given fertility information through healthcare providers and institutes of higher learning. This would include information about contraception, pregnancy and fertility treatments. Space must be created for young women to have informed conversations about fertility and maternal health issues, so that they can be empowered to make decisions that are best for themselves.”
“Mr Chairman, last July, the Government amended the law to allow women between 21 and 37 years old to undergo elective egg freezing. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports this as it provides women with the option to preserve fertility and their chances of having children later in life. This is necessary as young Singaporeans are getting married later and our TFR has fallen to 0.97 in 2023. However, we can do more to support women who are thinking of or currently undergoing egg freezing. Firstly, the procedure is still very costly in Singapore. Elective egg freezing can cost between $7,000 and $9,000 per cycle in a public hospital, or $10,000 to $15,000 per cycle in a private fertility clinic. Currently, there are no subsidies, co-funding, or Medisave available for elective egg freezing. There are only certain subsidies that couples can avail of when undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, if and when they choose to use the frozen eggs in the future. But if young women cannot afford to freeze their eggs at the optimal age, there will be no frozen eggs for couples to use later. PSP therefore calls on the Government to consider some level of subsidies in public hospitals and allow the use of MediSave for this procedure. Conditions on subsidies can be imposed to prevent abuse and ensure that unutilised frozen eggs can be donated to other couples or used for other purposes like research or education. Countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia and France already subsidise elective egg freezing. The Government can also encourage businesses to subsidise or cover the costs of such procedures and other fertility treatments as part of a package of fertility benefits for their employees.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I would like to thank Minister Lee for responding to my various suggestions. On the matter of the Shorter Waiting Time flats, I have acknowledged that the Government is building about 2,000 to 3,000 a year in my speech. I think my question is, because that forms only about 10% to 15% of the annual supply, why can it not be increased further to maybe about 50% of the supply? Secondly, on the singles age limit, the Minister mentioned that if we do that without increasing the supply, it would result in a longer waiting time. Agreed. But I think the question here is, why do we say if there is no increase in supply? Actually, PSP did ask for ramping up the supply at the public housing debate in February of last year. So, can the Minister clarify why is it that there cannot be a further ramping up of supply? 2.45 pm”
“The political will to implement major changes is needed if we really want to turn it around. Extending PPHS to Single Unwed Parents”
“Mr Chairman, the BTO scheme was introduced in 2001 after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 resulted in HDB being left with a large stock of unsold flats. One major downside of the BTO scheme is longer waiting times of four years or more. Young Singaporeans are marrying later and many of them want to have their own homes before marrying or having children. Furthermore, fertility declines with age. This means that the longer waiting time will have an adverse effect on our TFR. Although resale flats and private properties are options for couples to get their homes faster, their prices are much higher and beyond the reach of many. Our TFR has fallen to 0.97 in 2023. This is less than half of the replacement rate of 2.1 and has serious economic and social consequences. How can we adjust our housing policies to arrest the falling TFR and support parenthood? PSP had proposed the Millennial Apartments Scheme to provide interim rental housing to young people to address this problem. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, has spoken on this in greater detail earlier. PSP would also like to propose two other policy changes for consideration which can help young Singaporeans start their families earlier. One, increase the number of flats with Shorter Waiting Times where flats are built in advance in a departure from the BTO approach to half of the projected annual demand based on marriage and immigration numbers. HDB is currently building about 20,000 units per year on average, but only 2,000 to 3,000 are Shorter Waiting Time flats. Two, lower the age limit for singles to buy HDB flats to 28 and allow them to buy new 3-room flats. This way, when they find the right partner, they can start their family immediately if they already own a flat. Low TFR has troubled us for very long.”
“In November 2023, my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai asked why LRIS has still not been implemented. The Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have since replied on different occasions, that further studies need to be made. But the Government has had almost eight years to study this. I call on the Government to make a decision soon. LRIS can also be implemented in conjunction with my proposal of age-related allocation. The LRIS can be one of the options that takes some risk. The allocation caps can then limit the risk of this option. Next, I will touch on the closure of the special account for CPF members above age 55. The Minister has said that the closure of the Special Account (SA) is not aimed at saving interest monies. But if the SA savings go to the Ordinary Account (OA) instead of the Retirement Account (RA), the Government can be expected to save on interest payments. What is the amount expected to be saved? If this is not about saving money, can the Government channel any interest savings towards paying higher interest for those with low balances, for example, by raising the threshold for additional 1% interest from the first $60,000 to the first $100,000, or pegged to the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS)? The PSP notes that the maximum amount that CPF members can keep in their RA will be increased four times the BRS. What is the reason for capping this amount? Why should we stop CPF members from enhancing their retirement adequacy by putting more into their RA if they wish to do so? Does this impose additional cost on the Government? Finally, will the Minister consider adjusting the MediSave annual withdrawal limit every year, in line with healthcare inflation, just like the way BRS is adjusted yearly?”
