Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 20.
“Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party welcomes the Prime Minister's reassuring message to Singaporeans just now: "do not fear". I have four clarifications. As a nation, we have a good track record of overcoming challenges like the oil crisis, the Asian Financial Crisis, SARS and COVID-19. We can do it again. The tariffs are game-changing, but we do not know 100% the long-term economic impact on Singapore at this moment. First question, as Singapore has the lowest 10% tariff in Asia, does the Government not believe that this will put us in a stronger competitive position to continue exporting to the US? Second clarification, what are the chances that these tariffs will be temporary, perhaps not more than two years? Three, does the Prime Minister believe that the world has been adjusting to a post-Pax Americana era for a while, and this move by the Trump Administration will only accelerate this process and the world may arrive at a new equilibrium sooner? Fourth and last clarification, Singapore is now a far larger economy and diverse society than before. Does the Prime Minister agree that the right approach to dealing with adversity is to have free contestation of ideas and not group think?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding increase in resident contract workers in the same period, 2009 and 2023? Last question, does the Minister agree that while wage growth may be faster than some developed countries like the United Kingdom, it is meaningless if the wage growth is still not enough to catch up with the escalating cost of living and housing prices in Singapore?”
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics? If yes, does the Minister agree that there is no way to conclude definitively that the existing resident PMETs have not been displaced and become underemployed because all the statistics that he has quoted are affected by this effect? Second question, the platform workers are a good example of the underemployed. The Minister has admitted that about one-third of the platform workers, or 28,000, are involuntary. But for many of the balance of the 70,000 platform workers who have preferred platform work for flexibility, does the Minister think that low wages and poor prospects are also a factor in their decisions? Third question —”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude. Singaporeans are highly skilled and educated, and they can be competitive if there is a level playing field and a government that helps them to upgrade while they are on their jobs, and not after they have lost their jobs. We want a first-world Singapore, where the Government uses its power to create incentives for businesses to keep and create good jobs for Singaporeans. We want a first-world Singapore where workers earn a fair wage for their work, where the elderly are looked after in retirement and where younger Singaporeans feel comfortable and confident enough in the future to have children. This is the first-world Singapore we should aspire to create this SG60. This is the first-world Singapore that PSP will fight for. Building a Future-ready Workplace”
“Tertiary graduates these days may have more diverse job options, but they may not be financially better off than tertiary graduates of the past. In 1979, the median starting salary of a university graduate was $957 per month. The median starting salary of an NTC-3 graduate from the Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB), the predecessor of today's Institute of Technical Education (ITE), was $633 per month. How did these starting salaries compare with housing prices? In July 1979, after a 15% price increase by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the price of a new 4-room flat sold by the HDB in new towns was $27,100. This is equivalent to about 28 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, or 43 times the median starting salary of a VITB graduate. Today, the median starting salary of a university graduate is $4,500 per month as of 2024. In the October 2024 Built-To-Order (BTO) launch exercise, the cheapest 4-room flats launched, excluding grants, cost $290,000, or 64 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, while the cheapest 5-room flats cost $427,000, or 95 times the median graduate starting salary. Based on housing affordability, the median university graduate today is worse off than the median ITE graduate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Those years were truly the golden age for the Singaporean worker with high starting salaries, plentiful jobs and high Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution rates of up to 50%. Our students are spending more time and money to get educated and learn skills at university today. But even after this education arms race, our university graduates are achieving salaries that allow them to buy smaller and more expensive flats than what an ITE graduate could have bought 45 years ago.”
“Many foreign workers make the choice to uproot themselves to build a new life here in Singapore. Some of them have chosen to sink their roots more deeply and take up PR or citizenship. From the bottom of my heart, I acknowledge the contribution they have made to Singapore. I have said before in this House that PSP is for an open economy and society, and we recognise the need for foreign talent to complement our Singaporean core. This has never changed. And in speaking up for Singaporeans, we are also speaking up for the existing PRs who are really our economic citizens. Even as we welcome new foreign workers to Singapore, we must make sure that this does not affect the interests of existing citizens and PRs in Singapore. Not everyone has the resources, ability or desire to seek a better life elsewhere. For many existing citizens and PRs in Singapore, Singapore is their only home. By being more transparent with the data, the Government can actually calm anti-foreigner sentiments and assure Singaporeans that immigration does not harm their economic interest. It will help the Government get more buy-in for its immigration policies. Without the data, Singaporeans will always wonder, at the back of their head, whether immigration is really benefiting them. So, I hope that the officeholders will stop labelling me as a xenophobe or a racist so that we can have a rational and reasoned discussion on the impact of immigration on Singaporean workers and their wages. By some measures, the Singaporean worker is worse off today than he was 20 years ago. During his Budget speech, the Prime Minister said, in the past, tertiary graduates had fewer job options to choose from, with career paths revolving around a few traditional areas. These days, the job landscape is far more diverse.”
