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 25 of 65.
“Mr Speaker, I just wanted to respond very quickly to Mr Leong Mun Wai's last comment. That he concluded the Government's old policies remain. That was his conclusion. That is an erroneous conclusion. My Motion specifically states that the Government will continue to update and improve our policies. Our policies are not static. They continue to be improved. What we object to are muddle-headed policies that will lead us to the path of ruin and what Mr Leong suggested, what the PSP suggested, in our opinion, will get us there. I was flummoxed when Mr Leong said: if we do not change course, Singapore will remain a low value-add economy. Really? Low value-add economy today? Mr Leong, have you seen the economic data? Today's economy? I think if we change course to adopt your policies, we will truly be a low value-add economy.”
“But we have also seen throughout this period that we are strongest when we stand together. We have demonstrated we have the never-say-die spirit. We have the ability and drive to work as one people. And we have the guts and gumption to meet every problem head-on. So, together, we can build our best home in Singapore and create a brighter future for ourselves and our families, and for all Singaporeans young and old. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]”
“I say, we take a firm and unequivocal stance against racism and xenophobia and, so, I ask all Members in this House to vote for the Motion standing in my name and to reject the PSP's Motion. Sir, I entered politics 10 years ago in 2011. My first posting was as Minister of State in Education. When I visited schools, one of the questions I liked to ask our students then was: what would you like to be when you grow up? At that time, I received many traditional answers: to be a doctor, be a lawyer, be a soldier, be a teacher. When I returned to MOE last year, I went around asking the same question in my school visits. And, this time, I heard many more diverse aspirations. Kids said that they would like to be a video game designer, data scientist, startup founder, pursuing careers in companies like Amazon and Google. These aspirations are possible because we have defied the odds to build something special here in Singapore: a vibrant city connected to the world, brimming with life, energy and excitement, full of opportunities for our people. By continuing on this path, we give ourselves the best chance of helping our children realise their aspirations. This is what is at stake for all of us. We know it is not easy to thrive as a little red dot in this big ocean of globalisation. We will encounter many bouts of stormy weather along the way for sure. But we are all on the same boat together and we will get through these storms as one people. That is what we have been doing for the past 20 months, dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. It has been difficult for all of us. It has added to the stresses and strains felt by people who are suffering the negative experiences of trade and globalisation.”
“We will make the tough calls where necessary. At the end of the term, we will present our report card to Singaporeans and they will judge us on our performance. That is how our system has worked and will continue to work and that is why the PAP Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans, working with you and for you. We know our policies are delivering results and Singaporeans are seeing improvements in their quality of life. But we also recognise that there are segments who are more vulnerable and who struggle to keep up. So, we are fully committed to do more to ensure the fruits of progress are shared by every Singaporean. Our priority is to build a fairer, more equal and more inclusive society as we emerge from this crisis and enter a more uncertain and volatile post-pandemic world. Mr Speaker, we have had a long debate on important issues. I am mindful of the time. But it is an important debate. It is a debate about jobs and livelihoods. It is also a debate, more importantly, about our values, who we are, who we want to be and the Singapore we want for ourselves and our children. Two Motions stand before us. The Motion that stands in my name talks about Singapore's overall economic strategy to stay open, connected to the world, and to deal with the downsides of an open economy, and to continue with all our efforts to help every Singaporean cope and adjust, and to make sure Singapore stays united and we progress together. The Motion that stands in Mr Leong Mun Wai's name is ostensibly to deal with the anxieties about jobs but, for reasons known only to the PSP, persists with a negative campaign to link this to FTAs and CECA, and to continue to stir racism and xenophobia. So, we have to decide where we stand and make a choice.”
“As a society, we need our antibodies to kick in, too, against these viruses, against these other threats, to defend against and defeat the bigots, the racists and the fear-mongers. Finally, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested having parliamentary committees to discuss the issue of jobs and skills. Sir, we have no shortage of opportunities to debate these issues in Parliament. The Government will provide data when it is asked for. Where we think it is in the national interest to provide such data, we will certainly do. We will consult widely with our stakeholders, especially with our tripartite partners. We will take all ideas and views seriously. Often, there will be differing perspectives and it will not be possible to take on board every suggestion. So, in the end, the Government has the responsibility to govern and to make policy decisions in the best interest of all Singaporeans. Some decisions will not be so popular, even though we are convinced they are necessary and must proceed for the good of all. When that happens, we may see opposition parties finding ways to stir up disquiet and disagreement. That is the nature of politics. Sometimes, the Government decides it is an urgent matter and we need to move quickly. Then we will be criticised for not consulting and being too high-handed. On other occasions, we think it is better to take time to deliberate and get everyone on board. Then, we will be criticised for moving too slowly. That is our karma. We have accepted that in Government. At least, I have accepted that. But we will not be shaken from our conviction to do what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans. We will not sugar coat realities or shirk away from our responsibilities in tackling difficult issues.”
“But it is quite clear from the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and Members of the Workers' Party where they stand on this matter. And I thank Mr Pritam Singh and Workers' Party Members for your very strong stand against racism and xenophobia. Mr Pritam Singh himself quoted from a speech he made, I believe, at the Opening of Parliament, where he talked about "foreigners in our economy; giving Singapore vitality", that we must "maintain that openness and friendly attitude towards them." In the debate in July, he made very clear his stand again, that when it comes to racism and xenophobia, we have to reject them and there can be no "ifs and buts". And I believe that he also agrees that FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to our economic survival. That was in the debate in July. Again, today, I think he was quite clear where he stood and he, I believe, also mentioned that he was concerned about the racial undertones that have entered into the present debate on FTAs and CECA. And we should be very clear that the Workers' Party does not stand for any of this. Those were, I believe, statements that he made earlier. So, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making very clear where the Workers' Party stands on this important matter. In that spirit, I hope he will confirm that we cannot give credence to negative racial undertones in our political debates, that we must never allow such politics to take root in this House and in Singapore, and that the Workers' Party will reject the PSP's Motion. Sir, in this pandemic, we have been talking about vaccines and the antibodies they provide against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There are other viruses we should worry about: the dark forces of fear and anger of racism and xenophobia. They are no less infectious or deadly.”
“So, should we not be careful about external parties that may hold us to ransom by threatening to disrupt or terminate our labour flows, especially in certain key Industries? So, that weighs on our mind when we think about data release. We should, therefore, think through carefully these broader considerations when we talk about data release and information policy. This is why the Government cannot accept the Workers' Party's amendments to this Motion. The first amendment, drops the word "support" and talks about calling for stronger actions. But this leaves it too open-ended and changes the meaning of the limb of the Motion that we originally had. The second limb, limb (f), talks about data and information, but that is really about, as I have said, information policy. Nothing to do with the debate we are having now about jobs, and there is no shortage of data, as I have emphasised earlier. There is a lot of data today already that allows anyone to study the facts and evidence to decide how our policies have worked and impacted Singaporeans and make an informed decision about this matter. If the Workers' Party would like to have a separate debate on information, data provision or even what the Workers' Party has proposed, which is, to have a Freedom of Information Act, we can do so separately. But let us not conflate the issues. Finally, we talk about racism and xenophobia, which are the important issues we are dealing with today in this debate. I note that the Workers' Party has tried to disassociate itself from the PSP Motion. It suggested some amendments to the Motion, which Speaker has ruled were not acceptable, because they changed the substance of the Motion.”
