Lawrence Wong
Singapore
“Sir, we will provide more information. I see the value of getting Ministries to put out more information, to share more about how their resources are being used and what outcomes they have achieved.”
“Sir, I agree fully with Mr Azhar that human capacity, human capital is critical. In fact, I would say the long-term potential of Singapore, how far we go really depends on us being able to maximise our human potential. That is key and that is why we have long invested in education. And it is not just about the investments.”
“Sir, we have been maintaining that commitment of 1% for some time now. I do not think it is about saying that we just have to do more and spend more. As many have highlighted, we want to ensure good outcomes from our R&D spending as well. So, we will continue if the outcomes are good.”
“This has never been the case. Temasek, when it started, was always very clear about its mandate from the very beginning – commercial, not doing national service, focused on commercial outcomes.”
“Sir, the MOF economists when they look at fiscal projections use Government's forecast of the economy, which is also published. We would typically use the mid-point of the range and then, of course, because these are in nominal terms, you have to factor for that. And the projections are done on those basis.”
“Sir, I was relieved that Mr Loh said he only has one question, but he asked the most difficult question. To answer the question, we will continue to monitor cost of living across all segments of society.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,205 lines we hold for Lawrence Wong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 65.
“We will involve our partners not just in execution and implementation, but also in upstream planning and emergency preparedness. So, we will follow-up on all of these systematically, in order to strengthen our crisis management muscles – something that Ms Poh Li San and Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted in their speeches. I also agree with all Members that this work is of great urgency. Around the world, the risk of animal viruses spilling over to humans continues to rise – due to population growth, urbanisation and increasing proximity to animals. Climate change has exacerbated these problems by generating more habitat loss, forcing wildlife to migrate out of their usual patterns and come into contact with new species and more people. In other words, disease spillovers and outbreaks are inevitable. Just in the summer of 2021 alone, when we were all focusing on and grappling with COVID-19, the World Health Organization (WHO) received alerts on more than 5,000 new outbreaks around the world, few of which made global headlines, because most spillovers lead to smaller clusters of disease that quickly die out. But every now and again, we encounter a pathogen that becomes a pandemic, causing global chaos. The urgent global task, therefore, is to reduce the spillovers and, importantly, to prevent any such spillovers from turning into pandemics. This is where early detection is of utmost importance. That is why, there is a crucial need for an enhanced global surveillance system, especially in potential hotspots around the world. With early knowledge of the characteristics of the new pathogen, along with the dimensions that Minister Ong shared just now, if we know this before the virus reaches our shores, we will be able to buy precious time to decide on our posture and measures.”
“Members generally agreed with the broad thrusts of the White Paper and offered many useful suggestions to strengthen our capabilities and support frameworks. Clearly, there is much work to be done across all domains. In healthcare, we need to build up our primary care and hospital capacities, our vaccination capabilities, as well as our public health expertise – as several Members highlighted, including Mr Leon Perera, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Mark Chay, amongst others. In economic resilience, as Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat said, we need to invest in alternatives like local production, diversify our import sources and strengthen the robustness of our infrastructure and transport links. I would also like to assure Ms Janet Ang, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo, that we will continue to harness the strength of our tripartite model, our trade associations and industry partners in all of these efforts. We need to do more to improve public communications, including frontline crisis management communications, as suggested by Ms Jessica Tan and Ms He Ting Ru. We also need to do more to look out for and care for the more vulnerable amongst us, including our migrant workers; and to address mental wellness issues, especially for our youths; something which many Members, including Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Ng and Miss Rachel Ong all made reference to. We recognise that the Government cannot do all of this work alone. We will need to work more closely with the people and private sectors. We will go beyond the usual corporate and tripartite partners to involve other stakeholders, including community groups and NGOs.”
“There was therefore a need to pull together the findings from Mr Peter Ho's interim report and the agency AARs, as well as the lessons from our more recent experiences, into a consolidated report that would fully reflect all that had transpired over the last three years and provide a fuller synthesis of all our learnings. And that is why PMO – the Prime Minister's Office – was tasked to put together this consolidated report, which the Government decided to release as a White Paper. Some may ask, "if that is the case, why can't you release Mr Ho's findings and if it is deemed sensitive, why not have it redacted, with the non-sensitive portions released?" But that is precisely what we have done. Whatever is relevant and fit for release, we have incorporated into this White Paper. The White Paper is, in fact, more comprehensive than what Mr Ho's review has set out to cover, because it includes information from the agencies' AARs as well as learnings from our experience after August 2021. The White Paper will not be the final word on our COVID-19 response. I am sure academics and experts will continue to undertake more detailed studies, like the one mentioned by Mr Leon Perera on our H1N1 pandemic response. Incidentally, that study was done by MOH's public health officials. They decided to publish their findings in an academic journal. We welcome all academics and experts to do their own detailed assessments of our COVID-19 response and to put out their findings. They may have a different conclusion and view from the Government on specific issues, like wearing of masks, border measures or SMMs, and that is perfectly okay. In fact, we welcome the diverse perspectives, because this will help us challenge our own assumptions and learn and improve.”
“But this suggests that it is a qualified support; "to the extent" suggests it is a qualified support. I am not sure why there is a need for such qualification because after all, Mr Pritam Singh himself did highlight the need for us to set aside politics, to close ranks and to uphold unity of purpose in a crisis, which I fully agree with. So, I would urge Mr Pritam Singh and the Workers' Party to give us their full and unreserved support, so that we can truly demonstrate unity of purpose in dealing with and learning from this pandemic. Perhaps, Mr Pritam Singh had held back his full support because of the questions he asked about the report prepared by Mr Peter Ho. So, let me explain. The Government had asked Mr Peter Ho, in late 2021, to undertake a review of our COVID-19 experience from the start of the pandemic until August 2021 and to draw lessons from this. At that time, we had envisaged it as an interim or mid-term review, because we were not clear when we would be able to fully transition to endemic COVID-19. In parallel, various Government agencies embarked on their own After-Action Reviews (AARs). These focused on the policy and operational decisions within their respective domains. Mr Peter Ho knew about these reviews, and he decided to focus his efforts on the key strategic lessons for the Government, so as to minimise duplication and to complement the agency AARs. By the time Mr Peter Ho's report was completed, we also had further experiences with the fast-changing COVID-19 threat, including the implementation of the Home Recovery Programme and our responses to the Omicron variant in late 2021. By then, we were also clearer about the way out of the pandemic. Because the situation had stabilised, and we could envisage a full transition to endemic COVID-19.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken and shared your views on Singapore's response to COVID-19 and on this Motion. We have also received feedback from the public on the White Paper. Many Singaporeans agreed with the broad observations and lessons and gave us further ideas on how we can strengthen our defences against future pandemics. We take all of the feedback and suggestions seriously and we will study them carefully. In their speeches, my colleagues have shared several specific moves that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) have made and will soon be undertaking. Our work will not end with this debate. We will continue to consider additional inputs, put our plans into action and adjust them along the way. This is an ongoing, multi-year effort and commitment to learn and to improve. The points raised by Members can be summarised into three broad themes: first, preparing for the next pandemic; second, ensuring effectiveness of our spending; and third, upholding solidarity and trust. Let me address each of these in turn. First, as I highlighted in my opening remarks yesterday, the purpose of the White Paper and this debate, is for us to learn, improve and be better prepared for the next pandemic. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh agrees with this and supports the Motion. I do note, though, that Mr Pritam Singh, in supporting the Motion said, "he supports the Motion to the extent it expresses gratitude to all in Singapore who contributed to the fight against COVID-19 and affirms the Government's efforts to learn from the lessons of the last three years." I may be mistaken and, if so, please pardon me.”