“For example, hypothetically, if the number of resident PMEs have increased by 200,000 from 2005 to 2020, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore residents have gained PME jobs. If there were more than 300,000 non-resident PMEs becoming PRs at the same time, 100,000 existing residents would have lost their PME jobs during that period. In my last four years in Parliament, I have asked repeatedly for the Government to provide a breakdown of the Singaporean and PR employment data so that we can monitor the effect of changes in workers' residency status with the data. Most recently, when I asked the Minister in May 2024 what percentage of the increase in resident employment by 4,900 in 2023 is due to non-residents becoming residents in Singapore, the Minister replied, "This line of questioning is not productive and undermines social cohesion in Singapore." He also added that MOM does not collect data on the net change in resident employment by workers' prior residency status in its labour market survey. However, without tracking the resident labour force based on the workers' prior residency status, I wonder how the Minister can conclude that there is no significant underemployment in Singapore and that I am looking for a smoking gun. 5.45 pm I urge the Government to start collecting data on changes in resident employment and the resident labour force based on the worker's prior residency status. This will help us get a better understanding of issues around resident employment. I do not believe that it xenophobic or nativist to ask for such statistics. I am also not seeking to divide Singaporeans by asking for these statistics. I am representing Singaporeans who want to know more. I deeply respect the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreign workers to Singapore.”
“If it is not by choice, such a worker is obviously underemployed, but he does not contribute to the unemployment numbers. A professional may also be underemployed when he is over qualified for the job, based on his training and education. For example, a former senior vice president of a bank who is forced to work as a Grab driver after being retrenched is seriously underemployed. This is skill-related underemployment. Last month, the Minister said that professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) now make up 64% of all employed residents, which matches the proportion of residents with tertiary education in the workforce. But again, this does not conclusively show that there is no serious skill-related underemployment in Singapore. The Government has said before that even though the MOM is interested in tracking skill-related underemployment, there is no internationally accepted way of doing this. But I would like to reiterate the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) view that this problem needs to be tracked and solved. For example, we can track over time how many Singaporeans have earned lower wages, no longer have the same seniority in their jobs and have been involuntarily employed as part-time or contract workers. Secondly, on how immigration skews the resident employment, unemployment and PME ratio statistics. Most labour statistics in Singapore are reported at the resident level. The resident classification includes Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). These statistics can therefore be distorted when the residency status of workers changes from Work Pass holder to PR.”
“Mr Chairman, over this term of Parliament, I have constantly urged this Government to rebalance its manpower policy, because we have heard from many Singaporeans that they are facing great difficulties in finding good jobs and holding on to those jobs. It appears that underemployment is a real problem for Singaporeans, especially as they age and their wages go higher. But there are signs that this problem is spreading from the older workers to the younger workers too. At last month's Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Minister Tan See Leng accused me of consistently looking for a smoking gun and asked me to consider there may be something that I am looking for does not exist. I would like to believe the Minister, but as underemployment concerns the livelihoods of Singaporeans, I cannot take it lightly. To convince Singaporeans, the Minister must provide conclusive evidence and statistics to prove his point. The Minister has cited the low unemployment rate and increasing share of residents in professional, managerial and executive (PME) jobs to prove his point. Respectfully, these two statistics do not necessarily support his point that underemployment is not a growing problem among Singaporeans. As I majored in economic statistics and econometrics in university, I know quite well that each economic statistic has its limitations and must be applied carefully to draw conclusions. Statistics can also be misused to paint a wrong narrative. Firstly, on why the low unemployment rate can be misleading. This is because under the definition of our employment statistics, a worker is considered employed even if he has worked for only one hour per week.”
“Sir, I am asking, is it a better communication strategy and also implementation strategy, by just concentrating on telling Singaporeans that, "Do not use your NRIC for authentication", and not to confuse them with, "We are now not using the masked NRIC also"? You get what I mean? Because now you are introducing two things.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I got one final clarification for the Senior Minister. I still want to ask whether it is a better communication strategy and also maybe a better strategy in getting Singaporeans to not use their NRIC number, whether full or masked, for authentication, by just educating them on not using it for authentication. Rather than introducing one more factor, and say that, "Oh, we should discontinue the masked NRIC also". Because there are some advantages to the use of the masked NRIC.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy? Given that it is still an added security measure, as an identifier, and is already an established practice? Next question, has the Government considered that this policy reversal could be very confusing for Singaporeans, especially those that are not digitally-literate? Okay, my last question. Many Singaporeans have raised concerns over whether our full NRIC numbers have been so compromised that there is no need to mask them anymore. So, my last question is, can Senior Minister confirm, whether there is any evidence to show that our full NRIC numbers have been compromised on a large scale already?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM? And when did the political office holders first get involved in the inter-agency response to the feedback and media queries on Bizfile? Was there any direction provided by the political office holders over the inter-agency response and the decision to disable the People Search function in Bizfile? To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government —”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I thank the Senior Minister for his Statement and the Government for releasing the results of this investigation, so that we can understand the whole incident better. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a total of six clarifications to make. The report shows that this NRIC number incident is a communication disaster of the Government, both internally and externally. For such a major change in policy which pertains to —”
“And I have read the report very thoroughly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had heard your comments.”
