Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 25.
“The fourth question and the last one, is on the part of my speech where I talked about who checks the checkers. I think it is a big subject. Essentially, I asked what recourse does a concerned citizen have in Singapore if they feel that very senior officials – Prime Minister, Minister of Home Affairs himself – has been suborned by a foreign power? What is their channel to redress that, to have that addressed? As far as I could discern, the Minister responded by saying that the form of redress would be the same as it is in other countries, which is through other people. So, actually, I would like to put this back to the Minister and say that in the spirit of coming to Parliament, not with rhetoric, but with concrete and practical solutions, could you expand on really what is the redress in that kind of scenario, very practically speaking?”
“Four supplementary questions. The first two are actually related to my speech and I do not think the Minister answered them, that is, unless I missed them. The first one is the subject of a Part 3 Direction or POL declaration can apply within a 30-day timeframe to the Minister for an appeal for reconsideration. But does the Minister have a timeframe within which he must respond on that; so, would the Minister commit to that? The second question is relating to clause 93, those who are designated as PSPs or PSEs issued directives on the Parts 5 and 6 may only appeal against that decision to the Minister. They have no right to appeal to the Tribunal, I believe, unlike those who are issued Part 3 Directions. So, what is the basis for that? The third question is in relation to what the Minister mentioned about my speech and speeches that I have made over the years. He talked about the trust deficit in countries like the UK and the US which have things like ombudsman and Freedom of Information Act, and so on and so forth. I would like to ask the Minister, would he agree that perhaps the trust deficit in the UK, the US and other countries which have those kinds of institutions that he is referring to may not be because of those institutions. It could be for other factors. And would he not agree that maybe if we took some of the kind of laws that we have in Singapore and applied it to those countries, it may not necessarily increase trust in those countries? And would he not agree that perhaps in Singapore, if we put in place laws a little bit more balanced, along the lines that we have argued today in Parliament, that might possibly increase the trust levels that we have here, even though those trust levels, you think are high. So, that is sort of the third question.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know the hour is late, I will try and keep it short.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, you are just in time, so, my last sentence. Sir, I beg to move my amendments as described in the Order Paper Supplement.”
“There must be rule of law, not rule by law. In conclusion, Sir, I have no doubt that there is a need to safeguard Singapore against foreign interference and I think we are all in agreement on that. However, the Bill, as it stands, has insufficient independent oversight, enables government over-reach and overlooks real dangers like foreign interference directed at Ministers. Like all dangers Singapore faces, the solution should never be to simply give the Government more and more broad discretionary powers that can be used against citizens, critics and Opposition parties, among others. By staking so much on strengthening state discretionary powers in this manner, we diminish the role of education and trust in the political maturity of our citizens, who are better educated than ever. We also risk Executive over-reach and abuse, and the risk of that over-reach or abuse diminishes trust in our institutions potentially, turns our citizens against one another potentially and harms national unity in the face of these foreign threats potentially.”
“In clause 48(1)(b), I am moving an amendment to add the word "reasonable" for the Government’s ability to designate someone a PSP if their employment and activities are not obviously political. This enables a person to apply for judicial review of executive action taken against them under clause 48(1)(b). The amendment to clause 78 requires reportable arrangements to be made public. I would add that our call here is for such publicity to be made with due cognisance taken towards commercial sensitivities and individual privacy. This call should be seen in conjunction with my earlier suggestion to make these reportable arrangements less onerous. In general, published information should be concise and focus on key types of foreign interests associated with PSPs and PSEs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has previously said that it would publish some of these details. So, why am I moving these amendments? Are they redundant? No, for a few reasons. First, the Government did not say that it would publish the reasons behind their FICA decisions, which my amendments to clauses 47, 48, 81, 84 and 85 require the Government to do. Second, there is an amendment to clause 48 that requires the Government to exercise its executive discretion in designating PSPs reasonably. Third, the amendments call on the manner of publishing to be over the Internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge, centralised for ease of use by stakeholders and for accountability. Fourth and, most importantly, Sir, notwithstanding the Government’s public assurance that it would publish information about FICA, we believe that this should be codified in law, so that this Government and future governments are obligated to do this under the law.”
“Sir, many communication platforms nowadays are encrypted end-to-end, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, Messenger and Signal. Does communicating with a foreigner on such a platform like WhatsApp, for example, in and of itself, constitute proof that the communication is covert and clandestine? To turn to my third and last broad theme, Sir, I am moving amendments to this Bill, specifically clauses 47, 48, 78, 79, 81, 84 and 85. I do not propose to repeat these amendments here word for word. These are set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The overall thrust of these amendments is to require the Government to publicise all of its decisions under this Bill, in terms of designating PSPs, issuing directives and taking other actions. The amendments also require that the Government publish the reasons why decisions are taken, including reasons for designating persons or entities, PSPs as dealt with in clause 48 or PSEs as dealt with in clause 47. This will allow the public to understand the reasons behind the Government's actions to form their own conclusions about the justifications for those actions. This is important because how FICA's powers are used is a matter of public interest and deserves scrutiny. These amendments require the Government to publish this information over the Internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge, in the words of my amendment to clause 81 to which other amendments make reference, and this is for the sake of transparency and should be self-explanatory. An exception to transparency in publicising the register of PSEs and PSPs is made on national security grounds, but under the amendments moved by my colleague Ms He Ting Ru, this would be subject to appeals to the High Court and judicial review.”
“The language of the Bill repeatedly states that such arrangements are reportable even if not directed at political ends. This would be very onerous to PSPs who depend on doing business with foreigners for a living or for certain individuals who work with foreigners frequently, like academics, for example. What will the Government do to minimise the onerousness while maintaining the flow of information that is potentially actionable? For example, can the reporting arrangements be made to report on classes of foreign clients and partners, such as, for example, multinational companies in France or academics in Italian business schools, rather than being required to specify each and every one of the names of the foreign individuals or entities which the PSPs have dealings with? This still flags out the countries that the PSP has dealings with. At this point, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy. Thirdly, pursuant to clause 93, those who are designated as PSPs or PSEs or issued directives under Parts 5 and 6, may only appeal against that decision to the Minister. They have no right of appeal to the Tribunal, unlike those who are issued Part 3 directions. What is the basis for this? I ask this question notwithstanding the fact that my colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru, has argued for replacing the Bill’s Review Tribunal mechanism with appeals to the Courts, a proposal I agree with. Fourthly, in the Explanatory Note on page 205 on defining the offence of clandestine acts of foreign interference by electronic means, one example cited might suggest covert links to a foreign principal would be if the person moves communication with the foreign principal to an encrypted communication platform.”