“In fact, why not go all the way and have freedom of information, a proposal which the Workers' Party has made before. I would say, the Government has a different view. We see data and transparency as a means to better governance and it is not always the case that data is necessarily an unmitigated good. America has the Freedom of Information Act. What is their trust in government like? All the external surveys will show that the trust levels are low and nowhere near where we are in Singapore today. And this is America, but you can look at many other countries which have similar Freedom of Information provisions and that has not helped to improve public trust or public confidence in policies. The real issue is this: when someone loses his or her job, they will be unhappy, no matter how much data you provide to them. In fact, when they lose their jobs, they are not interested in data. They need help. So, we will do our utmost, as I have said, to help everyone who is displaced. There are also, sometimes – from time to time – good reasons why we may want to be careful about releasing data. Which is why I said our view on data is a lot more nuanced than the Workers' Party's position – to just release all the data and everyone will have enlightenment. For example, people ask for more data with breakdown by nationality. Where it is possible, we have released those data, but is it such a good thing to let the whole world know our dependence on foreign workers and from which particular country? Really, do we want to let everyone know that? I think it was one of the Workers' Party Members who also said that one has to be careful about hostile actors that may exploit our social fault lines to disrupt our society. Indeed, we live in a dangerous world.”
“The more you persist with this line of questioning and the more you persist with your campaign, the more you obfuscate the matter and make problems worse. Next, let me address some of the questions and points that Members from the Workers' Party have raised. If I can summarise the Workers' Party position on my Motion, it is this: the Workers' Party agrees with the Government's overall strategy to stay open and connected to the world and deal with the downsides of an open economy, but we would like the Government to do more to help Singaporeans. First, I thank the Workers' Party for supporting our strategy. That is very important, that there is alignment and common ground on this basic strategy for Singapore. As for the "do more" part, well, I have already said that the Government will do our utmost to deal with all the downsides. Where there are specific policy suggestions – and a few were raised just now – we will consider them. We will weigh the pros and cons and consider carefully also – wearing my MOF hat – how we should pay for them. And I am sure there will be opportunities in the future for such meaningful debates, including during the Budget next year. The Workers' Party also had another line of argument, which was about information, data and communications. The Government's communication is not perfect, we will always work to improve our communication strategy. But where data is concerned, as I have said, there is already a lot of data that we have released to the public. Data on the labour markets, data that has been requested. We have put out more than enough data for anyone looking at the matter to examine the facts carefully. The Workers' Party's line is that more data is better.”
“We have also emphasised that our immigration policies will continue to ensure that the ethnic balance remains stable for our citizen population. And you can see for yourself in the latest census reports how we have maintained this balance over the decades. As far as foreign manpower policy is concerned, after all the fire and brimstone from Mr Leong Mun Wai, all that he has asked for are three adjustments to our policies: raising EPs and S Pass qualifying salaries, imposing a levy on EPs and imposing a cap of 10% per nationality in any company. These proposals have nothing to do with CECA and FTAs. So, these are the three specific policy issues that Mr Leong Mun Wai was concerned about. Why did PSP not raise them in the first place? Why does his Motion harp upon the Foreign Talent Policy, Movement of Natural Persons in FTAs and, specifically, CECA? Why is he continuing the PSP's sustained negative campaign against CECA, a move which even his own party members say is cheap politics? Why pin the blame on Indian nationals and stir racial unhappiness in our own community? These are questions that I doubt I will get direct answers from Mr Leong Mun Wai, but only he, Ms Hazel Poa and the PSP know the real answers to. But I hope that, having had the benefit of this debate, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Hazel Poa and the PSP will seriously reflect on their actions and conduct and abandon such irresponsible politics that will divide our society and be disastrous for Singapore. By all means, let us talk about manpower policies; let us debate them; let us talk about the pros and cons of different settings, but they have nothing to do with CECA and FTAs.”
“Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa keep saying, "No, no, no, we are not racist. We are not stirring racist sentiments". But, look, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. [Laughter.] Whatever Mr Leong Mun Wai or Ms Hazel Poa may say, the fact is, this is how people see and perceive the PSP's campaign. Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked for more data. Dr Tan See Leng had given a whole range of data just now and, as I have said, there is more than enough public data out there to show that the job challenges we face do not arise from FTAs, let alone CECA. And I cannot help but feel that the persistent data requests are red herrings to continue this campaign of casting aspersions and creating disaffection towards the Government. I hope Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa will have the open-mindedness to look at the data and evidence again. Listen to what Prof Hoon Hian Teck has said just now, or any other serious analyst that is looking at the data, and review the PSP's position objectively and be gracious enough to accept that the allegations are baseless and put a stop to the false claims that they have been perpetrating about CECA and FTAs, both in and out of this House. Next, let us consider the policy issues that Mr Leong Mun Wai raised. He suggested tightening immigration policies. But as several of my colleagues have said just now, this is really a separate topic from manpower policy. In any case, the evidence is clear: population growth over the last decade has been the lowest since our Independence. So, there should be no doubt that we have already been very tight at the overall level.”
“But the fact is that, over the past few months, the PSP has been raging against FTAs and CECA, and for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom. Despite all the clarifications we have made, his Motion today continues to attribute the cause of job anxieties to FTAs and CECA. Mr Leong Mun Wai takes issue with the Government calling him out on this. But it is not just us. Others can see what the PSP is doing. In my opening speech earlier, I read an email from someone that various Ministers received the email from. Mr Leong says the PSP listens to the people. Is he listening to feedback like this? Ms Hazel Poa said, in response to my email sharing about this Singaporean who was not happy with the PSP's campaign against CECA, that we should assure him, that do not worry, the PSP's approach will give him more assurance of getting a job. But I have already highlighted that the PSP's approach is not going to work any better. It will be worse. Second, Ms Hazel Poa misses the point because this gentleman who emailed to us, his concern was not just about jobs. He said, and I repeat what he said again: "The PSP's campaign is truly racist and it is hurting Singapore Indians and we are splitting Singaporeans along racial lines." It is not just a jobs concern, which the Member has not addressed. The PSP's own members have expressed this concern, which my colleague, Minister Shanmugam, said just now. According to media reports, one senior PSP member said that focusing on CECA is, "cheap politics". Another member said that there are racial undertones with how the CECA issue is being raised in Parliament, and the "real problem is not about CECA". So, these are voices that the PSP's own Members have said that Singaporeans have highlighted.”