“I just want to clarify one last point with the Prime Minister. He did not really quite answer my question. Without the Prime and Plus scheme, do you agree that our BTO price, in certain areas, would have gone above the $1 million?”
“Last question, on whether the ramp-up of this BTO supply now will eventually lead to an adjustment of the resale market. Actually, PSP's stance has always been, we are not in favour of just ramping up the supply. We have said in our Housing Motion that we should also increase the supply of quality rental flats so that this does not become a supply in the hands of owners but is a rental flat supply. Because if we increase the number of owners owning flats, then, there will be a point where all the Singaporeans have owned flats already, and the next thing will be a downward adjustment in our HDB prices. Okay, my last question is, will we reach a point when Singaporeans are faced with no choice but to increase our population faster to 10 million, in order to arrest the decline in our HDB price?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must commend Prime Minister for impressively answering my 10 questions, although I have said that giving out 10 questions in one shot is unfair for the person who is replying to me. I have a few more clarifications arising from what he has replied just now. First of all, the difference between PSP and PAP is that PSP prefers to put more money into the pocket of Singaporeans. Government can reduce some expenditures but also reduce the taxes. So, my first question is, can the Prime Minister answer my question as to what is the total amount of assets they are now being kept under the endowment and trust funds? Next question on public housing. Can VERS be a solution anymore, because the lease decay itself has already set in, as demonstrated in the Ang Mo Kio Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) case. The economics of SERS has totally changed as a result of the lease decay. And so, we would have expected that the same economics will be applied to VERS. Given the economics have changed, will VERS continue to be a viable solution? Anyway, the Government owes Singaporeans a clear answer. Since my housing Motion, when the Government promised to update us on VERS, it is more than two years already. And the lease decay problem has surfaced for more than seven years. Till today, there is no clear answer about lease decay. The next question, is it possible that without introducing the Prime and the Plus schemes, the BTO price would have already gone above $1 million? The Government is using the Prime and the Plus schemes to slow down the increase to $1 million, but on the other hand, increasing the HDB deficit, which, in turn increases the burden on the Budget. That is something that is not sustainable.”
“I have lived in Singapore for more than 60 years and in my personal experience, even including the experience in the 1970s when I accompanied by mother to go to the community centre to buy cheap rice from NTUC, the recent few years, really I can feel it, the prices are just leapfrogging, especially for cooked food. So, the ground inflation is different. I think the word "turbocharging" is not too far from the truth. Secondly, the statistical inflation data that the Prime Minister has quoted – around 6% in 2022 but when GST was increased, the reported inflation actually came down to 4% in 2023 and around 3% in 2024. But he is an economist, I am an economist. We know that there is such a thing as anticipatory behaviour. A lot of the merchants were already raising prices in 2022. So, the 6% is a more of, a better reflection that people are anticipating that GST is coming. Anyway, so, combining all three years, we have more than double-digit increases in inflation. That tells the story better. Sorry for the long clarification. Thank you.”
“The Government has been criticising our ideas without much basis because it does not seem to have done research on them, and at the same time, the Government is not offering enough explanation as to how it is going to solve the ongoing problems that we are already experiencing today. First question, what is the latest update on the solution for the lease decay problem? Second question, can I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has a better solution than the Affordable Homes Scheme to the lease decay problem, which threatens Singaporeans' retirement security because their retirement funds are tied to the value of their flats which may soon decay for those living in older flats? Three, how is the Government going to ensure that the BTO price will stay below $1 million, as the land cost continues to increase in line with property price increases? Four, what safeguards does the Government have in place if the resale market price collapses in the near future because of the increase in supply from the ramping up of the BTO supply in recent years? And, sorry, Speaker, since you said I should ask all my questions, there is one more question I want to ask. This is actually the 10th question. I would also like to chip in on the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition on turbocharging inflation due to the GST increase. I think the information provided by the Prime Minister is not enough to describe the situation because: one, the ground inflation is actually much more than what is reflected in the statistic.”
