He Ting Ru
Singapore
“When our researchers develop AI system that work across Southeast Asian languages, we create tools that can be deployed in our own service sectors, our hospitals, our schools. When our companies lead in AI adoption, we generate demand for new skills, new roles and new industries that our workers can be trained into.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that.”
“Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping.”
“With decisions like periodic increases to tobacco duties, I hope we are seeking to maximise the sin tax impact instead of considering its revenue impact. Similarly, we should be doing more to curb the health impacts of public smoking, for instance, by tackling smoking while walking.”
“Sir, I would like to once again thank our Parliamentary staff for their work in ensuring the smooth running of the various functions of our Parliament. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For instance, during a debate on the Online Safety Bill, we proposed that OSC submit annual reports detailing the number and categories of reports received, directions issued and findings of online harms trends.”
The complete record
Every one of 636 lines we hold for He Ting Ru, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“Sir, I have two clarifications for Minister Chee. I wish to clarify with the Minister that I did not make a general statement about productivity and wages in my cut. But when I mentioned productivity, that was specific to my seeking clarification from the Minister about whether there has been any analysis done about what effects the programme has had on employers investing in productivity improvements beyond skills upgrading. There was no contradiction with my colleague's Budget intervention on this, as he said that wages need to catch up with productivity gains that have already occurred. On this point, can the Minister share if this analysis has been done? My second clarification is a point I also made in my cut. I note the Minister had said that a decision will be made in due course and closer to the time about whether to extend the PWCS beyond 2026. As mentioned in my cut, can the Minister share with us what are the metrics used to determine whether or not to exit the programme? My concern here is that the uncertainty about whether the scheme will be extended will make businesses currently on the scheme more cautious and less keen to take action to either invest in or increase wages now and will delay any such decisions until they hear the next announcement.”
“This will include having a hard look at our overall cost structure beyond labour, including our land policies. With economic disruptions becoming more frequent, will we keep returning to wage subsidies whenever sectors face challenges? What signals does this send to businesses about long-term planning and productivity investments? I would like to ask: one, what matrix will determine when these temporary wage subsidies will be phased out; two, has MOF analysed how these subsidies might affect employers' incentives to invest in productivity improvements, and not just in the sense of skills upgrading, but also in capital goods investment; and three, what is the Government's transition strategy towards sustainable wages that align with our broader economic objectives? While we support wage improvements for workers, we need greater certainty about how these temporary measures fit into Singapore's long-term fiscal and economic policy. Both workers and businesses deserve a clear roadmap for the future beyond the current repeated ad hoc extensions of the supposedly temporary measures. Responsible Governance and Incentivising Efficiency”
“Mr Chairman, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) has benefited many lower-wage Singaporean workers. We support this as workers deserve to be paid living wages. However, I have some questions today about the long-term sustainability of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) in the context of our overall economy and what MOF's view is, given the Ministry's role in managing Singapore's fiscal policies prudently. Since the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) was started in 2013 as a temporary three-year measure to support PWM, it has been repeatedly extended and expanded. This has now evolved into PWCS with an allocation of $9 billion from 2022 to 2026, to this temporary measure first introduced 12 years ago. The original WCS co-funding of 40% was supposed to end by 2017, but was instead extended multiple times. Similarly, PWCS co-funding increased from plan levels of 30% to 50% to 45% to 75% in 2022 to 2023. In 2024, instead of decreasing to 15% to 30%, it was raised to 30% to 50%. I am concerned about the ongoing extension of what was presented as temporary support. In its Budget 2025 wish list, the Singapore National Employers Federation asked that the co-funding of wage increases continue beyond 2026, suggesting a growing dependency on these subsidies. How did our economy get to the point where our businesses rely so on such wage support? This goes beyond labour policy and I hope for more clarity on how MOF intends to structure an exit plan with firm targets that takes into account a whole-of-economy approach. A clear exit plan from PWCS has to also take into consideration the overall structure of economy, projections of where we are headed and contain the right ingredients to allow businesses and our overall fiscal structure to remain sustainable in the long run.”
“First, Singapore is currently focused on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) machines, which rely on many short, error-prone runs and statistical processing of noisy outputs. Yet, the industry is moving toward fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC), as illustrated by Google's December 2024 Willow chip demonstrating exponentially decreasing errors as qubits increase and Microsoft's 2025 Majorana 1 processor aiming for a million qubits on one chip. Such breakthroughs could revolutionise physical sciences. Are there plans to pivot or also pursue FTQC? Second, under the photonics and control electronics vertical of the National Quantum Processor Initiative (NQPI), how does the National Quantum Office plan to develop auxiliary industries, namely controls, readout and hardware-based error correction, to support next-generation quantum processors? Third, NQPI's science verticals focus on trapped ions and neutral atom arrays. Could the Minister clarify why superconducting qubits promising synergies with our semiconductor industry's cleanroom fabrication processes were excluded? Fourth, QKD has been strongly promoted by the Government and Temasek. However, QKD requires specialised, expensive hardware, whereas post-quantum cryptography (PQC) needs only software updates. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recently finalised post-quantum standards, which function like current public-key encryption and are expected to be adopted universally. In this light, what is the view over our continued significant investments in QKD? Does the Government foresee regional QKD networks, possibly via low Earth orbit satellites and how would such efforts compare against simpler, cheaper PQC solutions?”
“A possible pilot would be to create open problem platforms with prizes, like global cryptography or single-cell biology competitions. After all, the essence of science is uncertainty and real breakthroughs rarely proceed linearly. Our system has to accommodate exploration and dead ends and to allow impossible experiments. I also hope that we could consider two further measures in Singapore: allowing principal investigators (PI) to use PhD students for high-risk projects and permitting PIs to use a proportion of grant funds towards exploratory work. The aim here would be to stimulate original ideas rather than confining researchers to incremental pursuits. Meanwhile, the 2024 Frontier Competitive Research Programme grant call announced in May 2024 focuses on use-inspired basic research. Could the Minister clarify how substantial the commitment is, which projects have secured support and how is this publicised to all scientists? Is this a sustained initiative or a one-off call? To be a truly world-leading R&D research hub, Singapore has to invest in exploration that may time to bear fruit or even fail. I hope that the ideas above will contribute to policies that reflect the thinking necessary for Singapore to sustain our competitive edge in an uncertain global innovation race. Quantum Computing Quantum computing promises exponential improvements in simulating physical systems and solving complex problems faster than classical computers. Last year, Singapore made available nearly $400 million to quantum research, with MAS promoting quantum key distribution (QKD) for the banking sector. I seek greater clarity on our quantum roadmap.”