“So, look at the evidence and see for yourself how our policies have benefited Singaporeans. But at the end of the day, I recognise that this strategy that I have set out that the Government is pursuing is not something that is easy to implement politically. While the vast majority benefit from an open economy, there will be some whose lived experiences are not so rosy. For everyone who suffers a negative experience, it is painful, it is very difficult and it is emotional. In other countries, populist parties have no compunction about tapping into people's anxieties, appealing to fear, appealing to tribal instincts, pitting one group against another. They blame immigrants and foreigners and make them scapegoats for their country's problems and this results in the countries turning inward and becoming more protectionist. We cannot afford any of this to happen in Singapore. First, as a small city-state, staying open is not just essential; it is existential. Second, if we start having racial or xenophobic undertones in our politics, we will be going down a very slippery slope. It will start with seemingly innocent comments and questions being raised, or dog-whistles, coded phrases. But, over time, the comments become normalised, and racist and xenophobic sentiments become more prevalent. When that happens, our society will fracture and Singapore will fall apart. Indeed, many Members have also spoken strongly against racism and xenophobia. I thank them for their statements and I fully agree with them that there is no place for such sentiments in this House and in Singapore. Mr Leong Mun Wai himself now claims that his Motion has got nothing to do with racism or xenophobia.”
“Some have been knocked down by the winds of change and it is not simply a matter of bouncing back on your feet again, especially when you are older. But the world will not stop and the economy will continue to change. The Government will provide the best possible support we can give to those who have been knocked back. We cannot go back or hesitate in embracing change. Our children now have opportunities today that we would only dream of in the past. They get to work in the most cutting-edge industries and companies; they work alongside the world's best without having to leave Singapore. This is not just for the few as it was for an older generation, but also for the many amongst the young, and all these have been made possible because we kept ourselves open to the world, even as many other countries caved in to domestic pressures and turned inward. There is no reason why, as fathers and mothers, we cannot walk tall, knowing that we are doing our best for our children and our next generation. Several Members have also given specific suggestions on what more we can do in various areas. We will study all suggestions carefully and continue to finetune and improve our policies. I have also presented evidence of what we have achieved with our policies: more jobs created, incomes rising over the years and more opportunities for our children. These are all based on published data and facts. There is a lot of data out there – more than enough for any serious analyst to dive in, understand better what is happening in the labour market, what is happening with employment trends and unemployment trends – and Prof Hoon Hian Teck just now demonstrated that with his excellent economic exposition based on published data.”
“And that is the complacent assumption in their thinking that Singapore has arrived and companies just want to be here. So, the Government can set tougher rules and the companies will have to put up with them because they had no choice. But let us get real. No one owes us a living. Global competition for investments is relentless and more intense than ever. It took many decades of hard work to get to where we are today. Please have a care about what we say or do because things can fall apart very easily. I have set out in my opening speech the Government's approach. We keep Singapore open and connected to the world because that is the best, indeed, the only way to secure our future. At the same time, we know that there are downsides to being an open economy. So, we will deal with these downsides proactively. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim just now talked about the concern about an "India shock". And I think he also suggested that perhaps our FTA with CECA might make us more vulnerable to this India shock. But, again, CECA is not relevant here. CECA or not, if India liberalises and opens up, just based on WTO, there will be an India shock, which we will have to deal with and adjust to as we had to do when China joined the WTO. So, there are downsides to trade. I said that in my speech. There are downsides to being an open economy. That is why we work very hard to deal with these downsides by managing the flow of foreign work pass holders, upholding fair employment at workplaces and helping every displaced worker to get back into jobs. We know that the speed at which technology has developed and the way the global economy is shifting are, indeed, disorienting and difficult, especially for our older PMETs.”
“But I would say be careful about drawing simplistic policy conclusions from that data. It will potentially lead to bad outcomes. What happened in the last 10 years? We had the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. After that, we waited for a while to make sure that the economy has stabilised. And if you recall, we tightened our foreign worker policies, levies and quotas. At the same time, the economy bounced back very sharply, much, much more strongly than we expected. In fact, I remember after 2011 and entering politics, we were discussing this issue, having dialogues. Many businesses and employers were literally scolding us for tightening foreign worker policies. They said, "Look, there's so much growth. Why are you holding us back?" They were very upset with us. But it was that combination of factors – tightening of foreign worker policies, the very strong economic growth during that period – that resulted in a wage growth. If we make that simplistic conclusion, that tight labour markets – just tighten, just tighten – wages will automatically rise, I think we may be going down a very dangerous path, because, beyond a point, if wage increases are not matched by productivity increases, we will lose our competitiveness. When that happens, we are not just squeezing out foreigners, we will be squeezing out investments, and jobs will go with them. That leads me to my third point, which is that this thinking is not just simplistic or wishful; it is fatally flawed. If we were to take such a short-sighted approach, companies will leave and jobs will leave with them. Over time, Singapore's reputation as a business hub will surely be impacted. Our economy will decline and Singaporeans will suffer. There is another thing about the PSP's approach that worries me.”
“And did some Members of the PSP not ask earlier when I was in MOE, they certainly did, let us recruit more teachers? Where are we going to find all the Singaporeans? Everybody wants more. Indeed, if you go to any of our faculties or maybe most of the faculties in our Universities, Polytechnics and ITEs, they will tell you, when they talk to industries, the industries and employers are saying, "Look, we want your graduates but produce more of them." And how are we going to produce more Singaporean graduates? If we move to one area, the other will say that there is a shortage. That is just the stark reality. Then, there is another argument that says, "Look, so many mid-careers underemployed. Let us train them." Yes, we are doing our best to train all the mid-career PMETs, but this does not happen overnight. All of us know, it is very hard for someone in his 40s and 50s to make a career change to transit from one industry that they have been working in for years to another industry. It takes tremendous effort. And that is why, as I have mentioned earlier, the Government is going all out to help our mid-careers. We are investing more heavily in SkillsFuture, in lifelong learning, we are working with our tripartite partners, and especially with NTUC and the Labour Movement. But individuals also do have to make the effort in order to make these transitions. So, that is my first point. It is hard work getting this reskilling done and we should not just automatically assume that squeezing foreigners means jobs will go to Singaporeans. Second, Ms Hazel Poa also showed the chart that suggested there was an association between tight labour markets and wage growth. Yes, perhaps there was; the data is quite clear, based on the last 10 years.”