“Okay. So, my next three questions are on the NIRC. The Government has repeatedly highlighted that NIRC contributes 20% of the Budget resources, implying that this money was spent on the current generation of Singaporeans. To determine whether this is actually the case, I would like to ask the following questions. One, can the Prime Minister confirm that, indeed, on average, Budget resources equivalent to about 80% of the NIRC every year are being transferred to endowment and trust funds, which will not all be spent in the allocated year, but reported as an expenditure in that year? Two, what are the total assets under the funds as of today? I think it is about $70 billion or $80 billion, but I would like the Prime Minister to confirm. In other words, these are the NIRCs that have been allocated to the Budgets over the last few years, not spent and still remaining in the endowment and trust funds. Third question, we already have the SINGA framework which can be used to fund important infrastructure like Changi Airport and coastal protection at a much lower cost to the people than raising revenue from GST hike or COEs. Can the Government re-examine the need to divert so much resources from the NIRC to endowment and trust funds, so that we can redirect these Budget resources to fund social spending increases or to relook at the need for the hike in GST and property tax increases? My last category, Speaker, is on public housing and I have four questions. PSP has presented the Affordable Homes Scheme and Millennial Apartment Scheme as viable solutions to our current housing problems.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. At your instruction that I should ask all the questions in one go, and I have a lot of questions, so I have actually waited until the last one. If any other Members want to raise questions, I would encourage them to raise them before me. Okay, I have questions in three categories: one, on the Budget structure, I have two questions; two, on the NIRC, I have three questions; and on public housing, I have four questions. On the Budget structure, first, I want to highlight or emphasise that PSP is all for fiscal prudence. However, I think the Prime Minister and Finance Minister and the Government have always been taking the attitude that for the surpluses, the "more the merrier". So, what I want to say is that surpluses are not always the "more the merrier". There must be a balance. My first question is, the Leader of Opposition has pointed out that this term of Government will have a Budget surplus of $14 billion. So, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: is the Government aiming to run a balanced Budget over its term, or as much surpluses as possible, because we are of the view that surpluses coming from over taxation and overcharging are the drivers of structural inflation in Singapore? My second question is, does the Government believe that there is still a need to put back into the reserves for the $40 billion we spent on COVID-19? Because we all know from the statistics, from the data provided by MAS, that we have already accumulated more than $300 billion more in official foreign reserves over the last few years. And some of this has been transferred to GIC already. So, these are the two questions for the Budget structure.”
“We do not want a first-world Singapore where a small group of elites and foreign billionaires coming here to pay lower taxes get to enjoy large Good Class Bungalows, play golf at country clubs and drive around on congestion-free roads in their Bentleys and Lamborghinis while the elderly and destitute sell tissue paper at hawker centres. We want a Singapore where Singaporeans are no longer financially stressed, can form families when they are ready, are free to pursue their careers and start businesses, are free from worries about healthcare and retirement cost, and enjoy a fulfilling retirement life, looking after their grandchildren as a choice. This is the first world we should aspire to create this SG60. This is the first world Singapore that PSP will fight for. We urge Singaporeans to think beyond the short term and dream bigger than the PAP Government. Notwithstanding our reservations, PSP will still support Budget 2025 to provide Singaporeans with the short-term assistance that they need until the long-term schemes are in place. For country, for people.”
“During the Population White Paper Debate in 2013, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean said, "I hope our birth rate can increase to at least 1.4 or 1.5, which was our birth rate not so long ago, around the late 1990s and the early 2000s." We are not sure if Senior Minister Teo still has these hopes, but PSP certainly does. That is why our PSP Family Plan is a whole-of-society approach to better support family formation. Our two most important proposals are the enhanced Job Sharing Scheme and the Caregiving Allowance Scheme. These proposals will benefit all parents, including single parents. The enhanced Job Sharing Scheme will empower parents to opt for flexi-time work. It will allow them to remain in the workforce while spending more time to care for the child. At the same time, employers will benefit from retaining their workers with children and employ more workers with Government subsidies. The Caregiving Allowance Scheme will pay one parent or grandparent an allowance of $1,250 per month if they are full-time caregivers of children below the age of seven. This will empower families to explore different childcare arrangements and strengthen extended family bonds. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, Singaporeans have worked hard to build Singapore from third-world to first in the last 60 years. However, more problems have emerged in the lives and livelihoods of many Singaporeans in the last 20 years. We do not want a first-world Singapore where the next generation has to live in smaller and smaller flats that are also more and more expensive relative to income. We do not want a first-world Singapore where public transport only seems to be more and more crowded, expensive and unreliable.”
“This will maintain stability in the resale market and allow Singaporeans to continue upgrading to private properties if they choose to do so. Mr Kwek pointed out that many of his residents see their HDB flat as a key pillar of their retirement planning. I would like to point out that it is the PAP's inaction on lease decay that threatens resale value and some Singaporeans' retirement plan. PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme will empower Singaporeans and free them from such concerns. Our second proposal is to effectively create a national healthcare scheme by having the Government pay the MediShield and CareShield premiums for all Singaporeans. Again, the national healthcare scheme will empower Singaporeans in the following ways. All Singaporeans will be able to enjoy a basic level of benefits when they need hospital treatment or certain outpatient treatments free of charge, paid for by the state, without having to worry about rising insurance premiums in the future. Singaporeans will have more MediSave balances to pay for other healthcare costs not covered by MediShield Life, freeing up their cash for other purposes. Our third proposal is to introduce a gross minimum living wage of $2,250 a month. We also support progressive wage increments up to the median wage of $4,500. These policies will empower lower-income Singaporeans with the financial resources to attain a minimum standard of living in a high cost-of-living environment more quickly than the Government's Progressive Wage Model. Singaporean workers will also enjoy further wage increments when they improve their skills. Our fourth proposal is the PSP Family Plan, which will reimagine our policies to support families.”