“The change to the Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a suite of moves to support marriage and parenthood in this and previous Budgets. We have changed the basis of WMCR to a fixed dollar relief to focus on providing support for children, regardless of the mother’s income. This effectively provides more support for those with greater needs. In tandem, we have significantly increased financial support via the enhanced Baby Bonus Cash Gift (BBCG) and the enhanced Child Development Account (CDA). These are available to all eligible parents, whether tax-paying or not. Mr Chua is asking about a hypothetical scenario, as the new WMCR applies from YA 2025, and only for eligible mothers of Singaporean children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024. Nevertheless, for the purpose of illustrating the impact of the changes on working mothers, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has done a simulation using YA2022 data. When we take into account both the WMCR change and the $2,000 increase in the CDA First Step Grant in the child’s first year of birth, about 97% of mothers with newborns in 2021 would be better off or, at least, no worse off that year. Apart from grants, we are also working with employers to better support parents in managing their work and family commitments through flexible work arrangements and enhanced leave provisions, some of which are funded by the Government. The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans who want to get married and have children. We will continue to review and update our policies to build a Singapore Made For Families.”
“The Government is committed to looking after the needs of all Singaporeans. We introduced the Pioneer Generation (PG) Package and Merdeka Generation (MG) Package in 2014 and 2019 respectively to honour PG and MG seniors for their contributions in the early years of Singapore’s nation-building. Many of our PG and MG seniors earned less and had access to fewer safety nets when they were working. Hence, they were not able to set aside much for their needs in old age. The PG and MG Packages provide them with more assurance that their healthcare costs will be taken care of. Successive generations of Singaporeans, including those born from 1960 to 1969, have seen improvements in their lives, in tandem with Singapore’s economic growth, as well as our investments in education, healthcare and social security. These subsequent cohorts have more access to education and career opportunities, enjoyed stronger income growth and are more retirement-ready. Nevertheless, we will continue to review and consider if there is a need for additional specific support at the cohort level and, if so, how best such support can be targeted and effective.”
“It has been an emotional journey of ups and downs for all of us, in the same way that our response has had its fair share of setbacks and successes. In the end, it was the whole nation coming together that made the difference in our fight against COVID-19, allowing us to surmount the odds and face the challenges without fear. So, the aim of this White Paper and this debate is not to rate the Government's or Singapore's performance in this pandemic. We have done our best and that is what matters. In the final analysis, the long arc of history will judge how well we have responded to this crisis of a generation and how well we have learnt and remembered the lessons of COVID-19. Today, we are here to give thanks, for we have found our way through the pandemic and emerged from it intact and strengthened. We are here to pay tribute to all who have made countless sacrifices and worked so hard to get us through this crisis. We are here to learn, improve and be better prepared when the next pandemic comes. I hope that we will not have to go through an episode like COVID-19 again. Unfortunately, we would have to be very lucky for my hope to be fulfilled. The next pandemic can happen sooner rather than later, and quite possibly, will be worse than COVID-19. But if it does happen, we can draw confidence and strength from what we have been through these past three years. Let us always remember the most important lesson of COVID-19, that we are stronger when we stand and work together. Let us resolve to stay united, so that whatever the challenges ahead, we can overcome them as One People and One Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“So, we will do more to sustain and strengthen our partnerships with the private sector. For example, through cooperation agreements, to shore up our pandemic preparedness plans and to mobilise our national resources more comprehensively in times of need. One crucial resource that enabled us to respond effectively and bounce back quickly in this pandemic was our financial Reserves. Indeed, our Reserves is an integral part of our national resilience. It shielded our economy and our people from the harshest impact of the pandemic, and it remains our best safeguard in any crisis. It is, therefore, our duty to ensure that the Reserves are used prudently and judiciously, so that future generations can continue to benefit from it. Ultimately, what lies at the heart of our resilience is our people, because that is our most important defence in a pandemic – to be psychologically prepared, to stay united and to support one another and keep faith with each other. Throughout this pandemic, Singaporeans were socially responsible and responded to the calls for self-discipline, with admirable fortitude and patience. We saw a strong communitarian spirit and a high level of volunteerism. Many ground projects were initiated to rally the community in support of those who needed help. COVID-19 brought out the best in all of us, individually and collectively. Despite the pressures and fears, we did not give in, we did not succumb. We stood firmly together and left no one behind. That is a mark of our growing maturity and resilience, as a people and as a nation. Mr Speaker, in this debate, I invite everyone to reflect on how far we have come over the last three years.”
“For example, when we first managed to bring protein and meat supplies into Singapore, which we had to do, there was an issue of where to store these goods. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) scrambled, this was under then Minister Chan when he was at MTI, and we eventually solved this by sourcing and bringing in refrigerated containers, what they call "reefers", to provide sufficient cold storage capacity and we ramped up the capacity of the power supply to support their operations. Where possible, the Government will design facilities to be multi-use, so they can be repurposed or redeployed during a crisis. In particular, we will apply further thought into how we can enhance the resilience of our public infrastructure, especially for new major projects like the Tuas Mega Port and Changi Airport Terminal 5. We also need to be able to convert and repurpose existing spaces at short notice into facilities that can be used to meet emergency needs in a crisis. We had faced a steep learning curve trying to do this at the start. Singapore Expo had to be converted into community isolation and care facilities, hotels into quarantine facilities, Community Centres into vaccination centres, and vacant schools and Singapore Armed Forces camps into temporary housing for migrant workers. Each of these processes took a lot of work and learning from this experience. We will continue to build up our capabilities so that we can pivot and respond more effectively in future. Our private sector partners are a key source of support in these efforts. Working alongside them over the course of the pandemic has showed us all that there is much more that we can do by coming together, by sharing our resources, capabilities and networks.”