“Much of the work of the PA serves to build political capital and visibility for the Ruling Party by way of the Ruling Party Member of Parliament or individual gracing events as the Guest of Honour, being featured in publicity materials and so on. Given these political connotations and corollary political effects associated with some of the PA’s activities involving Ruling Party figures, will foreigners volunteering for the PA also be subject to foreigner volunteer reporting? This could be one route along which foreign interference directed at the Ruling Party travels. I would like to move to the second broad theme of my speech, Sir, which is clarifications on miscellaneous points, and I would like to pose four clarifying questions for the Minister's replies and, hopefully, assurances. Firstly, the subject of a Part 3 direction or POL declaration can apply, within a 30-day timeframe, to the Minister for a reconsideration of his or her decision under clause 23(1). That is as the Bill stands. However, it appears that the Minister does not have a corresponding deadline against which he or she has to come to a decision on the application for reconsideration. This is problematic, given the potentially deleterious effects which such a Part 3 direction could have on the reputations of individuals and entities. Will the Minister commit to such a timeframe? Secondly, clause 76(1) requires that all PSPs disclose every reportable arrangement during a reporting period to a Competent Authority. These reportable arrangements are defined broadly and could cover arrangements where the PSP, in her private sector capacity, secures a new foreign client for her business, for example.”
“Firstly, does the Minister, in the exercise of his powers under FICA as the Bill stands, agree that he and his office will apply FICA directives and actions equally to foreigners who improperly intervene in domestic partisan politics whether they intervene on the side of the Ruling Party, the Opposition or other parties? Let me offer an illustration. Media reports have described the work of a gentleman residing in Europe who runs a Facebook page that makes frequent interventions concerning partisan politics in Singapore, often to defend the Ruling Party and criticise the Opposition in Singapore. Just a short quote from one of his more recent posts: “People often accuse me of bias because I never criticise the Government in Singapore. As I explained many times, it would be a bit like criticising Usain Bolt for not running fast enough.” To be sure, I am not calling for action to be taken against this person under FICA and I would argue for a more liberal approach towards debate in general, so long as there is transparency. However, does the Minister agree that he will apply FICA directives and actions equally to foreigners who improperly intervene in our domestic politics whether on the side of the Ruling Party or the Opposition? Secondly, the Bill allows for the Government to require reports on foreigners volunteering in political capacities. Does this extend to volunteering for the People’s Association, or PA? The PA works with grassroots advisors who are Ruling Party Members of Parliament or individuals associated with the Ruling Party. It does not formally work with Opposition Members of Parliament.”
“Firstly, can the Minister for Home Affairs under this Bill apply prescribed actions like transparency directives to his Ministerial colleagues and even the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister, could, presumably, remove him from his job as a consequence, but at least the public would see that action before that happens? Secondly, what is the recourse if the Minister for Home Affairs himself falls under foreign influence? Thirdly, is there going to be a FICA Office under this Bill, along the lines of the POFMA office, staffed by trained professionals who could, in theory, investigate Ministers? And if so, how would their independence be established in cases where MHA office holders are themselves the target of investigation? I would like to conclude on this topic by suggesting that the answer to all of these questions could lie in a proposal that has been put forth to this House in the past by Workers' Party Members of Parliament – the creation of the office of an independent Ombudsman. I do not have the time to elaborate on this here but this is a Workers' Party Manifesto proposal and I spoke about it at length during the debate in this House last year on access to justice, including rebutting objections to the idea. The office of a public Ombudsman would, if properly designed and resourced, be a good receptacle for public complaints of FI directed at Ministers and would have the organisational independence and separation from the government of the day to be able to investigate Ministers credibly. Before I leave this subject, I would like to pose two very distinct questions to the Minister for his reply during this debate.”
“This Bill does not create an independent investigative authority that could look into all cases of malicious FI, whether directed at the Ruling Party or the Opposition, nor does it specify a clear route of complaint and follow-up action in cases where a member of the public, be it an NGO, a researcher or an ordinary citizen, has formed suspicions that a Minister is under inappropriate foreign influence. Instead, the Bill, like other Bills in the past, vests broad discretionary powers with the Minister for Home Affairs to act against FI directed at others. What is to be done if the FI is directed at him or her and succeeds? Some academics refer to such a scenario as elite capture. It is not hard to understand why this can happen. A malicious foreign actor bent on interference may find that they have more power to influence Singapore’s politics if they can bring a Minister or even the Minister for Home Affairs himself under their influence rather than an Opposition politician. For a malicious foreign actor, influencing the Prime Minister and his or her Ministers brings more bang for the buck. This scenario is not academic, arcane or improbable. In the USA, one popular narrative that became a significant political issue, and I am not stating that this is ever true, was that the previous President of the United States had been suborned by a foreign power. I would like to ask the Minister, how does this Bill enhance Singapore’s ability to check FI directed at Ministers, Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister? This unpacks itself into a few distinct questions.”
“It is a bit like saying that I should give you a blank cheque but I assure you that I will not write a figure on that cheque that is more than what you agree to pay. The fact is you can. The language of the Bill should reflect intent; language of the Bill, not assurances given outside of that language. Thirdly, Sir, it overlooks the potential for foreigners to interfere by influencing senior government figures or even a Minister for Home Affairs himself or herself one day. Who checks the checkers? Or to follow the Latin expression "quis custodiet ipsos custodes", who watches the watchman? Surely, foreigners with malicious intent would seek influence over those holding more power, first of all, and that means Ministers. Oversight, over-reach and unmet needs overlooked are what the Workers' Party’s amendments and speeches seek to address today. In the rest of my speech, Sir, I will touch on three broad themes. Firstly, on the theme of overlooking needs. What redress does Singapore have in cases where malign foreign influence succeeds in influencing Government Ministers or even the Prime Minister, and Minister for Home Affairs himself or herself? Secondly, on the theme of over-reach, a number of miscellaneous clarifying questions. Thirdly, on the theme of oversight, I shall explain the rationale for the amendments I am moving to this Bill. First of all, Sir, I would like to speak on the danger of foreign interference, or FI, successfully directed at Ministers or even the Prime Minister or Minister for Home Affairs. Of course, I am not suggesting that that has happened in the past or is happening now, but it could. How does this Bill address that? What recourse do Singaporeans have were that to happen? And this is a subject my hon colleague Mr Gerald Giam also spoke about.”
“Sir, let me move on to the provisions of the Bill. Overall, as my colleagues have elaborated on, this Bill fails on three counts, the three "overs", if I may, namely, insufficient oversight, Executive over-reach and overlooking some areas of policy where foreign interference could act, but which this Bill does not provide clear remedies for. Firstly, it provides no independent oversight of the Government, save for the flawed mechanism of a Government-appointed Tribunal that does not meet the standard of independent oversight that is seen to be independent, a standard that is embodied in our judiciary. The Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru, had elaborated on this and explained why we propose to allow High Court appeals and judicial review on FICA matters. Secondly, it over-reaches by giving the Executive government too much power to act, based on suspicions about likely eventualities rather than evidence and with no obligations to state reasons publicly. This creates the potential for abuse of power, especially when we recall that the Minister, like all Ministers regardless of party, is still a political partisan at the end of the day, with a vested interest in winning arguments over critics and opponents and winning elections. The Minister is also subject to error, even with the best of intentions, as are all of us. I am not singling out any party or Minister for blame here. My point is about system design. The Government may respond to such arguments by providing assurances that they will not use the broad powers in FICA in ways that are inappropriate. Sir, that is unsatisfactory.”