“They are here, as Ms Mariam Jaafar said just now, to play the global game. They are not here to serve the Singapore market. They are here to serve the region and the world. Here, in Singapore, they want to bring together an international team. That is our value proposition to them. That is why they find Singapore attractive. Imagine if you tell them, "Look, you can only be here if you fulfil 90% of your staff being locals. That is the condition." Why would they find that attractive anymore? To assume that by squeezing the foreigners, all these jobs will go to Singaporeans, I think that is just being very simplistic about the argument. But Mr Leong Mun Wai goes further than that. He says, "Look, if foreigners go and Singaporeans cannot take the jobs, that is the failure of the education system." Really? I think that argument is completely disingenuous and does a great disservice to our educators and teachers in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Gerald Giam did not go as far as Mr Leong Mun Wai, but they had variations of the same argument. If only you did better with training. If only you taught all the kids coding from a young age 20 years ago. If only. Sir, we will continue to improve our education system. But I think all of these arguments miss out on the most important point. And, that is, the stark reality that Singaporeans are great as a workforce, but there are just not enough of us. We have needs in IT. We have tremendous need in engineering. Look at the services sector, healthcare is growing, we need more people to look after our elderly population. We need more doctors, nurses. We need more physiotherapists. Oh, by the way, low-income issues are a problem, do we not need more social workers, too?”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for speaking in this debate. We all know that change is the only constant. COVID-19 has accelerated change further with digital transformation, new business models and new ways of working. In the coming years, we will see more disruptions and volatility in the global economy. As entire industries adapt to these changes, many jobs will be transformed. The skillsets needed will change. New jobs will be created but some jobs will become obsolete. This is the reality of the globalised world we live in and this is the inevitable price of human progress. Sentiments towards these changes are understandably mixed. Some foresee limitless new opportunities. Others fear massive dislocation of jobs. How Singapore capitalises on these opportunities while addressing the anxieties around jobs will determine our success and whether we remain cohesive and intact as one people. I am glad that Members who have spoken acknowledged that this is a complex issue requiring a delicate balancing act. We need to deliberate our options carefully and work hard to find solutions that balance the different interests and the needs of our stakeholders. There are no easy answers. Sir, I have listened carefully to the points that Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa made just now. If I may summarise the basic thrust of their argument: we have too many foreigners in Singapore; let us squeeze them out of Singapore; and these jobs will go to Singaporeans; even better, our wages will go up. But this is simplistic and wishful thinking. Let me explain why. First, when we squeeze foreign PMETs, the jobs will not automatically go to Singaporeans. Just think about this. Global businesses are here – international consultancies and private banks.”
“We ensure every Singaporean has a place in our society and a share in our nation's progress. We keep Singapore and Singaporeans together, not fractured. What alternative is the PSP offering? I hope Mr Leong Mun Wai will give us a satisfactory answer later with concrete policy alternatives, and not resort to anti-foreigner rhetoric to stir anger and fear or disaffection against the Government. Sir, the PAP Government has and will continue to serve with the best interests of all Singaporeans at heart. The challenges before us are complex. There are no silver bullets or instant solutions. It would have been easy for us to make cosmetic changes for symbolic effect or political gestures but that is not the way we operate. Our approach is to deal squarely with the difficult issues, to be upfront with Singaporeans about our challenges and trade-offs. We deliberate options carefully. We discuss with stakeholders, especially our tripartite partners. We forge consensus on the way forward to bring about solutions that are durable, effective and sustainable. Working together in this way, we have overcome crisis after crisis. During bad times, we do not quarrel and fight over a shrinking pie. Instead, we rally as a team to solve our problems and grow the pie for all to benefit. Let us continue to work together to build a better Singapore for ourselves, our children and our children's children. Let us never stop thinking about tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Let me share an email I received, or some Ministers received, from a Singaporean of Indian ethnicity. And this is what he wrote and I quote, "due to such PSP campaign and what is falsely reported in social media, there is every possibility that Singaporeans who are shortlisting candidates may not shortlist me for interviews thinking that I am an India Indian. I decided to indicate on the header of my resume on each page 'Singapore Citizen', but does this help? I don’t think so… I seek your assistance that our Government put a stop to the PSP campaign which is truly racist and is hurting Singapore Indians and we are splitting Singaporeans along racist lines. These are little hairline cracks that if left unchecked will result in bigger issues in years to come." So, I appeal to the PSP, its two representatives here and its leadership outside the House. If you are truly concerned about the well-being of our fellow Singaporeans and the future of this country, please have a care about how you go about dealing with these issues. Please reflect on how your rhetoric can deepen fault lines, not just between locals and foreigners, but even between Singaporeans of different races. Please refrain from exploiting Singaporeans' anxieties for your own political gain. I hope that when Mr Leong Mun Wai rises to speak later, he will share with us PSP's approach to deal with this important issue of jobs. I have set out comprehensively the Government's strategy. We stay open and connected to the world to create more jobs and uplift everyone. We take concrete measures to deal with the downsides of an open economy, manage the inflow of workers, tackle discrimination at the workplace and look after those who are displaced.”
“During the debate, Mr Leong Mun Wai acknowledged some of the points and he said, and I quote, that the PSP "fully supports FTAs" and is "in favour of having foreign talents or foreigners to come in to complement us". So, with that as the starting point, I look forward to hearing Mr Leong Mun Wai's further elaboration on the PSP's position today. In particular, at the last debate, Mr Ong Ye Kung asked whether the PSP agreed on two key points: first, that FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and our ability to earn a living and we should not shake this bedrock principle for political purposes; second, that CECA is not the cause of the challenges faced by our PMEs and does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore. Those were the two questions raised by Mr Ong Ye Kung then. Mr Leong Mun Wai had not given this House a clear answer to these two questions. The PSP has had two months to think about their answers. So, I hope that when Mr Leong Mun Wai rises next, he will speak clearly. If he acknowledges that FTAs, including CECA, are not the cause of the challenges faced by our PMETs, then we can put this issue to rest once and for all. But if he continues to equivocate, or to make misleading or false claims, then we can only conclude that CECA is a cover for the PSP to stoke racist and xenophobic sentiments. The strong racist and xenophobic undertones in the PSP's campaign against CECA have not gone unnoticed. The business community here has already expressed concerns about the rhetoric against foreigners and FTAs – they are worried that the PSP's anti-foreigner stance will undermine their access to workers and jeopardise their overall operations here. Our fellow Singaporeans are also impacted.”
“The PSP has raised questions in Parliament on the nationality breakdown of the EPs. But from a competition and jobs perspective, where the EPs come from should not matter. What is more important are the policy parameters I have just outlined, which determine the overall flow and the quality of the work pass holders. So, if there are questions about this balance, we can discuss and debate the specific settings of our policies. But let us not turn this into an issue about CECA and Indian professionals, which are not relevant, unless the PSP intends to persist with its negative campaign to stir up racial unhappiness. In short, Singapore will remain open and welcoming. We must. But those who do business here must also recognise the value of our workforce and abide by our rules. We will continue to ensure that the companies we attract and root in Singapore are those who are committed to nurturing and growing our Singaporean Core. Both sides need to make the effort. Singaporeans must be big-hearted and accepting of those who are different from us. Non-Singaporeans must respect our norms and way of life and make the effort to fit in. Sir, all of us in this House are concerned about the job challenges faced by Singaporeans. So, I welcome this debate today. But we should not be starting this debate from zero. At the last debate in July, my colleagues Mr Ong Ye Kung and Dr Tan See Leng explained why we need FTAs, including CECA, to attract investments and create jobs for Singaporeans. Both Ministers went to great lengths, showing the specific clauses in the text, to explain why the Movement of Natural Persons provisions in our FTAs do not allow free access for foreigners to work in Singapore.”