“Madam, Singapore's research and development (R&D) landscape has a reputation for efficiency and the announcements in this year's Budget undoubtedly add to our strengths in physical infrastructure. However, there is room to nurture truly visionary scientific research backed by the idea that detours and exploratory science can yield the most disruptive impact with a longer horizon. Some might ask, why invest in exploratory research given our resource restraints? The goal is not to supplant applied research but to increase our offerings to create a fertile ground to encourage potential breakthroughs that may only emerge years after. In this vein, Switzerland's Spark scheme offers lessons. The scheme explicitly minimises bureaucracy and encourages high-risk, unconventional ideas comprising four main points. First, focus on novelty and originality. It welcomes proposals that challenge existing norms or lacks extensive data and expressly accepts projects that traditional schemes may deem too speculative. Second, rapid and flexible funding. Grants of ₣50,000 to ₣100,000 are given over a six- to 12-month timespan to allow room to fail fast and pivot quickly. Third, double-blind proposal evaluation where applicants and evaluators remain anonymous, guarding against bias that may result from individual or institutional prestige overshadowing each proposal's intrinsic merits. Fourth, tolerance for negative results. In Spark's eyes, even projects that fail can may mined for valuable insights, noting the explorations are essential even when outcomes are unclear. In Singapore's context, adopting a Spark-like model means carving out a dedicated stream for high-risk, early-stage exploration where high-risk research is explicitly insulated from more traditional performance measures.”
“Sir, I just have a couple of clarifications in relation to the initiative of SBF, in terms of the consumption-based emissions initiative. First, I would like the Senior Minister to clarify about whether there are any further details about timeline, for when this will be up and running. I know that it has been launched, but also the details of when we are going to onboard various industries. Second, whether the Senior Minister can give a bit more details about which sectors will be prioritised for this. For the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism that I highlighted earlier, they target carbon intensive sectors, such as electricity, steel, cement and so on. So, I am just wondering whether we have a similar approach.”
“5°C warming, in accordance with the Paris Agreement. If we are to use the term "green growth", it must be warranted. Not only do we as a country need to reduce the resource footprint per unit of GDP, we need to continuously reduce our resource footprint altogether and this includes not simply exporting pollution to other countries we trade with. Carbon Emissions Regulations for Artificial Intelligence (AI)”
“Sir, when we refer to the circular economy in terms of our reduce, reuse and recycle targets, our concern typically comes from when is the day that Pulau Semakau is no longer able to take any more refuse. But I would like to ask the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) coordinating the whole-of-Government response about interaction between our circular economy outcomes, plans and targets with our national climate change targets. First, I understand that products not made in Singapore, like agricultural imports, electronic imports, car imports and so on, are not counted under our carbon budget and, as such, are not covered under our nationally determined contribution (NDC). Does the Government have any mechanism to track this outsourced carbon? Is reducing these emissions covered under any Government strategy, like the Zero-waste Masterplan? From reading our NDC, it seems that the Government is working to calculate some degree of carbon abatement via recycling, but does this reflect that we track our outsourced carbon? The built environment sector analyses and aims to reduce such carbon in the embodied carbon calculations, which are key to determining the greenness of a green building. Are other carbon intensive sectors, like marine and manufacturing, subject to such scrutiny? The European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism broadly targets goods and precursors that seem to be carbon-intensive and prone to carbon leakage. While I am not advocating for such a tariff, are we doing the analysis? In view of this, I hope that we can fundamentally change our whole-of-Government key performance indicators (KPIs) to shift the focus from gross domestic product (GDP) growth to development KPIs, which include the compatibility of our country, where 1.”
“Yet, our climate adaptation and mitigation schemes are key parts of our development journey and should form a key part of our scorecards, and will assist in ensuring our agencies are laser-focused on the intended impacts of various programmes. One example is the expansion of the Climate Voucher Scheme announced last week. While occupants of private residents may rejoice, how much carbon mitigation are we actually achieving through these vouchers? How do we guard against these vouchers inducing demand for household appliances, what items are replaced before they reach the end of life? Additionally, what is the rationale for allowing two-tick LED lights to be a purchase? Now that we have a decent set of data since the scheme was launched, what does the analysis of this data reveal about the carbon emissions impact of the scheme? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is benefit to developing a dashboard with economic and social measures that is published along the Budget each year. It is not the first time that we have heard sentiments that there is more to measuring our progress as a nation than GDP. And I believe that there are many untold strengths and area of abundance that remain yet untapped in us. Having the dashboard would be a channel through which we can promote a paradigm shift to meaningfully move to look at Singapore's assets and situation from a mindset of strength and abundance, not fear and scarcity, and this will stand us in good stead as we look to the next lap.”
“We already track many data points, such as school absenteeism rates with some breakdowns like housing type, but data on a centralised dashboad can help the public note how investments and changes we make to our education, health and social sectors have benefited our children. Iceland's 2024 youth study offers one approach. The study was a comprehensive and holistic effort to collect and analyse data on the welfare, health and attitudes of children and young people in Iceland. In order to support evidence-based policymaking, topics included mental health and well-being, social connections and activities, digital safety and social media usage, family support, school environment and physical health. This is off the back of the Prosperity Act enacted in 2022, with coordinators assigned to support families from pregnancy onwards. A key component of this initiative is to develop a dashboard to offer an overview of children's health and well-being, with data publicly available, thus promoting transparency and enabling researchers, policymakers and the general public to engage with that information. Here in Singapore, there is no reason for us not to do something similar, especially as we start to gain data and insight from the recently launched Grow Well SG programme. On sustainability, our schemes have to address the huge challenges facing us in the form of the climate crisis, and measures should be assessed on their impact. As I noted in 2022, many climate measures are not reflected in GDP. Planting a tree, for example, does not change anything.”
“This is especially so as different countries have different cultural and historical contexts, which also influence the issue. To make data more comparable, the UK government is working on a loneliness harmonised standard. In Singapore, we also know that the Ministry of Health, too, has been working to combat social isolation, known to be a risk factor for ill, physical and mental health. Yet, further study is necessary to understand how this problem presents itself. For example, 2021 data from the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, showed that it is actually seniors who live with family members who are the most socially disconnected, contrary to popular belief. This illustrates why regular data collection and publication are needed. Finally, applying our developmental dashboard to our future. Two key areas that spring to mind would be how we invest in and support our children and how we are doing in our response to the climate crisis and long-term sustainability goals. For children, delivery on different elements of children's development increasingly cuts across various Ministries and agencies. While education is key, it is not the only measurement of how well we are doing with our younger generation. Apart from doing well in education league tables, how well are we preparing our next generation for their future jobs and careers, which require more creativity and challenging of the status quo? How well are our children eating, sleeping and are they getting the opportunity to enjoy their childhoods, rather than stressed about the next milestone examination in their way?”