“Mr Chairman, I had previously asked why the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) did not cover seniors above 70. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomed the announcement in this year's Budget that these seniors will now be covered by the MRSS. As I discussed in my speech on the Public Finances Motion early this month, the Government likely earns a higher return from investing CPF savings with GIC than the interest rate it pays to Singaporeans. This difference goes into the Reserves, instead of CPF accounts. The hon Member Mr Louis Chua has pointed out in his Budget Debate speech that, over the years, many MPs from all sides have been urging the Government to let CPF members benefit directly from the higher returns. The PSP shares their views and urges the Government to be transparent about the returns it has earned on investing our CPF savings and find a way to give this back to CPF members. We can adopt a different approach based on age. Younger CPF members with more than 20 years to go before their retirement can take more risk for higher returns. Those who are closer to retirement should lean more towards risk-free returns. Can the Government consider setting up two options? One for risk-free returns as in the current arrangement and another option which incorporates some risk, like pegging to the GIC's annual investment return or other investment options. Allow younger CPF members who are prepared to take some risk to allocate some of their savings to the latter option, but gradually adjust the proportion allowed downwards with age, so that the portfolio becomes lower-risk as they age. CPF returns can also be raised through the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), which was recommended by a CPF panel in 2016 and accepted by the Government.”
“Yes. Does the Minister agree that the annual school examinations and regular assessments can already serve the purpose of identifying different learning needs of students, and SBB within the school can assist in differentiated learning without overtaxing our teachers?”
“My clarification relates to the Minister's response on my call for a through-train pilot programme. The Minister said that if we see our worth as being defined by examination results, only removing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) will not remove the stress and neither is removing all stress our goal. Instead, we need to help our students manage and overcome stress. Does the Minister not agree that if we insist on making the PSLE compulsory and using the scores as a basis for deciding secondary school, then that reinforces the idea that our worth is defined by examination results? Whatever we may say, action speaks louder than words and what parents see are the effects of PSLE results on their children's educational path. Instead, on the other hand, making PSLE optional will send the message that primary education is not just about the PSLE score and removing the PSLE will not remove all the stress. Does the Minister not agree that children will have stresses in their lives beyond PSLE? There will be annual school examinations, stresses in other areas of their lives, like relationships with parents, siblings, classmates and friends. The Minister also made the point on how we select students who are suitable for through-train at the age of six and if we cannot select, how do we support the diverse learning profile, and that PSLE and SEC are a means to help students find a suitable learning environment. I wish to clarify that the point here is not for MOE to select, but to give parents the choice. Those who believe that all the time, energy and resources put in to prepare students for the PSLE and dealing with all the stresses can be put to better use elsewhere to teach them real-life skills and encourage their natural curiosity towards the unknown.”
“There is therefore much more value to primary schooling than preparation for this major exam." Transforming Education through Tech”
“Those who wish to enter these popular schools can continue to do so through the PSLE route. Next, the issue of social mixing. If a student mixes with 40 other students every year, he or she will get to meet 400 other students over 10 years. Since the average number of students in each school is about 1,200, this is not a limitation. In fact, it is the PSLE system that has contributed to stratification when we group students with similar scores together. As for academic checkpoints, we can and should trust the quality of internal school examinations. Having a through-train programme does not mean there will be no exams. If a child wants to transfer to another school, MOE can allow them to use their internal school exam results to do so. Making PSLE optional would be a game changer. Families that want the PSLE to add to their children's portfolio can continue with it. Families which do not, can choose the non-PSLE route and focus their children on other assessments that are benchmarked against real life skills and contexts. The Progress Singapore Party urges the Government to not hesitate with piloting at least one through-train school in Singapore. Let me end by sharing a quote from a National Institute of Education (NIE) article that Dr Jason Tan, associate professor of Policy, Curriculum and Leadership, wrote last year: "It is interesting to note that MOE's Desired Outcomes of Education, …make no explicit mention of the PSLE. Instead, the primary school outcomes focus on general attributes. These include pupils being able to distinguish right from wrong, knowing their strengths and areas for growth, having a lively curiosity about their surroundings, taking pride in their work and being able to cooperate, as well as share and care for others.”