“And again, learning from this, in future pandemics, we will set up a dedicated forward planning team with the bandwidth and expertise to look ahead. This will help us better anticipate the next bound, develop our next course of action and pivot more effectively as the situation evolves. Related to all this is the third lesson – how we can strengthen our resilience as a nation. Our COVID-19 experience has been a stark reminder of our vulnerability. As a small and open economy, we were more badly hit than others by a global disruption that was outside of our control. We found ourselves in situations where it was uncertain whether we could secure critical supplies, even when we were willing to pay a premium for them. In the early months of the pandemic, we witnessed how other countries had started hoarding essential medical and food supplies, and we grew increasingly concerned about whether we could replenish our own stock. Significant work had to be undertaken to activate emergency procurement measures and to tap on long-standing networks to secure what we needed. We also had to design new processes to keep our port and land links open, but in a safe way. The pandemic has underscored the importance of building up additional redundancies and buffers that we can fall back upon during a crisis. Minister Gan Kim Yong will elaborate on these efforts, including our stockpiling strategies, diversification of supply chains for essential items and expansion of local production where this makes sense. Besides having additional buffers, resilience is also about being more adaptable. We must be able to marshal our existing assets and resources quickly, and be nimble enough to move fast when the unexpected happens.”
“Every new pathogen we meet will involve a degree of dealing with the unknown and it would be prohibitively expensive to cater for a wide range of “worst cases”. So, we will have to strike the right balance to make good use of our limited resources. This may involve planning for contingencies that can be pivoted “just in time” to support our pandemic response, so we do not have to build layers of redundancies that may remain underused outside of a crisis but cost us a disproportionate amount of resources to maintain. In other words, our response will have to be a combination of preparedness and improvisation. Some scrambling is inevitable and inherent in the process, as we discover more information and consider the need to adjust our posture along the way. That is why we must dedicate resources and equip our crisis management structures with better forward planning capabilities – so we better anticipate and imagine what might happen next, be prepared for the unexpected and be ready to adapt to changing circumstances as they unfold. By doing so, we do not have to front-load all of the investments to cater for all contingencies. But we must create a dynamic, forward-oriented organisation and process whose main mission is to anticipate and monitor risks, to keep buying insurance where needed. So, as the crisis develops, we can continue to buy more insurance and options for the future. To be clear, we did set aside some capacity to do such forward planning during the last three years. But it was very hard to do this well, because our officers were already fully stretched, fighting the immediate fire. So, whatever forward planning capacity we had competed with operational demands for resources and mindshare.”
“These currently reside in various parts of our healthcare system, for example in the NCID, the National Public Health Laboratory and within MOH itself. To consolidate these capabilities and expertise, we will take the next step to set up a dedicated centre for public health, similar to what many other countries have done in setting up Centres for Disease Control. This will enable us to develop stronger competence in public health and grow these capabilities over time. Later in this debate, Minister Ong Ye Kung will elaborate on these plans. Second, enhancing forward planning capabilities. Our planning parameters for the pandemic were largely based on the SARS experience. But it quickly became clear that these parameters were not adequate. SARS was a short, regional outbreak, largely confined to hospital settings. COVID-19 turned out to be more transmissible, though less severe than SARS, and the pandemic continued for several years and not just a few months. This greatly strained our healthcare capacity and manpower. Just as COVID-19 was different from SARS, the next novel pathogen will be different from COVID-19. With SARS, we had a pathogen that was highly severe but with low risk of spread. With COVID-19, we have a pathogen that is only moderately severe, but with higher risk of spread. The more dangerous scenario will be one where we have a pathogen that has both high mortality and high contagion risk. We will need to broaden the range of baseline scenarios for pandemic planning and review the resources we need to respond to these different scenarios. Being prepared and making investments early can yield immense dividends, especially during a crisis. But at the same time, realistically, we cannot plan for every possibility.”
“Throughout, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID) worked closely with research laboratories and infectious disease experts outside of the Government to understand the changing nature of the virus, perform epidemiological modelling and accelerate the development of diagnostics and therapeutics. Through these collective efforts, we protected our healthcare system from being overwhelmed and averted many deaths. But this was not without significant strain on the system and on our healthcare workers, who shouldered the massive responsibility of treating and caring for infected persons. To be better prepared for the next pandemic, we must strengthen the resilience of our healthcare system. We will need to build on our plans to strengthen the primary care system, which we are now pursuing through Healthier SG. We will also strengthen the relationships we have established with the private sector through our COVID-19 response, so that in a future pandemic, we can support more flexible responses and faster mobilisation of resources. And while we have done well in our vaccination efforts, our vaccine resilience can be fortified further with local manufacturing capability. At the same time, we must grow our expertise in public health and pandemic management. In particular, we need to be able to detect the spread of novel pathogens quickly through effective surveillance and develop swift response measures to control the spread of the disease. We already have some of these capabilities, especially in the area of communicable disease control and management, which we had beefed up after SARS.”
“At the same time, we are grateful for the fortitude and forbearance that everyone had shown, when we had to put in place tough measures and also when there were shortcomings and errors in our policies and implementations. This is the nature of dealing with a crisis. We will always be faced with incomplete information. We have to judge what is the best way forward based on what we know and respond quickly, rather than wait for all the facts to come in, by which time it might be too late to act. Indeed, there will never be a “perfect response” in a crisis that is as complex, unpredictable and fast-moving as COVID-19. In such a crisis, no policy can cater for every eventuality; no plan can be implemented perfectly, because there will always be time pressure and resource constraints. What is more important is to be honest in our appraisal of our own actions and to keep on learning and improving, and striving to do better. That is the spirit behind this White Paper and that is how we have distilled the key lessons that Singapore should take away to be better prepared for the next pandemic. For this debate, let me focus on three broad lessons. First, fortifying our public health system to better respond to the next pandemic. On several occasions over the last three years, our healthcare system came under immense pressure. We had to activate the entire healthcare ecosystem to cope with surges. We called on the private and community hospitals to augment our capacity. Testing had to be ramped up nationally, at an unprecedented scale and pace. We had to tap on both public and private sector laboratories to expand our testing capacities.”
“Members will remember we swiftly implemented a not-to-land policy to travellers from certain countries and we applied a combination of hotel and home quarantine for other travellers, depending on where they came from. The quick tightening of rules created a lot of inconvenience for those returning from their vacations then, because this was in December 2021. But it was necessary. And once we learnt more about Omicron and determined that it was less severe and not of significant concern, we eased the measures quickly as well. That was one example of how we learnt from the experiences with border restrictions. Another example came up in December last year, when China moved away from its zero COVID-19 policy. At that time, China experienced a significant surge in cases. Several countries like the US, Japan and South Korea imposed tighter restrictions on arrivals from China. But we did not do so – and the reason is because we assessed that there were no new variants of concern detected in China, and the viral strains there were already circulating around the world and in our community. Furthermore, our arrivals from China were relatively few, and only a small proportion of them had COVID-19. We were therefore confident that the Chinese arrivals would not put too much pressure on our healthcare system and we decided at that time not to tighten restrictions. That judgement proved correct. Sir, throughout the last three years, we had to continually make such tough calls, in the midst of great uncertainty and ambiguity, often without an established playbook to guide us, nor the luxury to wait and see. We did not get every call right. We regret the inconveniences and frustrations caused to Singaporeans and everyone in Singapore when this happened.”