“Yet, such participation is usually only possible where individuals feel that they have the room to do so and are not constantly worrying about daily stresses, financial or otherwise. Scores of societal participation over time can thus also give us valuable insights into how well we are doing as a society, socially and somewhat indirectly, economically. We have to acknowledge that we are currently facing a mental health crisis. Yet, mental health is a direct indicator of social development affecting participation in society and well-being as a whole. Ill mental health also ends up costing economies in the long run, both in terms of the provision of treatment and support, but also lost productivity. Thus, beyond the mental health strategies released in late 2023, we should be developing meaningful targets that are indicators of what we want for mental health. And as I pointed out previously, mental health is not just the absence of mental ill health, but also the presence of factors and conditions that encourage thriving, and our indicators should also reflect measures of positive mental health. While various organisations and entities, such as Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), conduct occasional surveys on mental health, we can benefit from a more consistent and consolidated data, standardisation of questions and commitment to annual measures, with results to form part of our dashboard. We can take reference from what is already being done in other countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness found that while actual initiatives to combat loneliness are necessary, also important are reporting requirements and a clear programme to develop evidence over what works.”
“Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan commented recently that there is an irony in large amounts being doled out each year, and that it confirms a popular perception that Singapore is too expensive to live in. Academics Linda Low and Pang Eng Fong, in Monday's op-ed in the Straits Times, go even further. They worried about whether such policies will foster an entitlement culture and entrench a rentier society. The idea that a large proportion of our population now relies on vouchers to mitigate everyday spending, significantly undercuts many decades of the Government telling us that Singapore is not a welfare state. What impact do these schemes have on how we see ourselves as a nation? Does it continue to encourage seeing our country through a lens of scarcity, resulting in Singaporeans being afraid to take risks in their careers to found potentially groundbreaking enterprises, because they do not know whether the vouchers and schemes will continue next year. Next, I hope that we can apply the dashboard to measure how engaged our residents are in society. Humans are social creatures and it has been demonstrated that participation in society and high-quality connexions are essential ingredients for individuals and societies to thrive. Aside from the findings of the Singapore 2022 Quality of Life survey that citizens that feel they have a duty to vote and have power at the ballot box, have higher levels of well-being. Studies have also found positive correlations between participation in society and improved governance, greater social cohesion and greater capacity building and learning. On the individual level, it is also well-documented that there are physical and mental health benefits to participating in society.”
“This is why many would tell you that they do not feel like they have done well. Another reason is that our measures of wealth inequality are still struggling. The UBS Wealth Report published in July last year, shows that our Gini measure on wealth inequality rose by 22.9% since 2008 and has now overtaken economies, such as Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Korea. Wealth matters because people are now living longer and care costs are expected to increase and this gives rise to a feeling that depending on employment income alone will not suffice, particularly in our golden years. The dashboard we propose should thus have measures of both economic and social inequality, because both are intertwined. Social inequality is clearly linked to both income and wealth inequality and, having consistent measurements, such as those used by sociologists, allows us to get more familiar with how well we are doing in this area. It is why I spoke about the dangers associated with the perception of elitism and lack of social mobility, in my maiden speech. And I believe the same concerns still apply today. Time and again, whether during our Sengkang conversations, town hall sessions or regular engagement with residents, we are told of parents and grandparents' worry for the next generation of whether their children and grandchildren will be able to keep up with what feels like an increasing rat race and pressure cooker society. This is especially so if you consider the increasing number of vouchers and assistance schemes that we have today in Singapore. While nobody will fault support being given in challenging times with ever rising costs of living, we have to be careful about the inadvertent impact that these vouchers may have on our social fabric.”
“Development then, would be our measure of how we can achieve our social goals while remaining an attractive place to do business and to also know at what point we start to see negative trends creeping in due to economic and social policy shifts. To develop these social measures for our dashboard, we can make use of a mechanism similar to citizens' assemblies, which I spoke about in last year's Budget. These would comprise groups of citizens randomly selected from, but representative of the population, to learn about, analyse and make recommendations on this topic in the form of a report, which the Government would have to publicly respond to. They may be supported by advice from experts, but it is up to them to carefully deliberate and propose which measures to include. While the Government will ultimately be the final arbiter in whether or not to adopt the proposed measures for the scorecard, the process has the added benefit of being transparent and democratic and provides a formal avenue by which the wisdom of crowds can be used to inform policymaking. The Government also would have to defend their position where they disagree with the recommendations made, contrasted to the one-way format of the consultative processes we are more used to. Mr Speaker, I am not saying that the Government does not pay attention to social outcomes when devising this Budget. SingStat's data does show that the Gini coefficient of employment income per household member in 2024 was at the lowest since records began in 2000. But I believe that if we ask the man in the street if they feel better off, the picture might not be so rosy. One possible explanation is that the highest and lowest quintile of income earners have seen real wages increase, but the large middle section not so much.”
“Aside from my calls to use the dashboard to measure how well Singapore is doing in terms of poverty reduction, social mobility and wealth distribution, the dashboard should also be used when developing and announcing the Budget package each year. It would thus be used to spell out not just the economic, but also social elements of spending, with clear descriptions of how specific spending allocations are designed to lead to positive social outcomes. The dashboard and its targets should be developed together with the public, especially as we already have attempts made to get a wider segment of Singaporeans to share their perspectives on development in exercises, like the recent Forward SG. The next step would be to formalise this, so that we can collect qualitative and quantitative data from Singaporeans on what they would like our social KPIs to be and, crucially, to publish the results of these findings as part of our dashboard. These could include collecting and publishing data, such as time-use studies for informal carers, a call I made in my maiden speech, how fulfilled Singaporeans are with the career path they have chosen, or how easily they feel they are able to achieve their dreams and aspirations. Taken together, these measures can be compared alongside more traditional economic measures to help the public better understand the trade-offs necessary to maintain a balance between the measures of societal well-being, and economic and business demands. To be clear, it is not always an either-or scenario where economic progress comes at the cost of well-being, but neither is it the case that economic growth is the only way in which a community can flourish.”