“Our objective is to empower Singaporeans so that they can be financially resilient without relying on ad hoc handouts. How can we do this? We need to better utilise the NIRC and our budget resources to benefit Singaporeans so that they can become truly resilient. The NIRC amounts to about $27 billion in 2025. However, as I have explained before, Budget resources amounting to about 80% of the NIRC is not spent in the same year but parked in endowment and trust funds. There are more and more of such funds. There needs to be more scrutiny over the use of these funds, as many will not directly benefit Singaporeans in the short term. Instead of parking funds in endowment funds and spending on special transfers that do not create long-term financial security for Singaporeans, we can fund PSP's four main policy proposals. Firstly, we have proposed the removal of land cost from public housing under the Affordable Homes Scheme and the construction of quality rental flats for young Singaporeans under the Millennium Apartment Scheme. We can implement the Affordable Homes Scheme without reducing the reserves, unlike what Minister Indranee has repeatedly claimed, but will empower Singaporeans in the following ways. Singaporeans of all generations will enjoy affordable public housing. As AHS flats cost less, Singaporeans will not have to deplete their CPF balances to pay off HDB mortgages. They will have adequate CPF savings for retirement without having to downgrade to smaller flats in retirement. Yesterday, Mr Henry Kwek suggested that our schemes will put a downward pressure on resale values. This will not happen, because Singaporeans who sell their Affordable Homes Scheme flats will have to repay the land cost with accrued interest to the Government.”
“Our country's fiscal position is extremely strong, much stronger than what the PAP Government would like to portray. Yesterday, Ms Foo Mee Har claimed that Singapore could face fiscal vulnerabilities like Hong Kong, if we use land sales to fund our expenditure like what PSP had advocated. PSP has only proposed that if a piece of land is sold on a 99-year lease, the proceeds should be recognised as revenue spread over 99 years. It is unlikely to create the fiscal vulnerabilities Ms Foo suggested. I would remind Ms Foo that last year, even Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong said our proposition was not unthinkable. Ms Tin Pei Ling suggested yesterday that we should put back into the Reserves what was taken out during COVID-19. She may not realise, but the $40 billion that was taken out has already been more than recovered, with the official foreign reserves increasing more than $200 billion since 2020, through the issuance of Reserves Management Government securities. The Government's financial position is strong, but ordinary Singaporeans financial position is weak. An OCBC survey in November 2023 found that fewer Singaporeans are able to comfortably spend on things beyond the basics. In March 2020, the Government tabled the Resilience Budget, which was aptly named, because there is a need to make Singaporeans more resilient. After all the CDC Vouchers and short-term schemes from the Budgets of the over the last five years, have Singaporeans become more financially resilient? Judging from the conversations that PSP has had with many Singaporeans, the answer is no. That is why PSP believes there is an urgent need to reimagine our Budget approach and public policies.”
“The PAP Government has always claimed that there is tight fiscal headroom, but if year after year surpluses are always bigger than what is estimated, then it really calls into question why the Government decided to inflict so much pain on Singaporeans by raising GST in 2023 and 2024 amid high global inflation. When I questioned Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on budget marksmanship at the debate last year, he said before COVID-19, our fiscal marksmanship was not too bad, and our forecast accuracy was not as good now because of COVID-19. Does the Prime Minister expect our budget marksmanship to be better this year? Or will we end up having a larger surplus than we anticipated again? Budget marksmanship is important so that Parliament and Singaporeans have a clear view of the fiscal resources available to us. During the debate on the Public Finances Motion last year. I explained that the Government transfers a large part of the surplus Budget resources arising from the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) each year to many endowment and trust funds that are intended for future spending over the long term. This has camouflaged our huge structural surplus Budget position. The same thing has happened this year, with about $20 billion parked away. It is also questionable whether so much of today's resources should be used for certain projects. For example, the Government has parked another $5 billion in the Changi Airport Development Fund, even though over the years we have already put $6 billion there. We believe such a large infrastructure project should be funded by the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan (SINGA) framework so that we can evaluate the commercial viability of such projects better.”