“This would have bought us time to understand the virus and build up our hospital capacity. Furthermore, having decided that we would allow Singaporeans living abroad to return home, we should have acted sooner to ramp up the provision of quarantine and isolation facilities for the returning residents. At the same time, border measures can only do so much. Once the virus took hold within the community, we could have eased our border restrictions more responsively, as the main danger would no longer be from cases coming from abroad. In particular, we took some time to resume the entry of Long-Term Pass (LTP) holders into Singapore because we had found that even with pre-departure testing, a high percentage of travellers from some countries were still testing COVID-19-positive on arrival. Our concern was that the large number of infected persons could easily overwhelm our isolation facilities and healthcare capacity. It was a judgement call we had to make at that time, and not without reason. But we also know that the restrictions created significant difficulties for some groups of LTP holders, such as Employment Pass holders with families here but who were abroad, or vice versa. Some of them endured prolonged family separation and disruption to their work. Singapore did incur reputational cost and lost some goodwill from this segment of the community who also had their homes here. On reflection, we could have let the LTP Holders back in sooner, or at least prioritised entry for some groups, such as those with families here. We subsequently learnt from these experiences and adjusted our border responses when we dealt with the Omicron variant in late-2021.”
“In some other areas, like the implementation of safe management measures (SMMs), we did the right thing. We designed measures that took into account the risk that was inherent in different settings and activities. But we allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Our rules were, at times, too finely calibrated, too complicated to follow and too difficult to implement – the varying group sizes, which I am sure everyone remembers; different rules for adults and children; different sets of rules for physical activity in different settings are some examples of this. Aggravating the problem, the rules had to be adjusted as circumstances changed, sometimes at short notice. Again, looking back, we should have tried much harder to simplify things, and gone for more broad-brush measures that would have reduced the implementation cost and burden. Fortunately, we did learn along the way and eventually, simplified the rules to just three health protocols and five SMMs. One of the most difficult judgement calls we had to make was on managing our borders. Border restrictions are an important defence against the virus, but we also know that such measures only help to buy time; they cannot completely stop the virus from coming in. The question is how far do we go in tightening our borders, recognising that this will also impose a huge cost on livelihoods and on Singapore’s reliance on the world for a living. Reflecting on our experience, our sense is that, at the beginning, we should have built in a margin of safety and tightened border measures more aggressively the moment the virus showed signs of spreading across borders, even though there might have been some risk of us overreacting to these signals.”
“For example, the initial prevailing view was that one needed to show symptoms before the virus could spread, which was the case with SARS. In fact, this turned out to be wrong with COVID-19. The virus was also spread by individuals with no symptoms. This wrong assumption contributed to several shortcomings in our initial response. For instance, our infection protocols in the migrant worker dormitories were insufficient and we faced a major outbreak which almost resulted in a disaster. It took a herculean effort by the Government, private firms and NGOs to bring the situation under control, and to provide migrant workers with the care and support they needed. We never wavered from our commitment to take care of our migrant workers. We acted as quicky as possible and activated every resource we had available to control the situation. We have also learnt from this episode and taken steps to plug the shortcomings in our system – something that Minister Tan See Leng will share later in this debate. Likewise, we started out advising the public to only wear masks when unwell. We changed this later to mandate the use of masks in public spaces when we realised that asymptomatic transmission was possible. On hindsight, we should have been less definitive in our position on mask-wearing from the outset. We should have encouraged facial coverings of some sort, including homemade masks, while we ramped up the production of surgical masks. This would have given people psychological reassurance that they could do something to protect themselves and would also have helped to slow down transmission and spread of the virus, even though the improvised masks only provided partial protection.”
“The situation was dynamic and fluid, with new information and developments unfolding daily. We had to operate in the fog of war. We always saw through a glass darkly. It was often not clear what our next course of action should be. We had many intense debates among ourselves – political officeholders as well as civil servants – and, in the end, we had to take decisions based on our best judgement and manage the consequences as well as we could. Even today, as we look back, there will be different perspectives on what had transpired or how certain aspects of the pandemic could have been differently managed. Indeed, our response to COVID-19 was by no means perfect. There were areas that we could have done better. We have highlighted them in the White Paper. We have been forthright and transparent about this so that we can learn from our experiences. The point is not to look back and critique the past with 20/20 hindsight but to unpack how and why certain decisions were made at those points, what assumptions were held then, which considerations should have been weighed differently and how we can do better the next time. In particular, some of our initial responses fell short because we knew so little about the virus at the start of the outbreak. We operated on the basis of the best scientific assessments then, as well as the protocols from our SARS experience. So, while SARS helped us to avoid a cold start, it also in some ways contributed to us making some wrong initial assumptions. This is an important point – that while we learn from this and past experiences, we must also have the flexibility of mind to adjust to new situations and not be trapped by fixed views of how a crisis might unfold.”
“] They represent a cross-section of the wider community of individuals who fought bravely on the COVID-19 frontlines: nurses and doctors and other healthcare professionals in the hospitals and in the community; educators and social service professionals and workers who served our students and vulnerable groups right through the crisis; transport workers, supermarket and warehouse managers and other frontline workers who kept essential services going, including our ports and land links; staff in both the public and private sectors who ran critical backroom operations to maintain supply chains, care facilities and many other services; Safe Distancing Ambassadors, SAF officers and soldiers, and Home Team responders who mounted large-scale responses in support of various policies and programmes. This is just a sampling of all our frontline fighters. Sir, I would like to invite the COVID-19 fighters who are here today to please stand. [Applause.] We express a grateful nation's deepest appreciation for your contributions and courage. Your dedication helped Singapore to keep going through unprecedented and uncertain times. Your acts of duty, sacrifice and care for fellow Singaporeans uplifted our spirits, boosted our confidence and kept all of us safe. So, once again, we would like to say a very big "thank you" to all of you. [Applause.] Today, we ask ourselves – what lessons can we draw from this crisis? How can we improve our strategies and be better prepared for the next pandemic or even the next wave, if it should come? There are no straightforward answers to these questions because COVID-19 was a very complex and wicked problem on a grand scale. Our battle with the virus was a journey with many twists and turns and with repeated surprises and disruptions along the way.”