“We identified early on in the term that our community possesses an abundance of strengths, such as kindness, love and justice, and thus crafted our event to make full use of these community strengths. Our residents turn up each year en masse to drop off gifts of essentials, such as oil, rice, noodles and cleaning items, which we collect and this benefits residents of Cheshire Home in Serangoon Gardens, and it is so special to see familiar faces every year and to hear the latest updates on their families and loved ones. Unless we be accused of politicking or electioneering, another example from our Sengkang community would be one of our condominiums, where residents were kind enough to share their experiences with me. The Management Corporation Strata Title operates on a tight budget and fully acknowledges this and works within their limitations. But instead of focusing on what they lacked, they have, over the years, fully harnessed their creativity and zest in ensuring that their compound is well-maintained and beautifully decorated with festive updates. These efforts range from taking the initiative to source for landscaping pieces from dissolving country clubs and, more recently, commissioning a snake sculpture from a dragon dance manufacturer in China, ensuring a cost-effective, but beautiful way of getting the grounds ready for Chinese New Year. To bring about a social budget, we should revisit the idea of a developmental budget dashboard that I first brought up during Budget 2022. To reiterate, this dashboard would measure how well we are doing as a society and economy, and give a good account of our human, social and natural assets.”
“I first raised the potential of a strength-based approach during last year's Motion on mental health and repeat the call that we can apply this to our society at large. There is abundant research on individual flourishing that shows that we should work on our strengths, rather than just focusing on improving our weaknesses and that this approach predicts higher levels of resilience. It is also positively correlated to well-accepted resilience-related factors, like positive effect, self-efficacy and life satisfaction. Additionally, Barbara Fredrickson's Broaden-and-Build model shows that a positive emotion in individuals put them in pole position to explore new avenues of growth, building skills and resources, and it increases coping and survival. This theory has been applied to the work context to generate good outcomes and there is no reason to suppose that societies, too, cannot benefit. Contrast this to theories of scarcity, where perceptions of, or coming from a place of scarcity, may end up leading us to react more strongly to situations and events, or increase competition to unhealthy levels. I, therefore, believe that on a societal level, we should approach our policies from a position of strength, not scarcity. What do I mean by this? Here are some real-life examples. Like all constituencies, WP-held divisions organise events for residents throughout the year, and we have to do so with no access to taxpayer funds through the People's Association, or even venues like community centres. Instead of sitting around bemoaning about how unfair this all is, our teams forge ahead with planning community events to be held in spaces that still welcome us, such as void decks and multipurpose halls. In Buangkok, our Christmas event takes this a step further.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, like every Budget in recent years, this year's Budget has a long title underlining our country looking to a better future. As the volume over the General Elections builds, many expect that the spending taps will be turned on during this year's Budget, and we have certainly seen generous schemes and various vouchers announced across the board, paid for by higher-than-expected corporate tax revenues. We see the introduction of, for example, the $100 SG Culture Pass, $100 ActiveSG credits, including private property into the Climate Vouchers scheme, hawker centre stall rental rebates, and even LifeSG credits for children under 18. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] We do not object to these schemes as improving access to arts and cultural activities is something that we have advocated, particularly given rising ticket prices, and also easing the financial impact that raising children has on families in today's ultra-competitive society, but we can and we must improve, by ensuring that we have a Budget that is more targeted towards today's social outcomes, and to have a clearer and more significant investment in the social outcomes of tomorrow. By social outcomes, I mean the impact of our policies, especially our economic policies, on our societal well-being. Our people are not economic digits. GDP growth should not be the goal. Instead, we have to realign our goals to make sure that our country is a flourishing society on a liveable, healthy planet, and to ensure that we leave behind the foundation for our children and grandchildren to thrive, and also to improve our resilience to take us there, we have to come from a position of strength and abundance, not fear and scarcity.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you to the Minister for the reply. I just have one further supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in his reply that trained nurses and lifestyle coaches will primarily be the ones carrying out the interaction and implementation of the personalised plan for children. I believe the Minister also further mentioned that they will not be recruiting any new personnel in order to carry this out. My question is, given that lifestyle coaches and nurses are in the traditional areas where there might be a bit of a manpower crunch or where personnel and staff members could be under quite heavy workload, I would just like to know whether the Minister can share further details of how they plan to add to the workload, if I can use this phrase, or how to make sure that the personnel who would be taking on these additional roles will not be unduly stressed by the additional workload in carrying out this new plan.”
“Most of all, it involves addressing the targeted needs of each stakeholder, in order to build a food system that champions local, boosts demand for local, while ensuring that vulnerable low-income households can also benefit from having affordable access to fresh and healthy local produce.”
“Under this kind of arrangement, a direct relationship is formed between consumers and farmers, where consumers subscribe to the harvest of a farm or collective of farms, and receive portions of the farms' harvest on a regular basis. Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children and schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering and schools with a CSA type arrangement with local farms in a bid to boost the consumption of local produce? Additionally, food and nutrition are intrinsically linked to public health, and every human being should have a right to access healthy and fresh food or produce that is not cost prohibitive. This is especially so given the increasing awareness and research about the severe health risks associated with the consumption of ultra processed foods. Overall, rising cost and the cost premium of fresh local produce are standing in the way, hitting low-income households the hardest. How can we tackle existing food insecurity and ensure more equitable access to fresh, healthy food for all? This calls for new intervention models and multi-sector collaboration for food support between the Government, non-profit and private sector, and we have every reason for local produce to form the pillar of such models. To conclude, what does it mean to champion local? It means pushing a holistic resilience frame. It means we must be prepared to challenge prevailing strategies, approaches and tools at our disposal. It means for us to look to a cooperative mindset as a collective whole. It means that we start from a young age and ensure that our young ones understand both the challenges and benefits of eating local, particularly in a world facing a climate emergency.”
“The tiered Farm to Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP) recognises businesses that produce at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories, or the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and catering sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand. How can the qualifying criteria for the programme be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into local costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments? Just like in any industry, local farms operate in an individualistic competitive environment, facing both local and foreign competition. While there are benefits in having a free and open market, the issue of strengthening food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interest in the long term. Can we explore cooperative structures for local farmers in order to mitigate key challenges, especially in the key cost buckets of energy, manpower and rent? To be sure, Singapore is not the only urban centre facing the challenge of encouraging eating local, especially where there are budgetary constraints. More specifically, while there have been tentative steps in starting community supported agriculture in Singapore, it would be remiss of us not to learn from where this has worked and the potential pitfalls experienced by other countries in this model of farming.”