“The thing about giving the Executive government more and more power in exchange for stability and economic benefits is this: it is that if that government turns rogue one day and that stability and those benefits no longer get delivered, well-meaning patriots and alternative parties may struggle to change that entrenched government because the legal and institutional tools to bring about that change are all stacked against them and, by then, it will be too late. Some may say that such new laws, like POFMA, have not stifled debate. There is still debate and criticism of the Government in the public square. Sir, I will make two points here. It is hard to know what the effect of these laws has been in the past on the quantity and quality of debate versus if these had not been passed. Secondly, hobbling genuine debate is something that could still happen if future governments decide to use these laws to a greater extent than has thus happened. That could well happen one day if a Ruling Party in the future, for example, faces a political crisis of confidence and decides to use the most draconian provisions latent in these laws to suppress criticism so as to stay in power. Sir, when we face a danger, fake news, foreign interference, whatever, the first impulse should not be to simply give more and more discretionary power to the government of the day. That could well backfire and create ammunition for those who want to disrupt our society, those who want to turn people against the state, those who want to turn people against one another. No, the first impulse should be to build independent institutions and education amongst our citizens so that we respond as a society to meet that threat, as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, and he spoke of non-legislative measures.”
“They are subtle and we do not notice them and, like the proverbial frog boiling in water, one day, after many of these changes, we will wake up and find that we are no longer living in a democratic society envisaged in that most Singaporean of documents, our Pledge. If our rules become more and more tilted, biased and skewed towards the Ruling Party, the government of the day, against critics, alternative parties, or even independent-minded citizens who simply have a point to make in the public square, even at a time when our citizenry is more educated and politically aware than ever before, wither Singapore? What will happen is that our politics will become less accountable, less contestable, less meaningful. The ideas that get raised in the public square may become more and more limited to a narrow field of opinion. Abuses or mistakes may not come to light or will get glossed over in public debate when they do. Fear of the enormous discretionary power of the Government may poison political discourse. And if all of these things happen to our politics then that will affect our policy outcomes on COVID-19, on jobs, on HDB lease decay, on retirement adequacy, reducing inequality and much else. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs earlier spoke about the political philosophy behind such legislation that the risk of a rogue government is perhaps less than the risk of foreign interference or words to that effect, among other arguments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, five Workers' Party Members of Parliament are speaking on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures)Bill and four have filed amendments to the Act to bring balance to this Bill. Why? Some Singaporeans might think that this is an arcane and obscure Bill that will probably only impact those politicos who comment on or get involved in politics. Should we not be spending the time talking about COVID-19 jobs and other bread-and-butter matters? We should talk about bread-and-butter matters and Workers' Party Members of Parliament make parliamentary interventions on these matters even during the Sittings, such as Parliamentary Questions on COVID-19. But this Bill is important, too. It is important not only because there have always been malicious foreign actors who seek to twist our politics to their own ends and always will be, it is also important because the Bill the Government has placed before Parliament today promises to give yet more levers of power to the Ruling Party, which can potentially be abused for partisan purposes, to limit criticism and disadvantage political opponents, plus corroding the very functioning of our hard-won democratic society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since entering this Chamber in 2016, I have had the privilege of participating in debates on the Constitution Amendment Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill and POFMA, all of which altered the rules of our politics in significant ways to increase broad discretion held by the Government to affect political outcomes. Sir, sometimes, in life, changes happen bit by bit.”
“Can we shift local Singaporeans from some of these at-risk gig jobs to redesigned, revamped trades jobs? In conclusion, Sir, every country struggles to find the right balance between foreigners and locals in their economy and that balance changes from one era to another. In other developed countries, one often finds a more relaxed and liberal attitude towards foreign talent in big cities like London and New York, where even those in relatively lower-income trades jobs, like taxi drivers and restaurant staff, have often benefited from the rising tide that foreigners contribute to. But go to the towns and cities where living standards have stagnated or nosedived, like some of the opioid-ravaged midwestern towns in the US, and you sometimes find bitterness towards foreigners and the cancer of racism, together with the far-right, nativist politics that go along with that. With the right policies, goals and mindsets, Sir, I believe Singapore can return to what it was in a previous era: a country of citizens who are confident enough about their present and their future to welcome foreign talent that genuinely complements our strengths and adds value to our lives.”
“Are trades jobs persons given proper break times and reasonable expectations on hours and working at short notice? Are they treated by bosses with respect? Are they given enough paid leave? These should all be studied and addressed. As I argued in this House a few months ago, no Singaporean will take a trades job at high pay if he or she knows that they will be treated with disrespect and have to put up with awful conditions. They may prefer to do gig work or a lowly-paid office job that attracts less pay with all the attendant dangers of obsolescence from technology that those kinds of jobs bring. Fourthly, we need to enhance the prestige and standing of trades jobs. I do not have the luxury of time to elaborate on this particular point during this speech, but more can be done to try to shift expectations and attitudes. It is worth bearing in mind that trades jobs are highly respected in many countries around the world. I think continental European countries and Japan are examples that spring to mind. Fifthly, we need to create pathways for some good trades persons who are foreigners to become citizens in small enough numbers, not to suppress but to supplement locals moving into these sectors, and then nudge those new citizens to transfer skills to more locals in the ways we have spoken about. Are such trades persons given the opportunity to become citizens now even if they have no university degree? And sixth – and this is another call the Workers' Party has made and the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to – we need to measure underemployment so that we can tackle it. This was a theme of a speech made by my party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim some years ago. Some gig jobs face long-term risk from technology. Today's underemployment can be tomorrow's unemployment.”
“We need to deeply address the reasons why SME business owners say Singaporeans do not want to take up trades jobs. Quotas alone should not be the solution. To move more Singaporeans into trades job sustainably needs us to go beyond quotas to tackle a few things deeply. And here I move to my suggestions. I have about six suggestions. I am not saying that these ideas are not already being looked at or have not been attempted. But, clearly, the results are not yet there and we are far away from success in outcomes rather than just success in efforts. Firstly, let us implement an across-the-board minimum wage, as we have called for, and PWMs to ladder and upgrade wages on top of that. We do need to accept that prices have to rise as a result to ensure that businesses can survive. Secondly, implement job redesign to upskill these jobs with state support for productivity-enhancing investments in a more ambitious way than has been done thus far, with both carrots and sticks. For example, can we introduce harder productivity conditions for Government contracts? And there should be clear long-term timelines for phasing out low productivity work, not ad hoc short-term changes to foreign manpower quotas done in an unpredictable fashion. Sir, our low construction productivity, to take one sector as an example, has not brought low construction costs. So, Workers' Party has argued before, with the right policies, there is no reason why we cannot attain developed country productivity in trades jobs to justify higher pay for those jobs. Thirdly, investigate and fix negative non-wage characteristics of these trades shops. For example, do employers provide adequate equipment to ameliorate the physical downsides of such jobs, like proper gloves, boots, tools?”