“The schemes proposed by PSP over the years, including a Minimum Living Wage, Affordable Homes Scheme, National Healthcare Scheme with MediShield and CareShield premiums paid by the Government, and Caregivers Allowance will create financial security for Singaporeans and empower them with the resources to pursue their career aspirations, form families and build a better life. On the other hand, is the SG60 Voucher which will benefit the billionaire living in a good class bungalow and a 1-room rental flat resident equally, truly a good and fair use of our fiscal resources? It is the PAP's patchwork of scheme of handouts and vouchers that will breed dependency among Singaporeans and not PSP's proposals. PSP's recognises that it is unrealistic to expect living costs never to increase, but we maintain that the PAP's current budget approach and policies around taxes, Reserves and property prices are the main driver of the high cost of living in Singapore. Long before the Ukraine War and supply chain disruptions, Singaporeans have found it difficult to cope with the rising cost of living. This is a persistent structural problem caused by the PAP Government. The Government has collected a lot more revenue from GST, COE and land sales over the past few years. This will eventually increase the cost of living for Singaporeans. The Government has collected about $8 billion more revenue each year than its original estimates in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Will it do it again for 2025?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, even before Budget 2025 was announced, many Singaporeans had expected that the Government would be generous in giving handouts to Singaporeans because this year is an election year. Indeed, about $3.8 billion of special transfers will be distributed this year, compared to about $3 billion in both 2023 and 2024. In recent years, Government handouts have become regular. It has become a national past time of sorts to monitor the timetable of handouts each month, which is also publicised in the media and in the HDB lift lobbies. Can this really be healthy for our society? Comments are already circulating on social media that the new 5Cs of today are Cash, CDC Vouchers, Climate Vouchers, CPF top-ups and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards. I am sure that the first generation PAP leaders would never have allowed this to happen. While the PAP Government's vouchers may help many Singaporeans deal with rising costs in the short term, they are not enough to help Singaporeans in the long term or solve Singapore's structural economic issues. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports some short-term financial assistance in the Budget to help deal with the high and rising cost of living. However, over the past four Budget debates, we have also argued that instead of giving out short-term ad hoc handouts, we should have long-term permanent schemes to strengthen the social support for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions for him. On 13 February, LTA announced that it was looking into the root causes of MRT disruptions after three incidents in a week. I would like to ask the Minister, besides the hardware problems, will LTA also look into the potential problems in the staffing, staff turnover, skill level and morale in the engineering and maintenance department of SMRT? Second question, during the debate after the six-day breakdown of the EWL after Jurong East station in September 2024, the Minister rejected my call for the convening of a Committee of Inquiry. Now that we have three more MRT disruptions in less than a week, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would now call for a Committee of Inquiry this time?”
“Okay, my last question, Speaker, Sir. Does the Minister agree that when I say we set a target, we are not actually trying to force Singaporeans to have babies. We are saying that as a policy objective, when we implement policies, we need an objective. So, like when you build infrastructure, there is a population target that you are looking at. So, here, it is the same. Does the Minister agree that we cannot be just implementing policies without thinking about whether those policies will yield a certain amount of results or not, and what that certain amount of results is, is equivalent to a target, whether it is a soft target or a hard target? That is all I want to say. I think I have made my point already.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, I do not wish to go into Affordable Homes Scheme during this debate. But on the first question that I have asked just now, what I mean is that any phenomena that we observe, there is always a systemic factor and there is a specific factor. Other countries have also experienced a general decline in the TFR. But if other countries are still maintaining at 1.5 and our TFR has gone right below 1.0, that is the difference. You are 0.5 below some countries that we can benchmark against. So, of course, you can choose South Korea. But South Korea is like ourselves – the whole social economy model, there are issues to it. That is why we are saying that there is one systemic factor here and there is a specific factor. So, I am of the view that our policies have not addressed the specific factors. If we can say today that, yes, we put up a national plan. But Singaporeans, I do not think we can move back up to 1.8 or 2 TFR, but let us fix a target of 1.4 within the next decade. Ah! Then, we are talking. The Government is making an effort and a commitment that we must reach there. You cannot just say that, "Oh, everything is dropping, we can't help it". More or less, you are saying that we cannot help it. That cannot be the case, because then, we will be really running towards an extinction. Do you agree to that? There is a specific factor.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two questions for the Minister, although she has avoided answering all the questions already. But I will give her two new questions. First of all, when we compare the global trend of TFR, why do not we compare ourselves with France, compare ourselves with those countries – because although the Minister has quoted a downward trend of the TFR as a global phenomenon, but other countries are able to maintain it at above 1.5; but we are 0.97. Does that difference mean that it is a responsibility that the Government has to take? That is the first question. The second question is actually the debate on the Affordable Homes Scheme is not complete. But I do not want to extend today's debate into the Affordable Homes Scheme. I have stated many times that I disagree that it is raid on the Reserves. And when the Minister says that the Affordable Homes Scheme is actually a prepaid rental scheme, is the current system not the same thing, with the 99-year lease? Is the 99-year lease not a prepaid rental scheme as well, for 99 years? So, please, do not use Affordable Homes Scheme to negate all the debate I am trying to put up today. Do you agree?”
“My last question, the seventh question is, does she agree that since we want to build Singapore as a "Singapore Made for Families" and we want to involve a whole-of-society effort, the best is actually to engage the extended family and give incentives to the family and that will make our overall plan far more effective. So, that is the seventh question, does she agree that this will be a more effective way of doing it? So, in conclusion, I think what I am trying to drive at is our re-imagining is not just giving some money from Government to parents. It is actually involving a lot of stakeholders and incentivising them to take action towards the same objective.”
“Okay, thank you, Sir. So, the fourth clarification is, do you think these policies ought to be implemented backdated rather than forward dated? The fifth clarification I seek to get is, under supporting child's development and well-being, she mentioned the shift in the education system and all that. But does the Minister think that this is really sufficient? Because I think we still got a lot of feedback from the ground that the PSLE system is still a big burden on the families. So, does she think that our suggestion of having a dual track system can achieve three objectives at the same time: one is better family life; two is better child development; and three, actually allows our children to have more social interaction time. This is the fifth point. And the sixth point I want to make is that, in terms of helping parents to balance work and all that, does she agree that our suggestion of an enhanced job-sharing scheme has the following benefits and actually it engages the employers better rather than the current job-sharing scheme of just providing $35,000? And the benefits of a job-sharing scheme – enhanced job-sharing scheme – does she agree that: one, it improves work life balance; two, Singapore workers can continue to be on the job without leaving the job market and that is very important. Today, once a Singaporean leaves the job market, it is very difficult for him or her to come back, and we all know that. And three, actually, it can increase employment because it may allow a few more Singaporeans to have part of a job.”