“If we are serious about achieving our 30 by 30 goal and more, should we also not critically evaluate the 1% of land allocated for agricultural land use in Singapore against other competing land use needs? Moving to consumers. SFA aims to raise awareness on food security issues and rally support for local produce by encouraging consumers to make environmentally sustainable food choices. This is especially given how food systems account for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions and food miles account for 19% of those emissions. The Minister herself echoed this narrative by calling on Singaporeans in April 2023 to support local, even if it costs more than imported produce. Yet, a survey conducted by UGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in 10 Singaporeans said that they would likely switch to buying local if prices were lower than imported produce. The average price premium of local produce stands at approximately 30% to 83%. While there are undoubtedly factors that may prompt Singaporeans to support locals, such as safety and freshness, it appears that cost remains a barrier. Rallying and nudging Singaporeans to support local will not be sufficient in itself if we were to spur demand on a long-term sustainable basis. How then can we build the right demand conditions to allow our agri-food sector to thrive? Greater subsidies for local farms, and/or the imposition of import taxes could help, but if we want to achieve our food security goal, we have to sustainably tackle the issue of cost. In light of this, I have some questions on the topic of cost premiums associated with local produce.”
“Additionally, the Bill contains provisions relating to an MSR to secure our own supply of food sources, which is important, given the rise in protectionist sentiments globally. However, this mechanism can be more robust. Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions that allow the Minister to specify that a food is an MSR product through subsequent legislation regulations and thus, means that under clause 20, an entity subject to the MSR provisions must hold minimum stocks either on a daily or on average over a period of time, which will be communicated to the MSR entity through a trigger notice under clause 23. Clauses 28 to 31 further describe the obligations that MSR entities are under and the penalties that they are subject to should they fail to adhere to the directives given to them by the DG (FS). There is thus concern amongst food producers and other players about which foods will fall under the MSR framework, and that this will add to additional compliance and other costs, particularly for SMEs or startups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short to medium term about what foods will likely be considered as MSR products? Additionally, what assistance, be they financial subsidies, shared infrastructure will be made available to support any additional costs associated with being subject to the MSR regime? Additionally, we understand that the previous rice stockpile scheme will come under this MSR. But beyond rice, should we consider an MSR for seed storage, given how prone seeds are to supply chain disruptions, and as a lifeblood for each harvest.”
“We need to champion local. It means listening to the needs of all players across the agri-food value chain, to introduce policies that actively address these needs, while being a part of a holistic strategy built upon strengthening food resilience, and not just leave it to the vagaries of consumer sentiment to bring about genuine change. It also means recognising and harnessing strengths of our local produce, championing them and not merely seeing local produce as a charity course to be supported. In this vein, two main groups I would like to speak on are: first, food producers or farmers; and second, consumers. For food producers, current strategies revolve around helping farms grow more with less. Policy examples include the unlocking of land and sea space, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund for high tech productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and research and development. However, this means that we might sometimes lose sight of the unviable economics that most farms in Singapore currently face. Energy, manpower and rent are the largest cost contributors to the operation of urban farms in Singapore. High tech farming systems and controlled environment agriculture approaches are capital and energy intensive, while energy price volatility and looming increases in carbon taxes further exacerbates high operating cost concerns. We need policies based on first principles in order to mitigate the large cost buckets for operating a farm. How can we streamline administrative hurdles in order for farmers to, for example, tap into renewable energy options such as solar panel installations.”
“Our high dependence on a small handful of countries for a high proportion of food imports is a sensitivity factor and the financial ability of households is a measure of adaptive capacity. A holistic, resilient building frame entails the need to recognise the interplay between these three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Such an overarching frame for resilience will guide the top level objectives that we should be setting, for example, our thirty by thirty goal, and to foster the right holistic ecosystem to enable our agri food sector to thrive across the entire value chain. This means from subsidising, financing, design and conceptualising the farms to the streamlining of multi-agency red tape, and local food affordability and access. Expanding this frame would ensure we always think beyond diversifying import sources and local production. SFA's vision is safe food for all and its mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food. SFA's mandate is therefore centred around the themes of food safety and security. If SFA is responsible for our 30 by 30 goal, we should thus refresh and add to this mandate to reflect a frame of resilience. An aligned mandate will enable SFA to effectively oversee the implementation of holistic policies that complement its role as an accountable body for Singapore's overall food resilience. We are also now seeing the complex dynamics of multiple dimensions, such as climate change and public health, being interconnected with food resilience. This is already evident in some of the objectives of the Bill, which includes safeguarding against potential supply disruptions and enabling MOH to promote public health through better diet and nutrition. It is time that we do more than merely to support local.”
“Lastly, in food abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households are estimated to remain food insecure, primarily due to financial constraints, according to the Hunger Report in 2020, published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation supported by the Food Bank Singapore. Our starting point should thus be the concept of resilience, especially in the context of food. According to the SFA, in a 2022 food statistics report, we import 90% of our food and 40% of our water, while our local agri-food sector only produces 29% of eggs, 8% of vegetables and 4% of seafood, far from meeting local demand. We are therefore far from being said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA strategy to diversify food import sources, encouraging consumers to support local and boost local food production. However, are our efforts tackling the sources of food sufficient to enable us to achieve food resilience? According to a 2020 paper on the resilience of local food systems and the links to food security published in the Food Security Journal, I quote: "Resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not negatively their well-being and/or functioning." The framing of resilience in this context is therefore broader and more holistic than simply addressing food security. It is understanding three dimensions: first, exposure, that is, how much of our communities are exposed to externalities or risks; second, sensitivity, how much harm would it cause; and third, adaptive capacity. The ability of our communities to mitigate the harmful effects. For example, a pandemic is an exposure risk.”
“Mr Speaker, the Food Safety and Security Bill is a refresh of our food-related legislation with a strong focus on strengthening food safety regimes and installing safeguards for food security and the Workers' Party supports its implementation. Part 2 of the Bill is titled Strengthening Resilience of Food Supplies in Singapore. I would thus like to focus on our food resilience and how we can build an environment that enables a thriving local agri-food ecosystem as a co-pillar of this. My speech today will cover two areas: one, resilience farming; and two, moving from support local to champion local. Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we set a goal for local food production. SFA is overseeing these efforts, from the Lim Chu Kang Master Plan for the High Tech Agri Food sector to the Agri Food Cluster Transformation Fund and the Singapore Agri Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses. However, we still face many headwinds. The number of countries that we import food from grew from 172 to 180 between 2019 and 2021, yet as diversified as our food sources are, according to a World Bank dataset, we remain dependent on a small handful, just five countries, for approximately 60% of our food in 2022. This number has gone up slightly from around 57% in 2019. We have seen local vegetable and aquaculture farm closures due to unviable economics and the proportional of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the goal decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2%, and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetable and seafood, respectively, between 2019 and 2023.”