“By "trades jobs", I mean carpenters, plumbers, highly-skilled construction workmen and supervisors, air-conditioner technicians and so on and so forth. There is a huge transparency deficit here with our local business owners. In the decades after Independence, many of these trades jobs were done by Singaporeans. But now, many SME owners believe that Singaporeans simply do not want such jobs. If this is true, it could be due to the overall growth of the economy and population base coupled with our low total fertility rate. It could also be due to the expansion of other more attractive jobs in other sectors. There is also the fact that many of our Polytechnic and ITE graduates as well as older PMETs are going into gig work rather than a trade. Many SME owners are adamant that even if they paid more for these jobs, Singaporeans do not want to do them. No ifs, no buts. One of them told me that when he attends construction training courses as a guest speaker, the only Singaporean trainees there are those with white hair. Yet, on the other hand, from a totally opposite perspective, another older gentleman I met on a market walkabout said that he was gainfully employed in the construction industry as a supervisor in his 20s and 30s. But now, all the jobs in this line have gone to foreigners. And even though he is willing to take a 50% pay cut from his last drawn construction industry pay, he cannot get a job. So, he became a private hire car driver. How do we reconcile these two different and seemingly contradictory perspectives? Sir, the Workers' Party has supported moves, such as the past tightening of DRC quotas, to curb over-reliance on foreign manpower. However, that cannot be the only solution.”
“Sir, I would like to suggest that the EDB and our economic agencies, together with our Institutes of Higher Learning, work in sync to do a few things that would optimise this ratio, that would create good well-paying jobs for Singaporeans while managing the size of the population of foreigners and, hence, overall population pressures. Firstly, can we attract foreign direct investment projects that are better matched to existing skillsets of Singaporeans or skillsets that Singaporeans can easily acquire? Secondly, can we catalyse continuous education and training platforms to train Singaporeans in new skills ahead of demand? By "ahead of demand", I mean to attract Singaporeans to train for skills in industries that are nascent, that are newly emerging, confident that the Government is working with investors to groom and build those industries using all the tools in the toolkit. JTC and EDB building physical infrastructure ahead of demand was a key factor in our industrial success in the 1960s. The key to our Industry 4.0 success in the 21st century would be catalysing soft infrastructure, that is, skills, ahead of demand. Thirdly, tie foreign direct investment incentives to a number of fixed-term EPs to ensure Singaporeans' pathway into new industries, as discussed earlier. Fourthly, can we examine if we need to expand University education places for locals in disciplines necessary for future industries, thus managing the need to import foreign manpower with degrees from, in some cases, less highly ranked universities than our local ones? This ties to another Workers' Party manifesto point on expanding University capacity to 50% of the cohort size. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak about trades jobs, that it is said, Singaporeans do not want.”
“This argument stands, by the way, on solid ground in the field of political philosophy. It reminds me of the Rawlsian theory of justice I studied as an undergraduate. According to the philosopher, John Rawls, in a seminal work "A Theory of Justice", inequality could be justified if that inequality causes the least well-off person in a society to become better off in absolute terms. Honestly, Sir, there is much to be said for the numerical multiplier thesis and it can be found as the subtext to employment policies in many countries and cities. But to delve deeper into the empirical reality, what is of concern to many Singaporeans about this argument are a few things. One is the pathway to skills transfer, another is fair employment practices in a foreigner-heavy workplace. I have spoken about these already. But there are deeper and more subtle problems with the numerical multiplier argument. Or I should not say problems; maybe questions. A large population of foreigners to create jobs for Singaporeans places burdens on our scarce resources of land, healthcare capacity, road capacity, public transport and so on. It also runs the risk of entrenching work cultures that disadvantage Singaporeans in the longer term, especially if the foreigners start off from a higher skills base in a new industry. Initial endowments of resources, like skills, do weigh heavily on ultimate outcomes downstream. Being very reliant on foreign labour also means that we are vulnerable to global events that may make these foreigners less willing to come and work here one day. And that day may not come so soon, but it could come in our children's time, in our grandchildren's time. So, how do we get our workforce profile towards a ratio of foreigners and locals that would better address these issues?”
“My parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will elaborate on what needs to be done on that front. For the remainder of my speech, I will speak about two areas of Government employment policy where the public, I sense, feels angst from a lack of transparency and whether the system is working in their best interests. And these two areas actually map onto the two anecdotes that I shared earlier. Firstly, the notion that hiring foreigners is necessary to create good jobs for Singaporeans, even if the foreigners constitute a high share or a significant share of the better-paying jobs. I shall call this the numerical multiplier argument. Secondly, the subject of trades jobs that SMEs perceive Singaporeans no longer want to do. I will call this the trades jobs problem. Firstly, the numerical multiplier argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has articulated this argument before inside and outside this House. If I were to summarise it at the risk of oversimplification, it is the view that we do not have enough Singaporeans and not of the right skills and talent to do all the cutting-edge economic activities we want to do as a global hub city. So, we need to import foreign talent and, if we do that well, this creates good jobs for Singaporeans. We try to upskill and upwage Singaporeans. But if foreigners account for a large share of the better-paid jobs, it is still okay because Singaporeans are in good jobs that they might not have if the foreigners were not here. So, Singaporeans are absolutely better off, even if, sometimes, they may feel relatively worse off in the employment hierarchy. Or to put it another way, this argument is saying if Singaporeans want to always hog all the better-paying jobs, we will end up poorer in purchasing power terms.”
“This differs from the current EP system, where many employees assume that they can renew their EPs and there is no assumption that the EPs would definitely not be renewed as a default. Sir, to be sure, we are not arguing for all EPs to be made fixed-term, but for some of them to possess this feature. Fixed-term work passes should be one tool in our toolkit not just to advance transferability of foreigners' skills towards locals. There are other tools that can be used to advance transferability that Workers' Party Members of Parliament in this House have argued for, such as stimulating cross-border remote working internships for our students and young adults with cutting-edge multinational corporations abroad which were not present in Singapore, for example. As for the antidote to the transparency deficit, the key is not just more public dialogues and communication between Government and citizens, vital though that is; the key is to set out long-term goals and clear policies to advance those goals. Let me expand on this issue of transparency. Sir, many Singaporeans are pained and confused about our foreign talent policy because they do not understand the rationale, the mechanics, the ends and the means. One major area where this angst is being felt is when it comes to education. Singaporeans do not understand why the Government keeps praising our education system but, in some employment contexts, foreigners seem to dominate or have a large share of the better-paying jobs. Has our education system groomed us with the wrong skills and attributes? Sir, we need to interrogate the gaps in our education system that contribute to these aspects of our employment landscape and address them aggressively.”
“Secondly, a deficit in transferability, the second T; the sense that there are poor pathways for Singaporeans to learn skills from foreign talents in advance. This current mood is very different from the sense people had in the 1970s and 1980s, with foreign investments from the US, Europe and Japan. To my mind, back then, there was a palpable sense that skills and know-how were being transferred by foreign companies and foreigners to locals through in-house training and foreign-Singapore joint training institutes, for example. Thirdly, a deficit in transparency, the third T; there is angst about why foreigners seemed to leapfrog Singaporeans in some contexts in spite of our much-vaunted education system, even though those foreigners sometimes come from countries with less recognised education systems. I should say that a transparency deficit is also felt by another group – local business owners. They wrestle with the issue of hiring talent and often say that Singaporeans do not want to do trades jobs. So, why is the supply of foreigners for those jobs being curbed? Sir, one antidote to the trust deficit is anti-discrimination laws, something that the Workers' Party has championed in its General Election 2020 manifesto and in this House. I am glad that the Government is now moving in this direction. One antidote to the transferability deficit is fixed-term EPs, the suggestion I made in this House previously in which the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. These would be foreign work passes granted for a fixed term with the understanding that the job has to be localised in that term and the pass, as a default, would not be renewed, unless the employer can demonstrate strong extenuating circumstances to appeal for a renewal.”