“At the same time, we continue to bring in manpower and skills from around the world to complement our own people, to give us that extra boost so we can continue to thrive amidst intense global competition. We do this across every level of the workforce. At the lower end of the income spectrum, we bring in Work Permit holders. The numbers are quite large, but we need them in areas like construction and marine. So, we control the flow with quotas and levies. For the middle-income tier, we have Singaporeans doing the jobs, but there are not enough of them and we need to top-up with S Pass holders. We control the flow with quotas and levies, but we also impose minimum qualifying salaries to make sure they have the right skill sets and are in areas where we need them most. At the higher level, we bring in professionals with the abilities and skills to contribute at the upper end of the workforce. We need the right instrument to manage the flow of these foreign professionals and ensure they are of the right calibre. This is best achieved not through levies and quotas, but through the salary cut-offs, because how much the employer is prepared to pay is a practical indicator of quality. Last year, we raised the EP qualifying salary twice. We will continue to ensure that the qualifying salaries, for both S Passes and EPs, keep pace with our local wages. We are also studying how to further improve this framework to have a finer-grained feel for the people we bring in and ensure we get the right talent for Singapore. This is how we constantly adjust the balance in our workforce and bring together the best talent for Team Singapore. Based on this framework, we allow companies to bring in the workers they need at different levels.”
“But we are not going back to the pre-COVID-19 status quo ante. After the crisis, we expect a permanent shift in support levels with more help for our workers, especially as we enter a period of greater volatility and disruption. MOF is working through these details carefully to make sure that the changes we make are financially sustainable. I promise all Singaporeans, especially those who are displaced: you will never be alone. We will continue to invest in your capabilities and skills; help you stay competitive; and walk this journey with you through the rest of your careers. Sir, what I have just described fits into our overall policy for Singapore: to grow our economy, to improve our standard of living and make sure we progress cohesively as a nation, both now and into the future. Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion states that the Government's "foreign talent policy" is the cause of job anxieties. But he is barking up the wrong tree because the issue is not about local talent versus foreign talent. This is not a zero-sum competition, as I have explained. What we have is a Singapore talent policy – to maximise our overall talent pool, so that we can achieve the best outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans. We do this by first nurturing and growing our own talent, because Singaporeans will always be our priority and at the centre of everything we do. We start from young through significant investments in preschool and education to help every child achieve their full potential. We are also broadening our conception of merit and giving people opportunities to advance and excel across different domains and at multiple stages of their lives.”
“This is why the Government has been investing heavily in SkillsFuture to help all Singaporeans learn for life and to stay employable in this competitive environment. We are paying special attention to mid-career PMETs to equip them with relevant skills and to find new jobs. Take the example of Mr Edwin Chee, who was retrenched in May 2019 as an engineer in a manufacturing firm. Edwin took the plunge and made a career switch to the rapidly growing medical technology industry. Although he was new to the industry, his company valued his good attitude and past experience and hired him under the Career Conversion Programme. Through the programme, Edwin learnt the ins-and-outs of the sector, picked up new skills and successfully pivoted into his new role as a senior engineer. Today, Edwin has settled into his new role and enjoys better prospects in this rapidly growing industry. COVID-19 has given us greater impetus to accelerate this important work and to provide more help for displaced workers. We are pressing ahead with our industry transformation efforts to raise wages and productivity across all sectors. We are stepping up employment and training support, especially for mid-career and mature workers to help them pivot into new growth areas. We are doing everything we can to help displaced workers get back into jobs. We want to minimise their time out of a job, help them find good job matches that build on their wealth of skills and experience, and give them an injection of skills, if needed, for the new job. These are the major undertakings under the National Jobs Council chaired by Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Some of our current schemes are temporary incentives for jobs which will be tapered down as the economy recovers.”
“They may have been victims of discriminatory hiring practices. The Prime Minister spoke frankly about these issues at the National Day Rally (NDR). We recognise the pain and the frustration of those who feel unfairly treated by a foreign boss or a foreign colleague. When our agencies pick up problematic indicators in a firm, we place the firm on the watchlist for closer scrutiny and our agencies step in to intervene, quietly but effectively. As the Prime Minister announced at NDR, we will now enshrine the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices into law. This is a major philosophical shift. We had deliberated over this for some time and had hesitated to do this in the past. We were concerned that doing so would lead to a more litigious and confrontational process; it could easily sour workplace relations, harming both employers and employees. But after hearing from the Labour Movement and NTUC Members of Parliament, and consulting our tripartite partners, we decided we could manage these concerns and that it was time to change, to send a clear signal that we have zero tolerance of discrimination at the workplace and to give our agencies more regulatory levers to take action against errant employers. To be fair, the majority of companies do behave responsibly. But we know that unfair practices occur from time to time. We will spare no effort in investigating every case thoroughly. Where companies are found wanting, there will be consequences. Third, we do everything we can to help those who are displaced. To every person who loses his job, the unemployment rate is 100%. Losing one's job is disorienting and disabling; there are no two ways about it. We understand your concerns and will do our utmost to help you.”
“That is why populist and anti-immigrant parties – even neo-Nazis and fascists – do well in many European countries. Far easier to point fingers, make one nationality or another the scapegoat and blame them for all our troubles, rather than work on reskilling our workers. I emphasise again: there are downsides to an open economy and these must be attended to. But if we want an economy where nobody will ever be displaced, then we will stagnate and atrophy. So, the right approach is not to impede progress by holding on to every job even as they become obsolete, but to work hard to protect every worker and help those who are displaced. In this way, we grow the economic pie for everyone, and ensure that the cost of globalisation and openness does not fall unfairly on the displaced workers. This is, indeed, the approach we, the PAP and NTUC, have taken. On an overall basis, the pluses of what we have been able to achieve far outweigh the negatives. For example, over the past decade, we have had around 60,000 resident PMET retrenchments. But we have seen a much bigger increase of around 300,000 in PMET employment for residents. At the same time, we have taken and will continue to take proactive steps to deal with the downsides. First, we are continually updating our manpower policies and rules to ensure that the flow of work pass holders is managed and they are of the right calibre. Hence, we review and update the criteria for work pass holders over time and I will elaborate on this later in my speech. Second, we uphold fair employment practices and take a strong stance against discrimination at the workplace. We know that some Singaporeans have experienced this. Their foreign colleagues may not be up to scratch. They may have been unfairly passed over for a promotion.”
“So, the data and evidence are clear: our economic policies have helped to raise living standards across the board, and to create many good jobs for Singaporeans. Our children – fresh graduates from our IHLs, Polys and ITEs – are benefiting. They are doing the jobs of the future, not the past, which would have disappeared in any event if we had stood still in the 1990s. Sir, what I have described so far are not just abstract figures. They reflect the lived experiences of the vast majority of Singaporeans, whose lives have improved as a result of our policies. But we know that globalisation is not an unmitigated good. Being a hub economy brings many benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans but it also comes with its share of costs. The rapid pace of change and the “creative destruction” that takes place in any vibrant economy mean that there will be people displaced from their jobs. But the issue is not about foreigners working here. Even if we got rid of “tens of thousands” of foreigners, locals will continue to be displaced because of technology, because of innovation, because of the changing nature of work over time. With the rise of remote work, people can work from anywhere in the world and they need not be all in the same place. In the face of these painful dislocations, it is easy for politicians to blame someone for them. People do not lose jobs because of technology or innovations, they say, but it is because of the foreigners in our midst; they are the reason you have been displaced. And if they can mobilise existing racial prejudices against particular foreign nationalities here, better still. That is why we see nationalist and protectionist sentiments gaining ground everywhere around the world.”