“I understand that there was some confusion among some parents about how to go about appealing and when to expect results. So, I think there was some confusion on the ground from what I understand. So, whether the Ministry could actually provide some guidance and support for parents who find themselves and their children in this situation. And finally, my third supplementary question relates to affiliation benefits. There is some sentiment on the ground that there might be some differences in affiliation benefits and the effect that it has under the current system. I was just wondering whether the MOE is monitoring that, whether there have been any differences found, whether affiliation benefits actually apply more to this new system compared with the last system, and whether there are any tweaks to the system required in order to find out what effect of the affiliation benefits are.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have three supplementary questions on this. The first relates to guidance given to parents over choices as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier, because of the larger cohort this year, there were some fluctuations that were experienced in the COPs. Parents have given us feedback that there were some difficulties in choosing the schools that their children might have been eligible for. My question would be, would there be any extra guidance given to parents, given that this is obviously quite a stressful period for them trying to figure out which schools, which choices to make for their children, especially given that this is still a relatively new system that everyone is not quite so familiar with. So, firstly, whether any further guidance is going to be given to parents in terms of choosing. On the point about COPs, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm how many schools actually had reduced COPs compared with the 2023 cohort? My second supplementary question relates to appeals. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is aware, every time when the school posting results come out, there are parents who wish to appeal. For this year, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm how many appeals were received in order to try and get their children into the schools of choice that they did not gain a posting for? How many appeals were made, how many were successful? And would the parents be given guidance in the future about, for example, if their children did not get any of the six choices, would they be given additional guidance or prompts whether an appeal is possible and also how to make an appeal?”
“I hope that we will address these gaps to consider future amendments that might strengthen protection for the groups left out and to ensure that reasonable accommodation are not relegated to a footnote. Only then can we confidently say that we have a Workplace Fairness Act that is both firm in principle and forceful in practice.”
“Factors, such as employer size, resources and potential operation impact must be taken into account and should also take into account existing subsidies or supportive programmes. In the meantime, the upcoming advisory should also be made as effective as possible with concrete plans for uptake, targeting companies and industries which are the least likely to be providing reasonable accommodations. That advisory must not just be preaching to the converted. The advisory should also have a basic definition of what a reasonable accommodation is, taking guidance from the UNCRPD that Singapore has ratified. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workplace Fairness Bill is a welcomed move. It demonstrates that we, as a society, are prepared to take a stronger stance against discrimination. But the Bill excludes significant scenarios of non-workplace discrimination, offers narrow definition of discrimination that leave out indirect and associational forms and leaves entire groups, such as platform workers, migrant domestic workers and people with certain disabilities without clear legislative protection. Crucially, we risk creating a law that the public might view as tokenistic rather than genuinely transformative. And if people lose faith that this legislation can protect them, a deeper disillusionment sets in where they feel that systemic inequalities cannot be solved. Any subpar results may ironically confirm the Government's prior argument that legislation might be only formed. So, we must ensure it has real substance. We must ensure that the laws are truly robust, that they address real-world discrimination comprehensively and that the Government remains open to future expansions of its scope.”
“Will the Government commit to a timeline to recognising the denial of reasonable accommodations as a prohibited form of discrimination under the Workplace Fairness Act within the next five years? As a matter of international law, does the Government consider Singapore to be compliant with our obligations under the CRPD if we do not legally recognise a right to reasonable accommodations? If so, how does it reconcile its position with the views on the UNCRPD to the contrary? As the Government has resisted the call to legislate reasonable accommodations for now, how then does it propose to explore how reasonable accommodations can be mandated and not just through an advisory which can be ignored? Could this mean developing policy mechanisms with a carrot-and-stick approach for employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as outlined below? Employers should be convinced about the value of having a genuine interactive process upon receiving any request for accommodation, something which has already been introduced in December 2024, with the flexi-work arrangements (FWAs). Like FWA request, this will entail timely acknowledgement of employer requests and good faith aspiration of workable solutions. When a request is deemed impractical, an employer should be required to provide written explanations of proposed alternatives. Such a mutual dialogue builds trust, helps mitigate disputes and ensures that both parties collaborate to arrive at sensible balanced arrangements. Establishing what is undue hardship for employers will also be helpful in guiding employers as to when a requested accommodation becomes unworkable.”
“Reasonable accommodations are necessary, appropriate and practical adjustments made to a job to make it fairer and more accessible to people with disabilities (PwDs), with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) definition, highlighting that the point is to ensure they can exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others. Singapore is a party to the CRPD, where states recognise the need to protect the provision of reasonable accommodations, and said they would take all appropriate steps to ensure their provision. The Minister mentioned that tripartite partners are working on advisory on the provision of reasonable accommodations for PwDs, and as of May 2024, the Government's view is that the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes reasonable accommodations could result in heavy litigation, citing what has happened in some other countries. But disability advocates have highlighted that reasonable accommodations are by far their number one hurdle when it comes to employment. They are essential to PwDs participating in the workforce. Given the Government's own target to increase the employment rate of PwDs to 40% by 2030, I believe that this is a key policy lever to ensure that PwDs have a fair chance in joining the workforce and thriving at work. Three main questions arise from this. Considering that the Government has tabled the Workplace Fairness Bill today and acknowledge the lack of teeth of tough-help guidelines, what recourse can PwDs expect if their employers fail or refuse to comply with the tripartite advisory when these come into play?”
“Even if we are not to include these characteristics in the legislation, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister about how the Ministry plans to address such types of discrimination experienced by fellow Singaporeans, particularly, as it is not currently explicitly covered by TAFEP guidelines. Fourthly, I would like the Government to clarify why they and the Tripartite Committee excluded large classes of workers from coverage under the Bill. Under the proposed section 4(3), platform workers are explicitly excluded from the protections from discrimination. Foreign domestic workers also appear to not be covered because domestic workers are not covered by the Employment Act. Mr Speaker, these clarifications on exclusions are important because this Bill took three and a half years of development and many consultations with employers. It is also not a novel point of law, with many developed jurisdictions and international law to take reference from. Therefore, these decisions must have been deliberate, and the Government should be open with why they were taken. I am not casting aspersions, but I hope that we can have better clarity and understanding of the thought process and timing behind how the Government intends to ensure that these groups too, are eventually afforded legal protections against discriminatory behaviour. Finally, I would like to speak on the need for reasonable accommodations, which are not covered by the Bill.”