“Sir, in the decades after Singapore's Independence, there was no mass anxiety about the role of foreigners in our economy, at least comparable to what we see now. It was widely recognised that they play a useful role. The same is not true of every country in the world. Singapore's attitude towards the presence of foreigners and fixed-term stays and those who choose to make Singapore their permanent home used to be more liberal to my mind than that you see in some Asian countries I can think of. That culture was shaped perhaps by around 200 years of history as a free port and open trading economy. The sense then was that the rising tide of liberal economics would lift all boats. This is no longer the case. There is widespread anxiety, frustration and angst about the role of foreigners in the economy, as all the Motions put forth in this House today acknowledge to some degree. I want to share, Sir, two stories about how these things came home to me. Firstly, I met a Singaporean delivery rider in full uniform at a coffee shop in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC who told me, at length, with tears in his eyes, that he was laid off from his job as an aerospace engineer whereas some foreigners at his company were not, and he is now struggling to keep his family afloat. Secondly, I met an SME business owner who said that she cannot find Singaporeans to do trades jobs. So, she is frustrated at the curbs on foreign manpower and, asked that if I knew of Singaporeans who wanted to do such jobs, could I give her a list of their names. Mr Speaker, Sir, these concerns revolve around three "Ts". Firstly, a deficit in trust, the first T; the sense that some Singaporeans have that they face some degree of discrimination in the job market by foreign talent hiring their compatriots.”
“Anecdotally, some SMEs on the ground do not feel that their views factor substantially into FTA negotiations, which, they perceive, may be conducted more from the perspective of creating incentives for MNCs to hub in Singapore to invest abroad. I believe more can be done to gather feedback from SMEs to bring into FTA negotiations, something countries like New Zealand, when defending its dairy industry in the TPP negotiations, for example, seem adept at. Moreover, the Government should regularly assess local FTA utilisation rates and perceived benefits to see if the other country is delivering on its market access commitments. FTA utilisation rates by SMEs should be published to help all stakeholders assess our efforts in public debate. Many SMEs do not fully utilise FTAs when they go abroad, for reasons that range from lack of awareness to lack of administrative bandwidth. More can be done to make these FTA benefits visible and usable by our local firms, for instance, the idea of a one-stop whole-of-Government portal, which could allow SMEs to transact with the Government and utilise Government schemes that I have spoken about in this House in the past. Such a portal could be used to allow SMEs to gain visibility on FTA benefits in different countries and enable them to transact to realise those benefits online. At this stage, Sir, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that conducts studies related to FTAs and SME development, among other topics. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall devote the rest of my speech to the anxieties that exist around the granting of work passes to foreigners.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended Motion put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh. Sir, free trade agreements, or FTAs, are important for our economic development and, hence, the well-being of our people. FTAs are always a compromise. As in any negotiation, we give something away to get something back. Singapore has import duties on hardly any categories of physical goods. So, we have little to give away unless we open up our services sectors or our labour market further. I am glad that the Government has clarified that it maintains an intent to continue maintaining close control over the granting of foreign work passes without any FTA provision diluting that and this is a commitment that this House will, I am sure, hold this Government and future governments to. Because FTAs are a negotiated compromise, at any one point in time, it is necessary to review these agreements from time to time to ensure that what we have given away is not proved too much and what we are getting back is as good as what we expected. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, Member of Parliament for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru, to regularly study the impact of our FTAs, to engage research to quantify the net economic benefit over costs. Furthermore, it is vital that the Government engages our SMEs when negotiating FTAs and FTA reviews. I raised this at MTI's Committee of Supply (COS) in March 2020 and through a Parliamentary Question in March 2017. The reply stated that there were roundtables and engagements conducted but numbers were not given.”
“In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our hawker food is a national institution that is much loved by all Singaporeans. It arose organically in the 1800s as micro-entrepreneurs saw a market need and filled it, as entrepreneurs should. It is a deep part of Singapore's heritage and now the world's as well. In moving this Motion, it is not my intention to say that we have not made progress over the decades in nurturing this industry. We have. It is to point out gaps and offer suggestions for how we can do right by this nationally important industry and the hawkers whom we all care about, who work so hard to bring us incredible, delicious food at affordable prices day after day. [Applause.]”
“I suggest that economic agencies like Enterprise Singapore make it a priority to identify the more promising organised hawkers and support their move abroad aggressively, helping them to troubleshoot whatever impediments exist. With the proper support system and with the support of the over 200,000 Singaporeans living abroad, I do not see why we cannot have prata in Paris, lontong in London, bak kut teh in Belgrade or rojak in Rio De Janeiro. Sir, my next suggestion would be for the Government to make an effort to document traditional recipes that are held in the memory of older Singaporeans. This may come under the purview of NHB and MCCY. There are dishes that have been created and enjoyed in Singapore that are a part of our Singaporean heritage but are in danger of being forgotten. NHB could work on creating oral histories that document and save these recipes – the recipes for these endangered dishes as it were – and make such recipes publicly available, like open-sourced software, to be used and enjoyed by chefs at home or, who knows, maybe taken up by a hawker one day. This is currently being done to some extent under the Singapore Memories Project (SMP) and other NHB initiatives, but this needs to be scaled up and more of the recipes thus discovered should be made publicly available, with the consent of the person providing it, of course. Lastly, Sir, I would like to propose that we designate 16 December, the day we obtained UNESCO recognition for our unique world-class hawker culture, as Singapore's Hawker Day. All of us could make the effort to remind one another on this day to partake of hawker food, especially with younger family members and friends, to help keep this love of hawker culture alive.”
“It could also, being seen to be independent, be tasked to convene and supervise the tasting committees to allocate stalls when there are excess bidders. Such an academy could even aspire to play a leading role in organising events and research for the global street food industry, which could yield soft power and economic benefits to Singapore. Lastly, Sir, I will move on to the third and last section of my speech on the need to "promote". We should do more to support and nurture the best-performing and most innovative hawkers to go global. Some hawkers are more successful and ambitious, operating multiple stalls across the island. It would be a huge boost for our hawker culture and for Singapore's soft power if these hawkers set up successful eateries abroad. This would raise awareness of and esteem for Singaporean culture abroad, which can only be a good thing. Some of these more ambitious hawkers could also obtain economic benefits from overseas operations, resulting in multiplier benefits back to the Singapore economy. Why is Singapore food not as widely enjoyed around the world as, say, Japanese or Thai food? Not for any reasons to do with quality, I am sure. In fact, I understand that the late global celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain wanted to bring some Singaporean hawkers and other hawkers from around the world to New York for a global event on street food. And I am told that he felt that the Singaporean hawkers were among the very best practitioners of street food in the world. There could be other underlying issues about going global, like the supply chain for local ingredients that are hard to obtain abroad.”