“] Our workers and unions, as well as tripartite partners who marshalled resources, rolled out support and helped countless businesses and workers through difficult times. Our companies and trade associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as community groups who came together to contribute their time and know-how to fortify our response and support the vulnerable. Our public officers who went beyond the call of duty. Many toiled selflessly behind the scenes to plan and roll out a multitude of programmes and policies, working shoulder-to-shoulder with the people and private sectors. Our dauntless healthcare workers and many others who operated on the frontlines of the crisis. Whether it was at our borders or in the foreign worker dormitories, in our clinics and hospitals or in quarantine facilities, they willingly assumed personal risks, over and over again, just so that the rest of us could be safe. They rose to the occasion when the going got tough, even in the darkest of times. We are, therefore, honoured to have a small contingent of our frontline warriors join us in Parliament today. [Applause.”
“We also stand out in the world because of how our population rallied together in this crisis. Through all the trials and tribulations, we held together as a society and pulled through as one united people. We kept faith with our fellow Singaporeans, took care of the non-Singaporeans in our midst and everyone did our part in the interest of the common good. Various surveys reflect these outcomes. According to a global survey done by Pew Research Centre, we are one of the few countries in the world where the sense of unity is higher today than before the pandemic. Another recent survey – this one by the Edelman Trust Institute – found that trust in the Government remains high in Singapore. In fact, it is at a record high. Singaporeans, generally, trusted the Government's advice and cooperated with the measures. This is unlike many other countries where people railed against the public health measures and trust in government went down. Importantly, Singaporeans' trust in one another increased. We supported and looked out for one another throughout this crisis. As a result, many Singaporeans felt that their relationships with their neighbours, family and friends were maintained or have become stronger. We have deepened the reservoir of trust and strengthened our social capital. Indeed, there have been many bright spots amid the dark clouds – many stories of personal sacrifices and selfless dedication, instances where we came together as a community and as a nation to fight this crisis of a generation. On behalf of the Government, I would like to put on record our appreciation to everyone who contributed to our COVID-19 fight. [Applause.”
“We budgeted around $100 billion to respond to this crisis. We eventually spent $72.3 billion, rolled out over eight Budgets in FY2020 and FY2021. The actual amount was less than budgeted partly because we had been prudent in our spending and also because we avoided some of the worst-case outcomes we had prepared for. Our financial resources enabled us to mount a strong public health response and to secure early access to vaccines. A large proportion of the spending – over 80% – went towards supporting workers, businesses and individuals, so as to cushion them from the worst impact of the crisis. Crucially, we augmented the direct Government measures with a series of COVID-19 legislation that provided small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) relief from their contractual obligations and protected them from financial distress and insolvency. Our fiscal response for the two years – FY2020 and FY2021 – included $36.9 billion drawn from our past Reserves, with the President's concurrence and I thank the President for giving her assent to the use of the past Reserves. These resources were crucial to our COVID-19 fight. So, all in all, this was money well spent to tackle the extreme downsides of COVID-19, to protect lives and to avoid mass unemployment. Our comprehensive and swift economic schemes enabled our resident employment and incomes to recover quickly to pre-COVID-19 levels while keeping COVID-19 deaths low. Our policies and actions to respond to the pandemic have also distinguished us from other countries. We kept our air and sea ports open and ensured an uninterrupted flow of critical supplies. We enhanced our reputation as a trusted node that can be relied upon even when other parts of the world shut down.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That this House expresses gratitude to all in Singapore who contributed to the nation's fight against COVID-19; affirms the Government's effort to learn from the experiences of the last three years; and, to that end, endorses Paper Cmd 22 of 2023 on 'Singapore's Response to COVID-19: Lessons for the Next Pandemic'." Sir, this White Paper is a culmination of several months of review of our responses over the last three years of the pandemic. This has been the crisis of a generation – a battle against one of the most disruptive viruses the world has encountered in recent history. The crisis upended our lives in ways we never could have imagined. In the most acute phase of the pandemic, our economy ground to a halt and workers lost their jobs. Many key life events were put on hold. Some of us suffered the pain of losing loved ones during this difficult time. Others were separated from family members who were based overseas. The whole experience has fundamentally challenged and shaped who we are as a people and as a nation. Today, we have fully transitioned to living with COVID-19 as an endemic disease. The virus is still among us and no one can tell how it will continue to evolve. But, for now, the evolution seems to be plodding, with minor tweaks to its genetic code, rather than major changes that require another Greek-letter name. So, it is timely to take stock of our response so that we can start preparing for the next battle, whenever it comes. On the whole, compared to other countries, we have done well in protecting both lives and livelihoods throughout this pandemic. Our healthcare system, though strained, was never overwhelmed. Our case fatality rate is one of the lowest globally. Our vaccination rate is among the highest in the world.”
“The available information extends to the last five years. In 2018, around 10% of all residential properties in Singapore had Annual Values (AV) between $13,000 and $21,000, while around 20% had AVs above $21,000. In 2023, the proportions are around 30% and 25% respectively, as AVs have increased significantly due to higher market rentals. The eligibility for Government social support schemes is not affected by the revision of AVs in 2023, as AVs as of 2022 are used to determine scheme eligibility in 2023. The Government will continue to review our social support schemes, including eligibility criteria, to ensure that Singaporeans in need of support receive it.”
“Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the first clarification. We will leave it at that. Let us not dwell on this further. On the second point, on the inclusion of Temasek in the NIR. The intention was clear from the outset. The only reason why we wanted to stage it was because of the complexity of having to incorporate Temasek into the framework because Temasek is quite different from GIC. It does not invest in public markets. It is largely in the private equity space and therefore we had to take some time to work out how Temasek could be part of this framework. We always knew that there was going to be additional resources. I mean, that is to be expected, right? Once you put Temasek into the framework, obviously there would be additional resources. So, the intent was made clear from the outset. The reasons why we had to take time was because of complexity more than anything else. And in recognising that, yes, we have growing needs, this additional resource will be helpful. But the point remains, having finalised the framework, with Temasek in as we had originally intended, let us stick to the rules and let us keep that system going for now. Maybe many, many years down the road, we will have a rethink, a review, we will have new information, circumstances will change, and we will all have another discussion with maybe a different Finance Minister. But for now, the rules are sound. Let us stick to this. And if the Workers' Party agrees with that, then, hopefully, we can channel all our energies productively in thinking about how best to manage our rising expenditure needs without having to come back to the same old points about using more reserves.”