“I based this on SG Enable's definition of intellectual disability as mainly established by a person having an intelligence quotient of 70 and below, or a feature of medical conditions, like Down syndrome, which is quite different from learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, which the Dyslexia Association of Singapore estimates to affect around 10 percent of the population in Singapore. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are also explicitly excluded in the Bill, which seems at odds with the Minister for Home Affairs' statements that gay people deserve dignity, respect, acceptance and do not deserve to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation during his opening speech in 2022, when this House debated the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and attendant amendments to the Constitution. This is notable as researchers as at organisations, such as National University of Singapore's Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have found that more than half of LGBTQ persons have experienced discrimination at the workplace and that levels are generally higher than those who do not identify as LGBTQ. This concern about employment has also been raised by LGBTQ individuals to party colleagues, previously sharing that they have experienced discrimination from employers who declined to hire them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This is disturbing, as we should aim to harness the contributions of all Singaporeans.”
“Another example of indirect discrimination in a disability context is a requirement for candidates to participate in a phone interview for a data entry role. This requirement disproportionately affects deaf and mute candidates who are not able to complete the phone interview satisfactorily and are disqualified as a result. Such cases are precisely why indirect discrimination is recognised and regulated in many developed jurisdictions, including the UK, the European Union (EU) and Australia. The principle is that if an apparently neutral criterion or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a group defined by race, religion, gender or other protected traits, the onus should be on the employer to demonstrate a genuine necessity for that criterion. Our Bill, however, remains silent on this front, which will permit covert biases to continue unaddressed. We should not under-estimate the significance of closing this gap. Those who rely on statutory protections are often the most vulnerable segments of our workforce – employees with disabilities, lower-income workers, older workers, women who juggle caregiving responsibilities and those who start with less advantage in working life. If we only address blatant overt acts of discrimination, we inadvertently leave behind these hidden or systemic patterns, which can be just as corrosive to social harmony and economic security. Next, several characteristics that are well-known sources of discrimination are also not covered by the Bill. For instance, those who have chronic medical conditions, like arthritis and regular migraines, are not covered. It also appears that the Bill's coverage of intellectual disabilities appears to indicate that learning disabilities are not included.”
“Workers are often only able to cite anecdotes about foreign HR managers being biased towards candidates or colleagues from their own country, while statistics showing larger than proportionate representation from some countries can be brushed off as coincidence. Another concern that has been raised is the use of National Service Physical Employment Standard (PES) status to potentially discriminate against male candidates with non-visible disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities or neurodivergent conditions. While the Tripartite Guidelines do mention that employers should not suggest preference based on National Service liabilities, it is unclear whether they can ask about PES status. PES status can, after all, be used as a blunt tool to assess if the job applicant may have a medical condition or neurodivergent condition. Again, indirect discrimination is prohibited in several other developed jurisdictions like the UK, and indeed, their Equality Act was considered in the Tripartite Committee's review. Are such claims really that complex to introduce legislation for? And if prohibiting indirect discrimination is meant to be left covered by TAFEP guidelines, when will these guidelines be made available? After all, our society appreciates that indirect discrimination is unacceptable. For example, there was a significant public outcry after a hijab wearing Muslim worker was asked to remove her hijab in order to work as a promoter at a departmental store just a few years ago. This is a classic example of indirect discrimination, where a neutral policy about uniform and appropriate dress disproportionately affects certain groups, in this case, Muslim women.”
“The second part of the speech will cover what I believe to be a clear and major gap in the Bill – discrimination via denial of reasonable accommodations. On non-workplace discrimination, I understand that this may feel novel in the Singapore context, but are we simply taking a conservative approach to deciding and prioritising practicable applications of anti-discrimination legislation? Is the Government exploring whether it can legislate against significant and harmful discrimination in interactions that bear similar dynamics to employment, such as in the use of private and public services. For instance, the purchasing of goods and services on gig work platforms could be a scenario where discrimination takes place. Should landlords be allowed to discriminate against those from a certain racial background or a specific family size? The United Kingdom (UK) Equality Act specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of services in access to premises and education. And while of course we do not advocate the wholesale copying of such laws, nor do we claim that these other jurisdictions are utopias without their problems, it seems a missed opportunity for us to legislate to outlaw discriminatory practices more generally. Secondly, the Tripartite Committee deliberately excluded indirect discrimination in a move that would reduce legal obligations on employers and purportedly reduce uncertainty for both employers and employees. However, could the Minister clarify if the Government sees the lack of coverage of indirect discrimination as a problem and how would we effectively address what some might call nationality-based discrimination against Singaporean workers? For example, it is often a practical impossibility to prove such alleged nationality discrimination.”
“Mr Speaker, today's Workplace Fairness Bill is a long-awaited law that has clearly gone through many rounds of development since it was first announced in 2021, so I am happy we finally have it up for debate. The WP 2020 manifesto calls for explicit anti-discrimination legislation. This is because we felt that TAFEP guidelines and enforcement via restriction of access to work permits were not enough to stamp out discriminatory practices. Moreover, we believe that formal legislation would provide clarity for both employers and employees, and Singaporeans in general, because laws do not just provide mechanisms, but are also signals of our society's generally accepted moral intuitions. The PAP disagreed. Then-Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo said in September 2020, that it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups and asked if we might be more interested in form or substance. She further said that Singapore has better employment statistics for women and seniors than some other developed nations, and the threat of getting Work Pass privileges revoked was an extremely serious one. However, given the use of the term "fairness" in today's Bill, I am glad that the Government has come round to the view that signals and ethical stances are important in tackling discrimination in the workplace and above all, it is important to legislate to outlaw such practices as illegal. In my speech today, I would like to make some queries to understand why the Government decided to scope the legislation to: one, exclude discrimination outside the workplace; two, exclude indirect discrimination; three, exclude several other protected characteristics that the public has called for protections on; and four, exclude several categories of workers.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to address a couple of points in my supplementary questions. The first relates to vending machines. I refer to The Straits Times article that was published recently where they referred to some schools having to resort to using vending machines to provide meals for students. I would like to ask the Minister about the view of MOE about the desirability of using vending machines? And whether the Minister would agree that having to resort to vending machines is an indication that there should be concerns about the sustainability of the current model of providing food in schools? Secondly, I think I would like to press a little bit more on the nutritional value of food. Just to ask a supplementary question about whether MOE has any programme or plans to get input from professional nutritionists to better understand the needs of our students, particularly those from lower socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds, to make sure that food is tasty and culturally appropriate. After all, this is an opportunity to invest in the health of our future generations – both physical health and mental health.”