“But you can see from the data that relying on the local pipeline alone will not be enough. We also need to balance the needs of other sectors. Because if we increase the intake of young people in ICT too sharply, we will end up with fewer people in other areas like nursing or physiotherapy. Then, the complaint will not be about foreigners in IT but foreigners in our hospitals. It is not just the number of jobs that has grown. Career choices have also expanded as we become more vibrant as a hub economy. Look at the financial services sector. More than 20 years ago, the sector was smaller and the jobs available were more domestically focused than today. Most of the jobs then were in our three local retail banks: DBS, OCBC and UOB. Today, the financial services sector has grown significantly. Our local banks now have a good overseas footprint. In addition, we have anchored major international banks like the Asia Pacific operations of Citi and the global operations of Standard Chartered, as well as a wider variety of other players, including private banks, asset managers, specialist and reinsurance firms, fintech companies and more. They serve not only the domestic market, but also the larger regional and global markets. Across the financial sector, the number of Singaporeans holding senior level positions has also grown steadily over the years and continues to do so. Just in recent months, we have seen Singaporeans being appointed new leadership positions in various international firms including Deutsche Bank and HSBC, as they expand their operations here. As we anchor more businesses here and as they expand their footprint, there will be more opportunities for Singaporeans as well.”
“Is that what we want? Stagnate in the 1990s, while the rest of the world progresses around us? Remember how Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said, “Never fear, 10 years from now, this will be a metropolis”. What do Mr Leong Mun Wai and the PSP promise: “10 years from now, we will go back 30 years”? The reality is that as a business hub, we cannot escape global competition, whether it comes from China or India or the developed countries or cities. But by combining and complementing local and foreign professionals, we are able to attract more investments, including from cutting-edge companies. Then, we can grow the pie, create many more good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans. And, in fact, companies are actively hiring locals into PMET jobs. Most of our local graduates are snapped up as soon as they enter the workforce. Over the past decade, nine in 10 were employed within six months after graduation, with starting salaries rising steadily. And our resident PMET unemployment rate remains low. Consider the IT sector. Twenty years ago, few Singaporeans wanted to study computer science. It was one of the least popular courses in our Universities. Today, the IT sector has grown manifold and there is huge demand for tech professionals in every sector. IMDA estimates there are around 19,000 unfilled tech jobs across our economy each year. Computer science is now an extremely popular course and its graduates are in huge demand. The median starting salary of a computer science University fresh graduate is around $4,000 to $5,000 a month. Last year, around 7,600 local students enrolled in ICT courses in our Universities, Polytechnics and ITEs. Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are producing as many ICT graduates as they can.”
“He called it in one of his earlier Facebook posts, “rebalancing”. But it is quite clear what he means. In one post, he said we can get rid of “tens of thousands”, I quote, "tens of thousands" of work pass holders and he thinks that Singaporeans can then fill these jobs. But that thinking is fatally flawed. First, we already have more than 25,000 PMET vacancies today, with many companies still looking to hire. With so many companies having difficulties filling these vacancies, how would we find people with the relevant skillsets to take on the additional “tens of thousands” of jobs that Mr Leong thinks can be created by getting rid of the foreigners? Second, if our policies were to become overly restrictive, companies will just find other places to operate in where they can be more competitive. We would lose all the jobs they brought here. And if we are not careful, decades of hard work to build up our business hub will be wasted. Our economy will contract and go down in a tailspin. We will end up with far worse problems, and it is not the foreigners but Singaporeans who will, ultimately, pay the price. Today, foreign PMETs account for about 20% of our PMET workforce. For those who would like to see fewer foreign work pass holders, they may perhaps be feeling a sense of nostalgia about how things were like in the past. Let us say we go back to the 1990s. Back then, we were not as developed as a hub economy; so foreign PMETs accounted for just 10% of our PMET workforce. But remember, our overall standards of living were also much lower then. In 1995, that is the earliest I could get data on, our GDP per capita was just around $35,000 instead of more than $80,000 now. And median salaries of residents were less than $2,000 compared to around $4,500 today.”
“What is our response to these global businesses? Do we want them in Singapore or not? These companies can locate their functions in any other hub city, be it Hong Kong, New York or London. If we were to take a politically craven approach and impose many stringent conditions on their ability to operate here, we will lose out on many good investments. We would have fewer foreigners for sure. But many Singaporeans will also be deprived of good jobs and career opportunities. It is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Let me be clear: we are bringing in investments and growing the economy, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Our aim is to create good jobs and improve the lives of all Singaporeans. Our strategies have worked. Look at the data over the last decade. From 2010 to 2019, up until COVID-19 struck, median income in real terms grew by 3.2% per annum for residents. Income growth at the lower end has kept pace with the median. Likewise, household incomes have also risen across the board. Our employment rate has been amongst the highest in the world; our unemployment rate has been kept low. Look at the PMET data – professionals, managers, executives, technicians. Between 2010 and 2020, local PMET employment grew by about 300,000. This is almost three times the increase in EP and S Pass holders over the same time period, which was about 110,000. These are substantial achievements which we can be proud of and which we should celebrate. But the PSP wants to sweep these aside. They downplay the jobs, opportunities and outcomes we have created, and play up the anxieties. The PSP assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here, then all these jobs will automatically go to Singaporeans. Mr Leong Mun Wai has a euphemism for it.”
“Job stability has fallen across advanced economies. In part, this is the result of the churn that happens in any vibrant economy. In some sectors, firms will close and let go of people. In other sectors, there will be growth and more promising jobs being created. Technology is accelerating this churn due to the disruptions it causes across all sectors of the economy. In some places, the churn they are experiencing is coupled with structural difficulties. For example, entire industries going down with no new jobs to replace, and places like these have started to turn inwards and become more protectionist. But that is not a viable option for Singapore. As a small island state with no natural resources and no hinterland, the only way we can survive and prosper is to stay open and connected. And, indeed, we have thrived over the decades only because we are an open economy and a business hub. Global businesses see value in locating their regional and global functions here. Homegrown enterprises benefit, too, because they can expand easily to markets overseas and access opportunities everywhere around the world. Ultimately, businesses choose Singapore because of our openness, our rule of law and our consistency in policies. They will hire many Singaporeans because they know the quality of our people: their skills, their drive, their honesty. And, indeed, the quality of the Singaporean workforce is one reason why they came here in the first place. But there are not enough Singaporeans to fill all the jobs available. Moreover, as international companies, they want to have a diverse workforce and to move their staff around their different offices to develop them. So, here, in Singapore, they bring together the best team to oversee their regional and global operations.”