“Some clarifications need to have context —”
“So, when we say re-imagining, we are, of course, confident that there are many gaps in the current policies of the Government. I thank the Minister for giving a list of policies that the Government has and I shall, one by one, ask her whether these are the gaps in the policies or not. First of all, under helping married couples with their first home. After all the policies that the Minister has said here, how about the price of the HDB? It is still very high, right? So, you have not solved the problem. Two, you said you cannot reduce the waiting time to below three years; then, TFR cannot be improved. You have to do something about it. You did not solve the problem, right? So, our suggestions of Affordable Homes Scheme plus our Millennial Apartments Scheme do provide a feasible solution. This is the third question. Still got gaps, right? So, secondly, when you want to encourage Singaporeans, especially mothers to have babies, I think we ought to upgrade the kind of help we want to give them. So, while we have done some of these and that, like before birth, you say now the MediSave is 50% increase from today. But this is from 1 April onwards. And that is one problem with saying the Government policies' implementation is that you always put it ahead. So, many parents will feel short-changed. In fact, I think the policy should be to backdate one year, so as to make the parents feel that, "Hey, I had better get into the boat as soon as possible." Rather than, "Oh, I will give you the benefit in a few months' time." So, that means you cause the parents to say, "Maybe I should delay a few months and see whether maybe after Budget?"”
“Yes, but does she agree that our re-imagining is actually different, from the kind of re-imagining —”
“Okay, first of all, I want to ascertain whether we are debating this as a national emergency or not. The next thing is, the Minister mentioned about re-imagining. So, we raised the issue, and my colleagues from Workers' Party also agree to that, that the current policies are obviously inadequate. As a result, we need to have new policies and there is a basis for us to say why the current policies need re-imagining. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees that when we imagine what I have suggested in my speech, for example, we are actually trying to engage all the stakeholders, a whole-of-society approach. The whole-of-society approach, when hearing from the office bearers, seems to be a shirking of responsibility, saying that, it is not just the responsibility of the Government, the society also has to help. But to us, the whole-of-society approach is that you must provide more fiscal incentives, to involve more stakeholders. Does the Minister agree, that in our recommendation of the new policies, we actually consider stakeholders like the employers. You ask the employers to have more FWAs, you ought to give them more fiscal incentives. We talk about engaging the community, engaging the extended family, the grandparents who are giving care to the children, they ought to be renumerated. We are trying to expand the scope of thinking. It is not just what the Government has been doing, just from Government to the parents. Furthermore, we are also expanding into thinking about the mental health of the children, because happy children mean happy life.”
“Yes, yes, because the Minister has said a list of things.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministers of State for their very comprehensive replies, especially there are many points raised by the Minister. As a result of that, I have many questions to ask. But first of all, I would like to ask the Minister, today, I think all of us agree that the low TFR and the declining TFR is a very serious problem for our country. So, I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, whether when we are debating the need for more policies, are we treating this as a national emergency or not? Or is it just a business as usual, maybe we need more? But I think the most important thing that we need to agree is that this is a very urgent problem and I would classify it as a national emergency. Would she agree to that first? My first question.”
“Sir, the PSP's amendment is, in the original Motion, "in line 2, to delete 'continued review and updating', and insert 're-imagination'." Sir, the Cambridge dictionary defines "re-imagine" as "to have a new idea about the way something should be". We hope Members will support PSP's amendment. Not everyone may agree with our new ideas, but we hope that Members will agree that we need new ideas to better support families. PSP invites all Singaporeans to join us in our journey to re-imagine our policies and build a better Singapore, together. For country, for people.”
“I am confident that more Singaporeans will be willing to have children if we can create such an environment for families. The low TFR is an existential problem which should be tackled as a national emergency. If our current birth rate persists, there will only be 12 great-grandchildren for every Singaporeans born today. There is little point in increasing the Reserves if we do not have a future generation to leave the Reserves to. We should use our hard-earned savings to invest in our people and re-imagine our socio-economic policies, so that more Singaporeans will consider parenthood a meaningful and attainable journey. Sir, in conclusion, PSP believes that we will not be able to reverse the decline in our TFR by simply reviewing and updating our current policies. We already know that these policies are ineffective and that is why, we are facing a national emergency today. What we urgently need, is to re-imagine some new policies and mobilise the whole of Government, and whole of society, to create an environment that is conducive for families and raising children. PSP has provided some new ideas as a starting point and hope that this will develop into a national action plan. As such, Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion. May I hand over a copy of the amendment to you?”