“I thought you were going to take two questions at a time. Answer is yes, for sure. As I mentioned in my remarks, we are not pursuing growth for its own sake. We want to pursue growth as a means to an end and that end must be to uplift the lives of Singaporeans to advance the well-being of Singaporeans. And if indeed there are segments in our society who are feeling stressed out, burnt out, then that is not something we want to see either. So, we should look at it holistically and certainly we welcome suggestions from Ms Carrie Tan and we will continue to work with her and Members in this House and other stakeholders, and also with our tripartite partners, to continually advance the well-being of all Singaporeans.”
“Sir, on the first point, let us not belabour this anymore. We might as well publish exactly verbatim whatever the Workers' Party has said in the Working Paper in 2019 and in the end, Singaporeans will be the judge of the matter. I think we have said enough on this point. The reality, as I have described it from my perspective at that time, was a very different reality. And do not talk about cutting; no one at that time even thought about building more flats. It would have been unthinkable. Everyone was asking cut back, cut back, cut back; no one said build more flats. With the benefit of hindsight now, it is so easy to say build more. But I just want to have some perspective here, that during that time, when resale prices were coming down, it was a very different context, it was a very different circumstance. And we can just put out what the Workers' Party said and everyone can be the judge of it. On Ms Hazel Poa's suggestion, when I talked about it not yielding more revenue than our current system, I was referring to it from a broader perspective and not just from a year-to-year perspective. So, it can generate more revenue in the near term, perhaps, but it really depends on the assumptions. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out the assumptions. Just put it in a spreadsheet, do your sums and anyone can figure out that; actually, it is not very different from what we have today.”
“But we want to make sure that we are able to help them upgrade, reskill and continue in their careers, whatever they are. So, that must mean a very good system of support for an ITE graduate, maybe comes out ITE with a higher NITEC but, eventually, can get a work-study diploma, a technical diploma or even a polytechnic diploma, or maybe even a degree and there must be that system to encourage and support them in their continuous pursuit of new skills. So, it is certainly something on our minds.”
“Sir, on the CPF system and retirement adequacy, we are studying this. Our starting point is look at the CPF system first, review the parameters. I note that in this debate Mr Pritam Singh and a few others have talked about, for example, the proportion between OA and SA contributions. Others have asked about other parameters. So, we are reviewing all that with a view that younger workers can work, contribute to CPF consistently and through that meet their basic retirement needs. That must be the assurance we give. So, that is something that we are studying. Older workers will not have the runway to accumulate savings through the CPF system. So, we have to help them separately. It could be through the Silver Support Scheme. It could be through other schemes but we are looking at that as a separate group to support. And then, of course, we have a third group which are self-employed persons who are not part of the CPF system. We have made one move for gig workers in working in platform companies to contribute to their CPF. So, we have taken care of that group of younger workers, but we will have to study more broadly what we could do for self-employed persons, recognising that not all of them want to be on the CPF system. Some of them may choose the flexibility not to, and how do we respect their wishes, give them the flexibility that they desire but, at the same time, find ways to make sure that they are able to save adequately for their future retirement. So, these are things that we are, indeed, studying. Did you have a second question? Ah, ITE. ITE students and how we might help them after they graduate? It is something that is on our minds, because we must ensure that ITE students not only graduate with skills that will get them a good job.”
“It is not just because of a growing GDP, it is inflation. Nominal spending goes up. Salaries have to cost more. So, that is quite obvious, is it not? If you were to keep spending constant in real terms, how do you pay more for salaries, how do you pay more for projects, all of which cost more money. But what is important is to track spending as a share of GDP and, as I mentioned, it has maintained at the same ratio over 2019 and today. On public housing, I really do not want to get into a debate on that because we have gone through that extensively before. As I mentioned in the exchanges just now, the Government welcomes all ideas. We look at them seriously. We study them. We studied Mr Leong's and the PSP's proposal on affordable housing. Our assessment is that this is clearly a raid on the reserves. It will not be good for Singapore and Singaporeans and that is our conclusion. In the end, Singaporeans can judge for themselves.”
“Sir, on the burden of the middle class and why I had said Mr Leong's remarks that the middle class were over-taxed was an outright falsehood. I did not rely on tax and benefits per se. I highlighted if you look at the tax on the middle-income household, 10% of income, total taxes that they paid. How is that more? And then if you say well, 10% is more, then let us look at other countries and I showed the chart. So, I rest my case. I do not want to elaborate further or get into a to-ing and fro-ing with Mr Leong. The facts and figures, as I said, in my speech, speak amply for themselves. On the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) and whether there is excess NIRC, never mind the argument that we have made before that it is not about NIRC, it is about revenues all coming together in a Consolidated Fund. But Mr Leong insists on not taking – recognising this, so he specifically says that there is excess NIRC because of Fund top-ups. I, actually, had a whole treatment on that in my remarks. Maybe Mr Leong was not paying attention. So, again, I should not belabour the point because I have already said in my remarks that Fund top-ups are not all spent in the future, considerable number of them are drawdown Funds, Funds for which the monies are needed today and on an ongoing basis. So, there is no slack there either. On Government's expenditure rising and in nominal terms, how far it has gone again, the facts are straightforward. You can look at where we are today as a share of GDP. By all means, go to Department of Statistics (DOS)'s website, check where the nominal GDP figures are, match expenditures today and expenditures in 2019. Expenditures have risen but as a share of GDP, they have not. Why have expenditures risen?”
“Sir, we agree with Mr Tay and the Labour Movement in your observations of the areas that can be strengthened in terms of career advisory and counselling, particularly for new entrants to the workforce and even for some mid-careers. We do want to see how we can empower individuals to take charge of their own careers. Very much as how we talk about Healthier SG as a movement where we can empower individuals to take charge of their own health. I think we need a similar way of reaching out, engaging and empowering individuals to start thinking and planning ahead for their own careers. So, the Ministry of Manpower has some ideas in this regard and I am sure they will be happy to share more, maybe in their Committee of Supply, or certainly in due course when they are ready.”
“Sir, I do not intend to get into a technical discussion. I am sure Assoc Prof Lim is well familiar with the difference between the fiscal impulse and the fiscal multiplier. So, when we talk about whether a budget is expansionary or contractionary, we run it through our models, we assess what the impact will be. And as I said, our assessment is that, there will be a slight expansionary support for the economy. We think it is appropriate, given the weakness of the economy, but we cannot overdo the support because it will then lead to additional inflation. The fiscal impulse is really an accounting measure. It is quite simple to calculate. It gives you a rough proxy but it is not a full assessment of the impact that a budget or fiscal measure has on the economy which we work through our economic models. On the redundancy insurance or the support that we are thinking about for displaced workers, it is something we will continue to study. And we will take into consideration what Assoc Prof Lim has suggested.”