“I would like to bring it all together in this Motion today to explain where the Government stands on jobs, why we must remain open and connected to the world, and how we are managing the foreign manpower population. Mr Leong Mun Wai has also filed a Motion on this matter. We had invited him to do so earlier. His Motion appears to be addressing concerns about jobs, but it, yet again, falsely attributes the challenges faced to our FTAs and foreigners. This is despite the clarifications made by my colleagues Mr Ong Ye Kung and Dr Tan See Leng in July. So, we cannot accept his Motion. That is why the Government has moved a separate Motion to explain and reiterate our position on this important matter. It is important Singaporeans, and the world, understand where we stand. And as Mr Ong Ye Kung said in July, we are prepared to fight the next election on this issue. We are prepared to fight any party that chooses to take a populist line and stirs racism and xenophobia. Sir, we recognise that Singaporeans are anxious about jobs and competition. The pace of change in our economy has accelerated over the decades. Think about what our economy was like in the early 1990s. Then, PMETs made up just about 30% of our local workforce. It was rare to hear of PMETs being retrenched. There was a higher chance of retrenchments amongst non-PMETs, but not so much amongst PMETs. Today, PMETs make up a much larger 60% of our local workforce. Inevitably, we are seeing more retrenchments amongst them. And though the absolute number of layoffs is not many, even those who are in good jobs worry and wonder if they might be next. The pandemic has also increased the economic churn and uncertainty and deepened these worries. It is the same all around the world.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That this House: (a) acknowledges Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy; (b) affirms Singapore’s need to stay open and connected to the world in order to grow and prosper; (c) supports Government actions to manage the population of foreign manpower, ensure fair treatment by employers, and invest in education and upskilling, to create more good jobs for Singaporeans; (d) calls on the Government to continue to update and improve its policies to secure the well-being and livelihoods of Singaporeans in an uncertain post-pandemic world; and (e) deplores attempts to spread misinformation about free trade agreements like the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), stir up racism and xenophobia, and cause fear and anxiety amongst Singaporeans." Sir, securing jobs, livelihoods and better lives for Singaporeans has always been what this Government is about. All our economic policies, be they free trade agreements or foreign manpower policies, are about creating jobs for our people and helping Singaporeans achieve their aspirations. Every detail matters. Many of you will remember: Mr Lee Kuan Yew took special care to make the road leading from Changi Airport to the city as attractive as possible to impress foreign investors. They see this tree-lined road and their first impression is that this is a well-run place, able to plan and implement. So, it is safe to invest here and create jobs here. That is the level of detail, the persistence and devotion, that carries on to this day – all to secure jobs and livelihoods for Singaporeans. We have explained to Singaporeans many times, our approach and policies. We have debated in this House too, including recently in July.”
“The Government does not comment on specific investment decisions or exposures of our investment entities, as we assess their performance on an overall portfolio basis, over the long term. Temasek and GIC have globally diversified portfolios, with investment exposures across geographies, asset classes and sectors. The portfolios of both entities have exposures to China, including its education sector, as they have to other geographies. While the recent Chinese regulatory decision had an impact on investments in its education sector, such developments are part and parcel of investing. Portfolios may be impacted by changes in the operating environment from time to time. What is more important and relevant is the performance of the overall portfolio over the long term. The Net Investment Return Contribution is tied to the long-term expected returns of our investment entities and their total portfolios. It is not driven by short-term impacts to investments.”
“Over the past five years, there were five cases of irregularities in the documents furnished for audits by public officers. While this is a small number compared to the huge amount of documents submitted for audit, we take a serious view of these offences. Public officers undergo regular training and milestone programmes throughout their careers. The training covers learning points from audit observations and good practices. The Finance and Procurement Academy was set up last year to better equip Public Officers with finance and procurement skills including governance and internal controls. All public officers are also required to take an annual Code of Conduct quiz that aims to refresh and reinforce officers’ awareness and understanding of the key conduct principles and the behaviour expected of all public officers as they carry out their duties. Apart from training, there are a number of whole-of-Government platforms to communicate common audit findings, root causes, remedial measures and learning points to all agencies across different levels of seniority. Integrity-related misconduct are viewed seriously and penalties meted out to officers found guilty of the misconduct include dismissal and demotion. Police reports are made in serious cases where we have reasonable grounds to believe that officers have broken the law. The vast majority of public officers serve with integrity and perform their duties to the best of their abilities.”
“(b) all finance officers are required to attend training courses that cover key financial procedures, including payments and internal controls. These are reinforced at milestone programmes and training sessions throughout the officers’ career. We will continue to review our financial procedures and systems to maintain their effectiveness. As stewards of public resources, we are firmly committed to ensuring a strong governance system.”
“There are rules and guidelines on financial controls which govern public agencies in carrying out various finance functions including payments. Heads of agencies are responsible for ensuring that sound accounting practices and adequate internal controls are in place. Let me elaborate using some examples. Our payment processing cycle is automated with system controls to ensure timely and accurate payments. Invoices are received electronically from suppliers via the electronic invoicing network, thereby reducing the risks of handling paper invoices and data-entry error. Invoices are then automatically matched against the purchase order and goods or services receipt note. Prior to that, public officers are required to check supporting documents and verify that the works are completed satisfactorily. For instance, prior to certifying payments for facility management services, the officer has to verify documentation such as service records, maintenance audit reports and inspection checklists. The officer also needs to conduct test-checks to ascertain that the contractors have met the performance standards. Agencies can proactively monitor the status of their payments to suppliers and benchmark the timeliness of their payments via dashboards on the financial data analytics system. Such tools and practices have enabled agencies to achieve a prompt payment rate of 98% in FY2020. We strengthen internal controls through ongoing efforts to develop capabilities. Some examples are: (a) strengthening internal audit capabilities, including the use of data analytics to conduct post-disbursement checks on payments and grants to identify anomalies.”
“The Government takes these audit findings seriously. The relevant agencies have reviewed each case carefully and are taking steps to enhance their systems and processes. At the whole-of-Government (WOG) level, we are implementing measures to strengthen governance across our agencies. For example: (a) the WOG Risk Management team supports public agencies in implementing Enterprise Risk Management practices and integrating risk management into policy planning and operations. (b) public agencies are strengthening internal audit capabilities through expanded use of data analytics in conducting audits such as post-disbursement checks on payments and grants. Central guidance and resources ensure consistency in audit approach and practices across the Public Service. (c) to consolidate construction procurement and contract management, the Building and Infrastructure Centre of Excellence now oversees project management for about $7 billion worth of projects from 27 agencies. We are similarly embarking on efforts to consolidate the facilities management of government offices. The Public Service is committed to upholding high standards of governance. The leadership sets the tone and culture for the whole Public Service, pays attention to governance issues, acts decisively when problems are detected and takes disciplinary action, where needed. The Public Service leadership will continue to leverage on different platforms and channels to communicate expectations and share learning points, besides taking active steps to strengthen structures, processes, capabilities and systems.”