“Under this scheme, a 35-year-old full-time homemaker, for example, would receive $1,000 in cash and $462.50 in CPF contributions, while a 75-year-old grandparent would receive $1,156 in cash and $156 in CPF contributions. This allowance is expected to be a game-changer, as it will provide real and effective support for full-time homemakers and caregivers. Our sixth and last policy suggestion is to reduce education pressure on families to promote happier family lives. Tuition is now a $1.8 billion industry. Most preschoolers are sent to tuition or expensive kindergartens to get a head start in life. This kind of pressure is taking a toll on young children and we cannot afford the negative effects it has on their mental health. I have heard many young Singaporeans who are choosing not to have children because they do not want them to face this kind of suffering. To encourage more Singaporeans to have children, we must do more to reduce the pressures currently faced by the young in our education system. We reiterate our suggestion to offer an option of not having to take the PSLE. Members of the House from all parties have made this suggestion before. This will allow children to be happier and parents to enjoy happier family lives. Let us imagine how enjoyable family life in Singapore would be if Singaporeans have stable jobs, can afford the cost of living with one-and-a-half incomes, can easily get a house to form a family whenever they are ready and can spend quality time with children who are free from exam pressures. Grandparents can spend time taking care of their grandchildren with a caregiving allowance from the Government, instead of working in old age.”
“In this regard, we can do more to encourage job-sharing and the adoption of FWAs. The Government has introduced the job-sharing incentive to support companies. In creating FWAs or job-sharing arrangements for their employees. Under the current scheme, each company receives up to $35,000, depending on the number of employees that have adopted FWAs or job-sharing. But this is not attractive enough for employers, especially given the availability of foreign labour. PSP proposes an enhanced job-sharing incentive. We propose to allow companies to claim from the Government 20% of the wages, capped at $8,000 per month, paid to any flexi-time workers with children, on condition that these money are used to employ more full-time or flexi-time workers. We hope that this will incentivise more employers to create flexi-time jobs and help workers to better balance their work and family commitment. Fifth, we should recognise the great unpaid contributions of homemakers and full-time caregivers of young children. Many parents, especially mothers, choose to sacrifice their careers to bring up their children. Grandparents also help full-time working parents with caregiving duties and bringing the grandchildren to school, minding them after school and cooking for them. PSP proposes that the Government pay a $1,250 monthly allowance to one parent or grandparent who is registered as full-time caregiver of a Singapore Citizen child from birth until age seven. I first mentioned such a monthly allowance in my Budget speech in 2023. Those who claim this allowance would no longer be eligible for Government subsidies for full-day childcare and infant care programmes. Part-time care caregivers or babysitters, like myself, would also not qualify.”
“We are confident that these two schemes, taken together, will reduce the cost of housing for Singaporeans and allow young Singaporeans to get their own home as quickly as possible once they are ready to set up a family. Thirdly, we must further defray the cost of prenatal gynaecologist visits, childbirth and postpartum medical checks. PSP believes that maternity and child-bearing medical fees should be fully claimable from MediSave without limit. Given our low TFR, there is little concern about overusing MediSave for such fees. Female Singaporeans should have full autonomy over how much MediSave they want to use. Most mothers in Singapore, regardless of race, also practice confinement, which helps the mother heal physically from childbirth and adjust to a life with a newborn, which can be very challenging and even lead to postpartum depression for some mothers. But with basic confinement packages at $3,000 to $5,000 now, the cost of confinement care can be expensive. To help mothers defray this cost, PSP proposes a new $3,000 Healthier Mother Cash Gift, paid to every mother upon the birth of each child. Fourth, we must strengthen workplace support for caregiving of children. PSP acknowledges that the Government has put in place a wide range of support programmes for parents and introduced new forms of support, such as paternity leave. However, to allow parents to spend more quality time with their children and enjoy parenting, we should have bolder policies. We should create conditions such that Singaporean families can thrive with just one-and-a-half income instead of two incomes. This means that families should be able to afford the cost of living with one full-time working parent and another parent working flexi-time.”
“PSP believes that we need to reset and re-imagine our socio-economic policies so that we can bring back confidence in the future. We have previously proposed many alternative policies in this House with that aim and we will do so again today. Firstly, we must ensure better job security and financial stability for Singaporeans. I have spoken extensively about rebalancing our foreign manpower policies to create better opportunities for Singaporeans. Family formation will be delayed if our university and polytechnic graduates are taking longer to find well-paying permanent jobs and also finding it harder to keep these jobs. We need better policies to improve the job security of Singaporeans. While the Government has put in many measures since the loss of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in 2011, such as Fair Consideration Framework, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) and adjustments to the minimum qualifying salary, many Singaporeans are still concerned about job security. We will not be able to increase TFR without allaying the concerns of Singaporeans about job security and work-life balance. Secondly, we must slow down the increase in the cost of living, especially the cost of housing. For housing, PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme, which reduces the price of BTO flats by removing the cost of land for owner-occupied flats. PSP has also proposed the Millennial Apartments Scheme, which aims to provide young Singaporeans with a quality rental option while they are waiting for a new flat.”