“One major obstacle is the mistrust that many, especially older hawkers, have towards outsiders coming along and telling them what to do. Permanent ambassadors who can speak vernacular languages and dialects would fill this gap by building relationships with hawkers and winning their trust over time. The cost of employing such ambassadors would not be huge – in the context of the national significance of the hawker industry. Ambassador jobs could also be outsourced by the Government to NGOs, social enterprises or community groups with an interest in the well-being of hawkers, of which there are a number now, such as, for example, Hawkers United and Hawker Cart. Over time, as a more digitally savvy generation of hawkers takes over, permanent ambassadors could be phased out if there is no need for them. I would also like to call for the Competition and Consumer Commission to take pains to act as a good watchdog over the delivery app industry, to ensure fair competition between the big app companies and smaller ones that charge low or no commissions. My second suggestion here, Sir, is the creation of a national hawker academy that could be linked to an existing think tank or university for infrastructural synergies. Right now, there is a hawker course run at Temasek Polytechnic and a course at ITE. These could be consolidated under a single hawker academy, which could become a focal point for the hawker vocation. An independent hawker academy could be a one-stop shop for training of various kinds – culinary and business. It could be a think tank that supports research into hawker-related policies and issues. It could support the efforts of hawkers to innovate and create new dishes or business models.”
“Anecdotal feedback suggests that the engagement of DAs with hawkers is not always very deep and is sometimes hindered by language barriers. My suggestion here is to deploy a staff of permanent Hawker Ambassadors under NEA or, perhaps, MCCY, given the heritage angle, to be deployed to all hawker centres, be they NEA HCs, SEHCs or private hawker centres (HCs). The staffing ratio can be determined and it could be that some ambassadors cover multiple HCs, food courts and coffee shops. The goal of the ambassadors would be three-fold: firstly, to support hawkers in navigating the evolving digital business ecosystem; secondly, to support them in navigating the plethora of Government schemes; and, thirdly, to help hawkers market themselves online and offline. Help should be focused on those hawkers who need it the most. On the digital front, ambassadors can work with older and less tech-savvy hawkers to help them adopt innovations, such as voice-activated systems to fulfil digital orders and to consider getting onto apps that do not charge such high commissions. Hawkers I spoke to have shared that there are too many distinct Government schemes. This is confusing, especially to hawkers who are less literate in the English language. Ambassadors could help them identify and apply for relevant schemes. Ambassadors should also help our hawkers tell their stories and weave narratives about their history online and via events and promotions, to make their products more appealing to customers, as some larger and more organised local eateries already do. They could also help hawkers to connect with shared service providers who offer services such as food ingredient preparation, for example, which may be advantageous business-wise.”
“Anecdotally, it would appear that some of these low-priced food stalls struggle with the customer perception that the food is not that attractive. Rather than requiring some stalls to keep prices low, which may result in lower quality, can we not consider instead providing discount cards to low-income Singaporeans – those living in rental flats, those on ComCare, Public Assistance and other similar schemes – so that they can obtain discounts at SEHC stalls instead? I believe there is such a scheme now in place, which is a special grant card for those on Public Assistance only, which can be used at certain hawker stalls, but the reach appears to be very limited. This tool of discount cards can be expanded and made into a general policy tool to keep hawker food affordable to those on lower incomes. Such discount cards may be a way in which hawker food can be priced at a level which is fair and economically sustainable for hawkers, while still keeping hawker food affordable for the poor. Next, Sir, I would like to move to the second part of my speech, which is on professionalising the hawker industry. In framing the matter this way, I do not mean to suggest that hawkers today are not professionals, nor are they or should they be professional employees. In truth, hawkers are entrepreneurs. So, by professionalising, I mean raising the status and standing of the hawker vocation, which also hinges on maintaining and raising business and culinary effectiveness. My first suggestion here would be to create a permanent pool of Hawker Ambassadors. Right now, Digital Ambassadors (DAs) under IMDA's Singapore Digital Office are deployed to hawker centres and they focus on getting hawkers to get onto digital apps and e-payments.”
“Hawkers in such private facilities make up the bulk of hawkers. Yet there is a perception that they do not benefit to the same extent as hawkers in NEA HCs and SEHCs from Government schemes, such as NEA rental waivers. Moreover, the Government has far less influence over the rents that they have to bear. I hope the Government can study the plight of these so-called private hawkers in more detail, understanding their rents, margins and overall economic situation, and devise tools to nudge private operators towards cheaper rents for their tenants. Next, Sir, on COVID-19 schemes. Ground feedback suggests that hawkers find the latest COVID-19 schemes, such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant – Temporary (CRG-T), confusing and not as effective as the earlier schemes such as the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). This should be looked into. Specifically, I would also like to ask if the Government would consider providing the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) to hawkers. Hawkers are directly affected by dining-in restrictions. Most hawkers are micro-businesses surviving on thin profits and JSS support would mean a lot to them. Not all use and make money from delivery apps, one reason being the reluctance of some hawkers to raise prices to cover the app commissions, as I alluded to earlier. Apps are not a panacea for the hawker industry amidst COVID-19. Also, some stalls find that they have a less compelling value proposition on apps – like drinks and dessert stalls, who depend more on dining-in. Hence, there is a case for JSS for hawkers to cover periods of dining-in restrictions. Next, many SEHCs ensure that several stalls provide low-cost food.”
“If the tendering leads to high rents – well, that favours entrants into the industry with cash rather than those with great culinary skills who may have less cash. I would like to argue for rents being recalibrated and set at lower levels than currently for NEA and SEHCs, namely at levels close to the lowest end of what we see now at NEA HCs and SEHCs, and with reasonable variations based on location, footfall and food type, with the Government using its control over SEHC leases to bring SEHC rents down over time. Sir, economic theory suggests that lowering prices below a so-called market clearing level tends to induce excess demand, meaning there would be too many hawkers bidding for the same stall. I would argue here that the solution need not be tendering, which favours those with more cash, nor does it have to be random balloting, the mechanism used to allocate Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and some types of subsidised hawker stalls. Rather, given the national significance of the hawker industry, allocation of stalls where there are too many bidders can be decided by tasting committees. Such committees can bring together hawker industry veterans, enthusiasts, food critics and ordinary citizens to do blind taste tests, to decide who has the best culinary skills. The independence of these tasting committees could be assured by being organised under the aegis of a hawker academy, a subject to which I will turn later. Next, I want to address the plight of hawkers who operate outside of the NEA HCs and SEHCs in privately-run food courts and coffee shops. In my Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC, there are many hawkers in such coffee shops, many of whom are truly excellent, to the delight of constituents and their Member of Parliament.”
“Currently, apart from a small number of mostly older stalls in NEA HCs who are on subsidised rents, NEA hawkers tender for the rent for an initial period and then the rent is adjusted up or down depending on a professional valuation that considers footfall, location and market conditions, as Senior Minister of State Amy Khor explained in detail very recently in this House. In setting rents in the public hawker centres, I would like to argue for two principles. Firstly, we should err on the side of being too low rather than being too high. For Government-controlled properties, we should never fear that some hawkers may "make too much money". Top performers making a very decent living is a factor that attracts people into a profession. And it is hard enough – yet vitally important – to attract young Singaporeans to the hawker trade. In any case, the top hawkers would have put in hard work and talent to get to where they are. This is not an industry where luck plays an outsized role. Secondly, I want to address the argument that rents are a relatively small component of total costs. That is true, but the Government should use whatever levers of control it has to improve the economic situation of our hawkers and the levers are stronger for rents. Even a small difference is still a difference. Next and more specifically, we should move away from the principle of tendering for stalls in NEA HCs. While it is said that tendering can result in extremely low rents, it does create uncertainty and can be a barrier to entry. Very low rents that may occasionally emerge from tendering also subject the hawker to a shock when the rents get raised based on the formula explained above.”