“The Report of the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) is an important element of the system of governance that we have put in place to ensure good internal controls and effective use of public funds. The public service takes corrective and preventive actions in response to the findings of the AGO report and other “health checks”, including internal audits and continuous improvement projects. Even with these various checks in place, we cannot expect zero lapses given the scale and complexity of Government operations. We have more than 150,000 officers in the Public Service handling hundreds of thousands of transactions each year. There are more than 2,000 Government IT systems built over the years by different vendors and using different technologies. The repeated lapses highlighted in the Report of the Auditor-General this year were in the areas of IT controls, procurement and contract management. In general, these lapses can be attributed to gaps in public agencies’ processes and human factors. The lapses in IT controls were related to weaknesses in the review of privileged users’ activities and management of user accounts and access rights. Currently, many of these procedures have manual steps which are prone to human error. Agencies are implementing technical solutions to reliably automate these IT tasks. However, there will be scenarios that cannot be fully automated and may require human intervention. Many of the lapses in procurement and contract management were related to inadequate control and monitoring of contractors and managing agents, and lack of documentation of decisions made or work done. This is more challenging in complex construction projects where there can be hundreds of contract variations due to changing circumstances as the project progresses.”
“We announced at Budget 2021 that we are reviewing the post-2023 carbon tax level and trajectory to spur the transition to a more sustainable future, while maintaining our overall economic competitiveness. The outcome of the review will be announced at Budget 2022 to provide time for adjustment to the changes. We will engage widely as part of this review. The public have also been providing their views, through ongoing engagements on how the Singapore Green Plan and the carbon tax can help us achieve a low-carbon, sustainable future. In the annual lead up to Budget 2022, MOF will also seek views from the public. More details on engagements will be shared as they become available. The transition to a greener and more sustainable future will involve difficult trade-offs. But there will also be opportunities for innovation and growth. The Government will continue to support Singaporeans and businesses through this transition.”
“Debarment is an administrative procedure to protect the Government’s interests as a buyer, against those who have caused direct harm or losses. Where corruption is involved, CPIB can recommend to the Standing Committee on Debarment (SCOD) to take administrative action after a court decision which establishes that a contractor or any of its employees, directors, partners or its sole proprietor had bribed a public sector officer or another person, in connection with a Government agency or contract. Regarding the case of the former LTA deputy group director convicted of receiving bribes, CPIB has submitted its recommendations to SCOD relating to parties who have been convicted. SCOD is currently reviewing CPIB’s recommendations before making its decision.”
“Hence, as noted by the AGO in its latest report, the specific privileged access configuration identified in the latest AGO observation would have been addressed as part of AGD’s commissioned IT audit which was ongoing when AGO conducted its audit between July and November 2020. AGD has since fully rectified the technical misconfigurations highlighted by AGO. The rectification has also been verified through an independent IT audit commissioned by AGD. AGD will continue to strengthen and ensure robust and effective IT security controls over privileged access accounts of AGD systems.”
“The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) is an independent organ of state that carries out audits on the Government’s management of public finances. The Government does not determine the agencies or areas that AGO chooses to audit. The IT audits that the AGO conducts of the Accountant-General’s Department (AGD)’s systems are part of AGO’s annual audit of the Government Financial Statements. The IT audits undertaken by AGO covered separate parts of the AGD system: last year, it was on the payroll and claims system, and this year, it was on the accounting and financial transaction system. Separately, AGD itself commissions external IT audits annually to continuously review and strengthen IT security across its systems. AGD has also proactively taken steps to systematically strengthen IT security over privileged access accounts in the past few years. These include hardening the hosting environment, transiting its in-house IT setup into a GovTech-managed site, implementing privileged access management system, and automating audit logs management to strengthen the controls over privileged access accounts in line with industry standards and best practices. The AGO observations flagged last year and this year were related and pertained to specific technical configuration gaps in the security software used across various AGD systems. When the technical misconfiguration in one of AGD’s systems was first flagged by AGO in its report last year, AGD had followed up to conduct a comprehensive review to prevent similar technical misconfigurations across other AGD systems. But this work could not be completed in time for the AGO report this year.”
“The objective of the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) is to support employers to retain their local workers. Businesses are eligible for JSS so long as they meet the JSS eligibility criteria (like being classified under the relevant SSIC codes) and pay wages and CPF contributions to bona fide local employees. This includes the pivoted nightlife establishments. To ensure that the JSS is paid out to bona fide employees, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), as the administrator of the JSS, has instituted a robust antigaming framework to detect phantom employees. Leveraging data from multiple sources, IRAS will identify cases which could indicate fraudulent or dishonest CPF contributions. Identified firms would have to make declarations and IRAS may conduct further checks before the payouts are released. Where warranted, JSS will be denied and egregious cases will be reported to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) for further investigation and prosecution. Generally, we will not claw back JSS from a company solely on account of breaches of safe management measures. However, we will take tougher action against firms convicted of criminal activities. Any such firm will have its prior payouts clawed back for the period when it was engaging in criminal activities and future payouts denied. For firms that are undergoing Police investigations for criminal activities, we will withhold their future JSS payouts (if any), as well as payouts for other COVID-19 assistance measures, such as the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI), pending outcome of these investigations.”
“The Government does not prescribe the individual investment actions of our investment entities, which make commercial decisions independent of the Government. GIC and Temasek are already holistically integrating sustainability considerations in their investment processes so as to protect and enhance the long-term value of their portfolios. Indeed, climate change is one of the most crucial challenges of this era. As long-term investors, both GIC and Temasek see sustainability as core to how they invest, what companies they invest in and how they set their investment strategies. Strong sustainability practices are integral to delivering sustainable investment returns over the long term. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry increased business, reputational, as well as environmental, social and governance risks.”
“The Government does not assess Temasek’s performance using a single metric. Instead, we look at a number of indicators, including risk-adjusted returns. Our focus is on its overall long-term performance, not year-to-year. We also take into consideration a range of factors when assessing Temasek’s performance, including its investment strategy and risk exposure. In particular, Temasek’s investment approach is different from that of a benchmark investor seeking to outperform a broad-based market index. Instead, as an active, bottom-up investor, Temasek will invest in a company based on its business and long-term growth potential. Another important difference is that Temasek invests across listed and unlisted assets. The latter are not covered by broad market indices. The general market indices, such as MSCI World Index, are very broad indices with a wide range of stocks across different countries and industry sectors. The allocations across sectors and countries are typically based on the market capitalisation of listed stocks. Temasek’s portfolio composition is very different from these indices. Having said that, market indices provide useful broad reference points as to how the overall market has moved over time. Temasek has presented such comparisons of its performance against various MSCI indices on its website. Information on the returns and risk performance of GIC and Temasek’s portfolios is available publicly. GIC publishes both returns and volatility of its portfolio over various horizons. Temasek publishes its annual returns from which one can also derive its portfolio volatility and thus relevant risk-return ratios.”
“Government procurement is conducted according to the principles of transparency, open and fair competition. Contracts are awarded to suppliers who are best able to meet the requirements published in each call for tender and achieves value-for-money, regardless of nationality of their headquarters. We do not track the headquarter locations of our suppliers or their parent companies. In 2020, Government engaged more than 1,400 suppliers for ICT, finance and other professional services, of which 86% are located in Singapore. These entities won about 97% of the approximately $1.5 billion contract value awarded by the Government for these services. MOM publishes statistics on the number of employed residents by industry sector in the Labour Force in Singapore reports which are published annually and available publicly on MOM’s website.”