“Thank you, Sir. I am still a bit confused because, as I mentioned earlier, the deal is a pre-conditional offer. It is always subject to regulatory approval. Again, the shareholders can consider that. We have a nine-month-long stop-date. I do not really understand why the Minister is saying that, given that it is under consideration by the shareholders, we have to rush through. Because shareholders know that regulatory approvals take a certain amount of time and they know that all these are actually being debated and then the amendments are being proposed. I am not entirely sure that the two are necessarily connected.”
“I believe the Minister mentioned that there is some flexibility needed to allow the use of the surplus to achieve the mission. I just wanted the Minister to clarify that no conditions were imposed on the use of the surplus in that respect.”
“Thank you, Sir. I have two clarifications for the Minister-in-charge of MAS and one clarification for the Minister for MCCY. In relation to my clarification for the Minister-in-charge of MAS, I think the Minister mentioned twice that there was no formal application made by Allianz in relation to this proposed acquisition of the majority stake in Income. I just wanted to ask some clarification because in the proposed new section 33A of the Act, in subsection 9, it states, and I quoted this in my speech actually, "This section applies also to a relevant application received by the authority before the date of commencement of the Insurance Amendment Act 2024 that is still pending as of that date." Can the Minister clarify whether this refers to this transaction or another transaction? That is my first clarification. My second clarification relates to the points I made about why the urgency of this Bill, such that within three days, this needs to be passed, going through a Second and Third Reading. The question here is that the Minister mentioned earlier the reason why we are rushing through this Bill under a Certificate of Urgency is because this deal is under active consideration by shareholders. From my understanding of this, shareholders can vote however they want, they can consider however they want. But honestly, the offer is ultimately subject to regulatory approval and this is why it is called a pre-conditional offer on the offer document. I am just wondering, I also mentioned in my speech, given that the long-stop date is nine months from the date of announcement, why is there this rush to do this? That is my second clarification. My clarification for the Minister for MCCY is in relation to the exemption granted to the 2023 gazetted Exemption Order.”
“We can point to Allianz's offer document, which mentions that it would continue to honour Income's participation in national-level insurance programmes, continuing its charity commitments, providing low-cost schemes to union members, pledging $100 million over 10 years from 2021 to promote social mobility and support the well-being of seniors, are worthy moves to be sure. However, if we leave the question of what is its social mission unanswered, it risks presenting these specific and perhaps narrow matters as central, while missing the wider picture of how Income is fundamentally able to fulfil its social mission as an insurer. To conclude, WP supports the Government's blocking of the proposed acquisition in its current form on public interest grounds based on publicly available information, especially given the concerns that my colleagues and I had raised in this Chamber in August. Therefore, we will not be rejecting the Bill. However, we believe that the downsides to whether this Bill will be seen to be rushed and retrospective legislation-making, and this assault on legal and regulatory certainty that changing legislation in the middle of a major live transaction means that we would need to register our abstention on this Bill.”
“Did Income detail any new business lines or initiatives it planned to pursue, that would require significant capital thereby justifying the need to keep the surplus? Third, the link between surplus and social mission. Was there an understanding between MCCY and Income that retaining the S$2 billion surplus was tied to Income's commitment to its social mission? If so, could the Government provide more details on this agreement and how the surplus was intended to support that mission? Fourth, future restrictions on returning surplus to shareholders. Can the Government clarify if its position is that because of the circumstances under which Income was originally allowed to keep the surplus, the company is now restricted indefinitely from returning any part of that surplus to its shareholders? The philosophical question underlying these four specific questions is, what really is Income's social mission? During Monday's Ministerial Statement, the MCCY Minister also referred to a lack of assurance that Income would preserve its social mission post completion should Allianz become its majority shareholder. Could the Government elaborate on this and articulate again what it sees as Income's social mission now and going forward into the future? After all, the landscape has changed dramatically since its founding over 50 years ago in 1970. Specifically, would Income's social mission lie in the areas of life insurance policies, or whether other areas such as health insurance may be more important and the focus of a socially-oriented Income? It is important that this issue be viewed looking at the overall big picture.”
“How specifically does the Government hope to address concerns that future parties may have about the risk that their live transactions may suddenly find themselves blocked by urgent retrospective legislation being passed in the middle of a live transaction after an announcement is made in accordance with applicable listing rules and takeover codes and is just pending regulatory approvals? I would now like to turn to some questions arising from the proposed Allianz-Income transaction which provided impetus for this Bill. Some of the points will be matters that fall within the domain of MCCY, but I believe it is impossible to disentangle MCCY's role in this matter from MAS' role as the approving authority for the transaction. Indeed, the very purpose of the Bill is to enable MAS to consider the view of the MCCY Minister. First, from the MCCY Minister's Statement, it is evident that one important consideration behind the Government's decision to block the transaction as currently structured, was based on representations that Income made at the time of its corporatisation as to why it should be allowed to keep a substantial surplus of some S$2 billion. Would the Government therefore clarify four points about this? First, the retention of surplus due to legal form change. Given that Income was not being dissolved but merely changing its legal structure, would this fact alone have been sufficient for MCCY to grant Income's request to keep the surplus? Second, the justification provided by Income. If the above reason was not sufficient, what specific representations did Income make to MCCY that justified allowing it to retain the surplus?”
“These sections provide the MAS may approve an application to obtain effective control or become a substantial shareholder of a licensed insurance company if MAS is satisfied that: first, the applicant is a fit and proper person; and second, that having regard to the likely influence of the person, the licensed insurer concerned will or will continue to conduct its business prudently and comply with the provisions of this Act. The Act also does not say that MAS cannot take into account other factors relevant to its mission, which would include the overall health of Singapore's financial sector as a whole, for example, including the provision of insurance services to the public, and whether the people's interests in having access to affordable and reliable insurance policies and products are served. Additionally, I note that although Income is said to have a social mission, it is also clear that its mission is to provide insurance, which is most definitely a financial service. Thus, whether Income in whatever form it morphs into in the future conducts its financial services business in a manner that benefits the people of Singapore on the whole, is something that MAS can already take into account in considering whether to give approval under sections 26 and 27 of the existing Insurance Act. Therefore, I hope that the Government can address legitimate concerns raised about how this Bill and its passage may be perceived as harmful retrospective legislation and rushed as legislation, with its attendant negative impact on our reputation as a financial and corporate hub with certainty over laws and regulations.”