“Sir, there will always be some trade-offs when we provide more support that it may inadvertently fuel demand and add to inflationary pressures. That is why we have to manage and calibrate this carefully. And that is why in rolling out or designing the package, we have not made it a broad-based support scheme. We have targeted the lower-income groups, we have given some to the middle-incomes as well. But based on the design of the package, we believe that the impact on inflation will be manageable.”
“And therefore, this is what we have now, not a separate tax on an annual value, but a property tax, which is a progressive wealth tax on everyone in Singapore.”
“Sir, I do not have the figures on the percentage of mothers who will benefit, but I tried to explain the reason why we are changing our thinking on this. There was a reason why at that time when this scheme started – we wanted to address concerns and encourage higher-income married women to have more children at that time. The experience has shown that they do not really base their decisions on the incentive alone; there are many other factors. Since then, as I said, fertility has come down across all income groups. So, it is not just about who benefits, calculating that marginal difference, but it is really a change of philosophy. That we want to make sure that the support is directed at the children, regardless of the mothers' incomes. I think it is the right thing to do, given the current circumstances and we have explained the rationale for the change. On the CPF salary ceiling, we are changing the monthly salary ceiling but there is no plan now to update the annual ceiling. So, there is no need to talk about what might happen or to give any advance notification to employers on this regard. Because we think at the monthly level, there is a need to update to the 80th percentile. But at the annual level, the current ceiling still remains relevant. On the annual value tax that Mr Chua highlighted, this was indeed removed back then. But Mr Chua may not have picked this up – when we removed this at the time of removal, we had a not so progressive property tax schedule. So, the removal of this annual value tax on owner-occupied properties was done in the same time, as we really updated our property tax rate schedule to be much more progressive.”
“Sir, the employers certainly have a big part to play in our refreshed social compact. So, we are continuing our engagements and our conversations with them. Given the current pressures that many SMEs face, unfortunately, when you talk about their responsibilities as part of a new social compact, they sometimes look at these as additional obligations and burdens, which may therefore explain why they see a shift in Government thinking. And we have to continually explain to them, that this is not about a shift from pro-growth, to pro-redistribution. This is about how all stakeholders in society – employers, unions, workers, Government – all of us have a part to play and we do think that there are many things that employers can do. For example, in terms of HR – which many Members did speak about and I think the Member himself, did highlight – better HR, skills, training, fair progression, career progression, fair hiring, many roles that employers can play as part of our renewed compact.”
“Sir, we did look at Ms Hazel Poa's proposal. I think she is right, if you work out mathematically, if you use her method. In the initial years, maybe you can get more. But we are not looking at just a "sugar rush" from an immediate injection of funds. We are looking in the longer term – what is the sustainable and what is the best approach. When we look over a longer period of time, frankly from our assessments, the revenue generated is not very different. And we believe what we are doing is a better, more sustainable method, because the proceeds are kept in the reserves, we generate returns from the reserves and the returns benefit both today and on an ongoing basis.”
“Sir, it is precisely for that reason and the concerns that Mr Seah highlighted that we should not change our NIR framework. Because there are headwinds to our investment returns and you can never be sure that you can continue to get the kind of returns we had in the past, given such an uncertain environment. But all the more we say, stick to the framework that we have. The ups and downs in the market cycles, we take care of, because we have smoothening formulas for that. And we apply an expected return, remember, in our NIRC, not actual return. So, we take care of the ups and downs in the markets with some smoothening formulas, but the broader point that this may come under pressure is a real one. That is why we have consistently said to the debate or to the question that Mr Perera asked earlier as well, let us stick to the framework, let us abide by it. And then, over time, we will see what our needs are. And we will have to think very hard if our needs were to continue to grow, how best to raise finances to cover these growing needs.”
“Hence, the proposal to come down to $6 billion. But because we need a constitutional amendment to effect this, we will have to table a Bill in this House very soon.”
“Sir, if there is new information, we will certainly put out another Occasional Paper. I mean these medium-term projections do not change so quickly because we are not tracking year-to-year. We are tracking over a long period of time. And I do not think you will have very sudden changes in the projections. But over a period of time, as there is new information, maybe new revenue items, maybe new expenditure items, then obviously there may be some changes to the longer-term outlook. And yes, if that were to happen, we will either put out more information on the website, in the form of an Occasional Paper, or we will even update it in the speech. Because in fact, if you look at the Occasional Paper, a lot of the facts there, are not entirely new because we have put it out previously in various Budget Statements before. So, we are committed to updating, providing information as and when necessary, and being upfront and transparent about our fiscal outlook. On contingencies, it was $3 billion before. We raised it to $16 billion during the pandemic because of the emergency situation we were facing. You needed to be able to tap on funding quickly and you did not know where the needs might emerge from and there was therefore a need to do so. But now that that emergency period has passed, so to speak, we are in DORSCON Green, we felt that there was a need to go back to fundamentals and go back to that discipline that we have in budgeting and planning our resources, setting aside Ministry by Ministry, how much we have to spend. You will still need a contingency, but that contingency does not have to be so large. But we thought given the new environment, the shocks and disruptions we may face, we could make it a bit bigger than what it used to be, but not at $16 billion.”
“We always had the intention for Temasek to be there but we put in place a framework that will provide discipline for the Government to use the reserves as an endowment fund. It was meant to be a set of fiscal rules that we live by, not to change at the time when we need money, which is what the Workers’ Party is proposing. So, yes, at the time when we put in place this set of fiscal rules, this framework for us to use the reserves as an endowment fund in a disciplined, responsible manner, I think the Workers' Party agreed to the framework. But what we are highlighting is, so soon after this framework was finalised, at the first sign of needing money, why the attitude of then going back to change the rules? Should we not live by the rules that we have set for ourselves and agree and put in place? And maybe down the road, years later, after the benefit of lots of experience, yes, we can come together to review this again because I have said that nothing is cast in stone. We should review but not so soon after we have finalised a framework and at the first sign of needing money. We do not think that is sound nor does that reflect the values that we want to uphold in our fiscal system and in our society.”
“No one would have predicted what happened with COVID-19, but there is no shame in that. Let us now focus, look forward on coming together to tackle what the root cause of the problem is, which is what the PAP Government is indeed doing. On affordability benchmarks, yes, there are a range of benchmarks out there. We do not deny that, but we have made clear what the affordability benchmarks are. Our pricing of new flats have not changed at all these years from then till now. And our affordability benchmarks are not just expressed in home price to income ratio. We also look at the mortgage servicing ratio which is 25%. So, we have put all of that out. I can appreciate why anyone looking at it from an opposition point of view will say, "well, that is very good but let us make it cheaper, let us make it more affordable". And obviously, in this current time when the resale prices are high, whatever you say on that front will have more traction. People will feel the pain and they will say "yes, of course cheaper is better". But remember, at the time when prices came down, this was not so much of an issue. So, all I am highlighting is let us have some perspective on this. The market moves up and down in cycles. Let us not react to these cycles. Let us understand the root cause of what causes the cycles and let us continue with a certain consistency in policy and address the root cause of the problem. Then, on the NIR framework and why if the PAP Government were to make a change, it is okay; but if the Workers’ Party were to propose something, we say it is not okay. I think we have been through this debate too in this House. And I have explained, from the Government's point of view, we put in place a framework, we staged out the implementation over a period of time.”