“Mr Chairman, last year, I urged MOE to consider implementing a pilot project of a 10-year through-train programme, giving students an option to bypass the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). I also mentioned the work of EveryChild.sg, whose White Paper advocates for PSLE to be an optional pathway. The Minister for Education raised a few issues with a through-train programme. I would like to address them today. The Minister said that it is neither realistic nor desirable to shield our children from all stresses. But we are talking about young children below the age of 13 years. Even adults can have trouble managing stress, what more young children? The stress of PSLE is arguably not age-appropriate. In addition, it does not mean that a child who faces stress from a young age will necessarily grow up to handle stress better as an adult. In fact, the opposite might be true; a child who faces an unhealthy amount of stress at a young age might develop mental health conditions that continue into adulthood. There is no one school in Singapore that can cater to all learners. Let us open up a new range of schools, small and mid-sized, with some offering non-PSLE routes, helmed by progressive school leaders. I believe MOE already has school leaders who are ready to pilot a through train. Let us also allow flexibility for students to switch schools or programmes if they find themselves in one that is unsuitable. The Minister also argued that removing PSLE would deny parents and students the ability to choose their schools. My answer to that is that our current system denies parents the choice of not letting their children take PSLE. Parents can make this choice if we pilot the through train. We do not have to choose the popular schools for the through-train pilot.”
“I have two clarifications to seek. First, on the support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed. Can I clarify whether this scheme will be for all workers, or would it be only limited to lower- and medium-income workers? And secondly, Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about how they have been helping to ensure that there are more Singaporeans in senior positions in the financial sector. I think that these senior executives in the financial sector earn higher salaries than in other industries and they are not the group that we are most concerned about. So, are there other sectors where lower- and middle-income Singaporeans are facing competition from foreigners that the Government is also paying the same level of attention to?”
“In that case, Mr Speaker, I would like to follow up and ask Mr Xie if he thinks that, for any reason, any student has a delay in his studies and he ends up with a degree or whatever qualification and it is later than others, is it Mr Xie's position that Government ought to compensate for that difference in wages?”
“Sir, I would like to clarify that my understanding is correct. What Mr Xie is saying is that the wage gap is not so much that after they become diploma holders, they get lower salary, but that because they took a longer time to reach the point where they get the diploma and that, therefore, in terms of lifetime earnings, there is a gap. Is that correct?”
“I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. But before I ask the two questions, I would like to first respond to what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier about the Opposition asking to spend the Reserves. I wish to clarify that PSP is not asking for past Reserves to be spent. At the recent debate on public finances earlier this month, we have made it very clear that we are not asking for spending past Reserves. What has been accumulated stays there, but we are asking for a slowdown in the further accumulation of that Reserve. I just want to clarify that point. My first question is: the Deputy Prime Minister has said that MOF has done its five-year, 10-year fiscal projection; so, based on the Government's assessment, is there any need to raise GST further from now until 2030 to fund higher expenditures? My second question relates to the chart that the Deputy Prime Minister showed earlier, showing that the income growth of the bottom 20% is much higher than that for the top 20%. Can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether the income that is used here in this chart includes investment income like dividends and rental income as well as capital appreciation?”
“In my speech on Monday, I said that the $10,000 Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-up in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Progression Award is differentiated treatment between polytechnic graduates. In response, the hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan yesterday made the point that it is fair and right to compensate for the wage gap between ITE graduates and polytechnic graduates. But my point is that because this CPF top-up is given to them after they have completed their diploma courses, they are not just ITE graduates, they are Diploma holders and will be earning salaries as polytechnic graduates. So, can Mr Xie clarify what wage gap he is talking about? This is my first question. Also, going by his logic, does Mr Xie similarly think that it is fair and right to give a CPF top-up to polytechnic graduates who progress to university, to compensate for the wage gap between polytechnic graduates and university graduates? That is my second question. What about a person who starts working at a lower pay grade due to lower qualifications but, subsequently, rose through the ranks to reach the same position as someone with higher qualifications? Does Mr Xie also think that it is fair and right to compensate for the wage gap? That is my third question. Since Mr Xie is a People's Action Party (PAP) backbencher, I would also like to seek clarification from the Ministers whether they agree with Mr Xie's position and what is the position on my last two questions to Mr Xie?”