“The policy ecosystem has to instil confidence among hawkers that there is a longer-term commitment from the Government to ensuring stable pro-hawker policies. Policies that seemed to go against this commitment, like raising rents, even if only for a small number of stalls, during a pandemic, have an outsized demonstration effect and do nothing to instil confidence. The first subject I would like to address is rents. Of the 20,000 or so hawker stalls in Singapore, around 6,000 are in NEA hawker centres (NEA HCs), several hundred are in social enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs) and the rest are in privately-run coffee shops and food courts. In its 2020 manifesto, the Workers' Party called on all hawker centres to eventually be brought under NEA control, as that would provide the necessary long-term assurance to hawkers that there are governmental levers of control over rents, not only today but also tomorrow. Social enterprises are not governmental entities and, hence, are not accountable to the public in the same way that the Government, in theory, in any case, is. Be that as it may, I will discuss what we can do in policy terms for NEA HCs, SEHCs and privately-run HCs together. Rents are currently negotiated in SEHCs, with an average rental per stall of around $2,000 per month, as revealed in the reply to a Parliamentary Question by my Parliamentary colleague Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap. For NEA hawker centres, non-subsidised rents range from $640 to $3,900.”
“A milestone in that history, of course, was 16 December 2020 when Singapore's hawker culture was awarded a place in UNESCO's representative list for humanity's intangible cultural heritage. Sir, Workers' Party Members of this House and Members from the People's Action Party have often spoken about hawker issues. In researching this Motion, I came across a speech made by a then young and new Member of Parliament, one Mr Low Thia Khiang, in 1995 asking MTI whether it foresaw the need to study the impact on hawker costs and food prices after the sale of coffee shops and market stalls in HDB estates. Sir, in this Motion, I hope to offer ideas to enhance this precious hawker industry. My speech will have three sections, three Ps, centred on the need to Protect, Professionalise and Promote the hawker industry, adapted from one of the mottos once used for the World Street Food Congress. All of these ideas are centred on one simple assumption: that the hawker industry should not be regulated in the same way as other industries. As a nationally important industry and one that embodies so much of our precious national heritage, the Government and all stakeholders bear a special responsibility to go the extra mile to ensure a thriving hawker industry that retains incumbents and attracts newcomers that innovates and that continues to provide affordable food. Above all, we have a responsibility to listen to the practitioners of the hawker craft in formulating and refining our public policies. First of all, Sir, on the theme of "protect". To retain incumbents and attract newcomers, we have to create an ecosystem that allows our hawkers to make a decent living.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the deep reservoir of affection and respect that Singaporeans feel for our hawkers has been clearly demonstrated time and time again. In 2018, there was an outpouring of public concern over news of steep charges faced by hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres or SEHCs. In 2020 and 2021, there has huge public sympathy and concern for our hawkers due to dining-in restrictions; and concern over the news that some stalls had their rents raised. And this affection that Singaporeans have for our hawkers recognises a deep reality. Most hawkers see what they do as a calling, a calling to provide good quality, cooked food that is affordable and which deliciously combines the very best elements of Singaporean heritage and innovation. Sir, hawkers work hard. Really hard. For those who want to catch the breakfast crowd, they may need to come to work at 3.00 am. They spend hours chopping, slicing, parsing, peeling, boiling and marinating food ingredients before any customer shows up. And they may return home at 4.00 pm. And they work often in non-air-conditioned environments, standing up much of the time. No wonder that attracting new entrants into the industry is an uphill climb. I recall one story told to me by a hawker industry veteran in preparing this Adjournment Motion. When he asked an elderly hawker why he did not raise his prices when selling to delivery apps so as to offset the app commission, the hawker said, "哪里可以", meaning, "I simply cannot bring myself to do that." Most hawkers feel a deep bond with their customers and we, to them. Our hawker culture is a heritage stretching back to the mid-1800s when street cooked food first emerged, and to 1923 when the first hawker centre at People's Park Centre was built to widespread acclaim.”
“Achieving that balance will go far in benefiting not just women, but the progress of Singapore as a whole. Madam, I support the Motion.”
“Sexist discrimination at work still exists; sexual harassment and assault against women by men still exists, the unequal effect of COVID-19 on women exists, a gender wage gap and unequal CareShield Life premiums still exist, working women bearing an unequal burden of housework and parenting and losing out in their career still happens, along with many other aspects of the gender equality problem that we shall touch on. Bridging the gap on these issues help the mother, daughters and wife of every man. A shift in the perception of these issues would also signal to men that they have the freedom not to conform to existing stereotypes and expectations placed on them. Therefore, remedying these issues is, ultimately, in the interest of every man. My wife and I are doing our best to raise our 13-year-old son to deeply internalise these values. The progress he has made thus far gives me cause for pride. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, usually for most policy outcomes, we have quantifiable measures and hard targets we want to achieve. This is a good way to measure the success of any policy we adopt, and that should be continued. But I would like to add that in the case of gender equality, the biggest indicator of success will be when we, as a society, stop boxing women into long-held stereotypes. When we think of engineers and scientists, will we be gender-blind? Instead of the term "girl boss", why not just "boss"? Instead of struggling between being a stay-at-home mom and giving up one's career, on the one hand, or being a working mum and facing certain disadvantages and losing out while facing "mom guilt", is it too much of an ideal to expect that one day, women will, by and large, have the tools and means to combine both roles comfortably?”
“I had to look this word up, and I do not know if I am pronouncing it correctly. Madam, it saddened me to see some such comments on the social media platforms of the Workers' Party, Ms He Ting Ru and myself, after we announced the filing of this Motion. The argument used here is that men are placed at a disadvantage due to having to serve National Service and Reservist duty and due to the effect of the Women's Charter on events like divorce. I do not disagree that there are men who need help and may face unequal treatment in certain contexts. Some men experience abuse from the women in their lives or, as stay-at-home fathers, may face difficulties collecting maintenance payments, for example. Many men struggle to balance Reservist obligations with the demands of their career. The Workers' Party will always stand up for workers that are facing problems with unequal treatment, whether male or female. But I would urge men to reflect on the fact that while there has been progress, sexism and gender inequality also harm men. Diminished opportunities or discrimination at work against women mean that men have to step up and bear more of the income-earning burden in the household. Sexist expectations in the workplace and at home can deprive men of the opportunity to be equal co-parents with their wives. Gender stereotypes also hurt men, for example, the social stigma against men who earn less, who are caregivers and who make non-mainstream career choices. Moreover, women still face unequal challenges on the whole.”