“Sir, let me again respond to all three points. First, on the housing Working Paper and what the Workers’ Party said. I think, Mr Perera now is sort of alluding to the fact that the assessment that they had put out was pertaining more to a longer-term concern about a supply overhang. But that is very clearly not what the write-up says. The write-up says and I read, “that private vacancies in the private sector have only started to inch down but there are still around 12,000 private units completing up to 2022." So, with that, comparing now, HDB, "will the HDB have a vacancy rate problem compounded by a still steady stream of 6,000 to 17,000 BTO units in the last few years, which will continue to increase supply up to 2022.” The assessment was very clear. There was a concern about short-term overhang; in the short term, too many supply of new flats. Like I said, I experienced it. It is not just you who was highlighting this concern. You can check the Hansard. I probably think some PAP MPs must have asked me the same question. I was under a lot of pressure to cut back BTO new flats, the building of new flats –precisely because of the short-term concern. It was not a longer-term assessment. It was a short-term assessment. It was very clear what was written; and arising from this assessment therefore, that there was the concern that you have to calibrate your building programme. To me, as somebody who was looking at the Working Paper then, on the receiving end in MND, I think it was as clear as daylight what the Workers’ Party wanted to do. You were not the only one. There were similar concerns expressed by others. So, all we are highlighting is let us be upfront and honest that the assessment made at that time was not right. Like I said, many people did not get it right.”
“We need clear KPIs, outcomes for every ITM and they had been published, not all, but a lot of them have very clear outcomes reported. In the financial services sector which I launched, for example, we set out very clearly what we wanted to deliver, what was achieved and the next milestone, what we hope to do with the next version. Sector-by-sector, these ITMs, the sectoral agencies in charge of them, will put out the reports, more information, clearer outcomes. It is a continuing journey which we will continue to walk on and help each sector restructure and transform. Then, on the shift in the Workers' Party's position on the putting back of reserves, I am glad that Mr Singh has acknowledged that it is a change in the Workers' Party's position. But I would respectfully disagree with his comparing that with how we have updated our position on the involvement of Temasek in the Net Investment Returns framework. Because we have made it very clear when we embarked on this that we did want Temasek to come in it. But it was a matter that needed more time to study and therefore, the implementation was staged. More importantly, our underlying philosophy, our intent, our principles, have never changed and will never change. It is about fiscal prudence, discipline, responsibility, stewardship. That is consistent and has not changed and will not change, whereas, it seems to me, on that part, the Workers' Party has shifted. [Applause.]”
“Why not just acknowledge it, that, yes, it may not have been a specific proposal or whatever you want to call it, but it was very clearly stated. We do not have to go through it. It is right there. I read the Working Paper, from cover to cover, in MND. I know what was said. And what was said at that time reflected the context of that time – a concern with overhang of supply, too many flats. If you build more flats, this is what will happen. So, why not just acknowledge that you got that wrong? Like I said, no shame in it. Many experts thought it was the right thing to do at that time too. And we are not here to pass judgement because, with the benefit of hindsight it is, of course, very easy to say. No one would have predicted that you would have a COVID-19 crisis and what has happened in the last three years. No one could have predicted that. We did not; neither did the Workers' Party. No one did. So, let us acknowledge, like I said, with some humility, what happened, and let us not rush to judge the current situation with the benefit of hindsight. Let us acknowledge that the current situation was created by a set of very unusual and exceptional circumstances. And the root of the problem is building more supply. And that is what we are doing. We are doing our best to try and fix the problem – not created by bad policies, by sacred cows which we are loath to slay, but by something that was exceptional. And we are doing our best to address it. Fourthly, ITMs and what was said in the Estimates Committee about robust KPI setting, outcomes and publishing of what we have achieved through the ITMs. Sir, I completely agree with what needs to be done.”
“And, if so, we will make sure that any form of additional revenues raised or taxes raised, are done in a way that keeps our overall system of taxes and benefits fair and progressive. That is our commitment. We could also look at meeting increased spending needs, not only through increased revenues and taxes, but we could also do it through re-allocation. So, there will also be a continual exercise to examine what are some areas that we can do less of, what are some things we might want to discontinue so that expenditure and funding can be re-allocated to new priority areas. And here, my appeal to everyone in the House, everyone in the House, across all parties is, as Finance Minister, you hear a lot more proposals to do more, but you very rarely hear proposals to stop doing something. I think it would be nice for a change to hear Members talk about some things we might stop doing, do less of. And then, we may have more ideas to think about how we can manage both expenditure and revenues, and ensure sustainable finances. Third, on housing and what the Workers' Party said in its Working Paper in 2019 and the context which, according to Mr Singh was not said. Actually, I thought I said it in the speech. I fully appreciate the context, because I was there in the Ministry of National Development (MND). The context was the concern about decay of leases, declining values. But the context was also in the midst of falling resale prices for consecutive years. And the Workers' Party is not alone in highlighting that, under such an environment, we better consider how many new flats we are putting out. Many experts shared similar concerns. I was under tremendous pressure to cut back BTO flats. There is no shame in acknowledging that you got that wrong because many people did.”
“Thank you, Sir. Let me take these issues in turn. On the tax burden on different, middle-income and sandwiched groups and the CPI for these specific segments, we do the best we can. We continue to monitor all the different groups. Where data is available, we will publish and where it is useful, we will put it out for information. We are tracking not only inflation, but as we have repeatedly said, how real incomes evolve for all these different segments, because at the end of the day, we want to ensure that real incomes grow not just for the top end, but for the middle and, in particular and especially for the lower-income groups. We, already, in fact, put out CPI data by income groups. The Leader of the Opposition has asked for even more granular data for specific segments, different archetypes. We will continue to review and see what more can be done. Here, we share the same interest. There is nothing to hide. We are all concerned about the same thing and we will continue to do more and do better. On the strategy for keeping tax burden low and who has given more ideas. No one has a monopoly of ideas. In this House, Members across different parties will put out ideas. From the Government's point of view, we welcome all ideas. We will study them. We will look at them. Where they are good ideas, regardless of where these ideas come from, we embrace them. If the ideas may not be so effective, we will highlight and say that these are not ideas that we think are sound. In that light, we will continue to look at how we can manage growing spending needs, while keeping our finances stable and sustainable. There may be a need for additional revenues.”