“I would like to ask if this is being consistently done through the Social Studies curriculum in Secondary schools right now, and whether this curriculum has been updated to reflect the general understanding of things like harassment that has evolved since the #metoo movement emerged in 2017. Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about men. Men need to reflect on our own mindset towards gender equality. From my experience, I do not believe that most men want their wives, mothers, daughters and female friends to live in a gender-unequal society. Having said that, some men continue to harbour sexist attitudes when it comes to things like the notion of consent and when it comes to parenting and housekeeping at home. We need to continue to shine the light on this. Whole-of-society efforts – from Government, business, NGOs and ordinary citizens – are needed to banish these attitudes into the rubbish bin of history. We cannot adopt the dangerous assumption that these anachronistic attitudes will naturally disappear over time. They would not. The process needs nudging and accelerating. Madam, I wonder whether National Service can be a platform to convey training, in an engaging way, about how sexist attitudes and behaviour, including domestic violence and harassment, harm everyone. This should be looked into. I made a similar argument when speaking on the Aspirations of Singapore Women Motion in 2017. Efforts should also be made to ensure that most batches of NSFs train under at least one or a few female instructors. I would also like to address the concerns of some men who have opined that too much talk about sexism against women is in itself sexist and equivalent to misandry or the hatred of men.”
“It is about ensuring that women have a fair deal at home and across society. Which brings me to the third and last part of my speech, on young women and how we bring about a change in culture and mindsets. I speak passionately about this because I am thinking about my daughter. She loves debate, literature, current affairs. She is the only extrovert in the family. She has far more friends than I had at her age, maybe even at my age right now. We have raised her to choose her own path freely and to never feel less than anyone else because of her gender or the colour of her skin; and I am proud that she lives and breathes those values. Madam, gender equality is more than the sum of Government policies. It has to be rooted in our culture and our mindsets. Too many men, and even women, still feel that the man should be the dominant partner at home; that men have the right to dominate the air-time and the rewards at work; and that "men will be men" socially and standing up to sexual harassment is futile, or worse. What we need is a culture where men, and women, openly acknowledge and shift social mores against non-gender-neutral policies, practices, behaviours and assumptions. In an Adjournment Motion, my colleague Ms Raeesah Khan spoke about the need for the education system to teach the notion of consent. I would urge the Government to also ensure that Secondary school students are taught the principles of gender equality, as Ms He Ting Ru referred to: what it is, why it is important and what laws and provisions buttress this principle in Singapore.”
“In fact, many companies would benefit from the greater clarity and stronger penalties that such laws provide, as it would enable them to pressure their middle managers more effectively to stop discriminatory practices and, thus, protect their companies from reputational risk, like if an ex-employee takes to social media to allege discrimination. These are things that damage brands. A 2007 UNESCO study found that much talent is being wasted as women turn away from science and technology careers as a result of discrimination. A World Bank study also found that gender gaps in education and employment considerably reduce economic growth in countries. Madam, a few days ago, in this House, the Government said that it would review the viability of anti-discrimination laws, a shift in the position that it had previously held and defended inside and outside this House. We in the Workers’ Party welcome this change and look forward to the outcome of this review. There is more that companies can do to level the playing field for working women. For example, promoting shared paternity and maternity leave, another Workers’ Party manifesto point which my colleague Mr Louis Chua will expand on; countering sexual harassment in the workplace which my colleague Ms Raeesah Khan will speak on; and making available pump rooms and enabling parents to bring children to work under certain circumstances, where practicable. It is important for us to remember what is at stake in ensuring a level playing field for women. A fairer workplace will bring more women into the workforce and enhance our labour force participation. It promises to unlock female talent. Ultimately, giving women a fair deal in the workplace is not just about the workplace.”
“This 15% figure does not seem to me to gel with only 400 discrimination cases a year and only 13% of that 400 leading to actual findings of discrimination. There could be under-reporting by those who have concerns, by those who feel that they may be on the receiving end of discrimination but have concerns about confidentiality, or are unclear about what is discrimination, or are pessimistic of the odds of success. In fact, some of my constituents have shared such concerns with the current discrimination complaints handling regime. Currently, from my experience, there is a perception also on the other side among firms, employers, that TAFEP guidelines are not sufficiently clear as to what constitutes a breach. There is also a perception among potential complainants that the burden of proof is on them and the odds of success are not high, which the 13% figure seems to be consistent with. The advantage of anti-discrimination laws, which the Workers’ Party called for in its 2020 GE manifesto, is that there is necessarily clarity on what constitutes an offence; and a clear line of investigative and prosecutorial responsibility for enforcing the law against offenders. Also, the prospect of an offence by a company would have a stronger deterrent effect than that of merely being found in breach of non-mandatory guidelines and, if you are in the 13%, merely being subject to curtailment of work pass privileges, which is not a publicly known demerit, as it were. Moreover, not every company would be equally dependent on foreign work passes, so that lever of control would have variable efficacy and deterrent effects. There is an argument, Madam, that anti-discrimination laws would deter investment into Singapore and be anti-business. I disagree.”
“Supporting home-based micro-businesses enriches the ecosystem of options that women, and, indeed, men, have. As I think back to my wife, I would want her to live in a society which respects and recognises the work she does and gives her many meaningful choices for her future. Secondly, Madam, I turn to working women. My lodestar when I think about working women is my own mother, who was an excellent, recognised Primary school teacher in a neighbourhood school, and who held up more than her fair share of the work at home. Many women, like my mother did, toil in the workplace and also, bear an unequal share of housework and parenting work at home. Many also face a non-level playing field at work. How can we make things better? Madam, we do continue to hear stories of women who feel that they have been denied promotions or pay raises because of their maternity leave, or the expectation of the same, or worse. According to the answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in March this year, TAFEP handled an average of around 400 discrimination cases each year for the past three years, about a third of which related to gender or age discrimination. In about 50 cases each year, or 13% of cases, the employers were found to be in breach of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and had their foreign work pass privileges suspended. These numbers seem small. However, surveys show that perceptions of discrimination are not small. From the reply to a PQ I filed in February last year and a report released in November, the percentage of Singaporeans who perceived discrimination during their job search process has increased from 10% in 2014 to 15% in 2018.”
“Employers should strive to make more of such options available, as many more progressive employers already do. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim will speak more on this. Rather than focusing on consulting work for companies to create more flexible work arrangements, rather than supporting that in Government schemes as a focus, I would urge the Government to consider more schemes that directly financially support, during the transition period, mothers and fathers who want to transition from a homemaker role to part-time work, nudging people to make such a choice and, thus, helping to use local talent to boost our Labour Force Participation Rate. As the largest employer, the Public Service should set an example here. In 2016, I asked a Parliamentary Question on job sharing and flexible work in the Public Service, revealing that there were 2,000 public officers on part-time arrangements. If the Public Service takes a proactive approach to designing and offering part-time jobs or job sharing rather than only reactively considering applications for such from their full-time officers, it could well find that it is able to tap on a broader field of talent, as well as help ex-officers transition back to full-time work at their own pace. Next, Madam, many homemakers these days are experimenting with becoming home-based entrepreneurs, working flexibly and often using digital platforms like YouTube videos, virtual meeting providers and e-commerce enabling platforms. Some have become quite good at this. I hope that such home-based entrepreneurs can obtain the same access to startup grants as other kinds of startups. I would urge our social enterprises and trade associations and chambers to support such micro-entrepreneurship and publicise good case studies.”