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 15 of 20.
“There is no mention of the school on the screenshot. But this is public information, on the public domain, sgconcernedparents, a chatgroup with close to 6,000 members. So, if the Ministry wants, they can contact the persons —”
“I am going to repeat about the screenshot.”
“Okay, this information that I am going to say —”
“Okay, yes. Point taken. The point I raised that some schools might have started practising VDS is based on a screenshot from a Telegram chatgroup, sgconcernedparents, sent by a Facebook friend. The relevant messages, among others, are as follows: one, "Depends on school; my niece came back crying, saying her teacher scolded her for being unvaxxed" —”
“In spite of that, I sought to get your commitment of a more definite scenario that Vaccinated-differentiation Safe Management Measures (VDS) will not be considered for children at least until non-mRNA vaccines are available for children, which you have avoided to answer directly.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, I will come to that very soon.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for me to respond to Minister Chan's query yesterday. Dear Minister Chan, yesterday, I attempted to get assurance from your good self that children in schools will not be vaccination-differentiated. You may wish to know from ground feedback that many distressed parents are still trying to get reassurance from you and your Ministry, and to be very clear of your position. I see it as my duty as a parliamentarian to bring their valid concerns to this House. Yes, Minister Ong Ye Kung and yourself have given the assurance before —”
“Mr Speaker, the residents who have given feedback to me are on my WhatsApp messages. Can I refer to the messages and then I give a reply later?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for Education to confirm again, although I think he might have said so just now, that the VDS measures will not be applied to children below 12 years old for as long as it is and maybe at least until the non-mRNA vaccines are available for the kids. Because there is a strong request from the parents that, at least, there should be more choices for vaccines and the VDS measures will not be applied to the children. I also received feedback from residents that some teachers have already practised VDS measures in schools. So, can the Minister confirm whether the teachers are practising that or if any officers in the schools are practising that, that it is against the Government's policy at the moment?”
“Mr Speaker, just one clarification for the Minister of State. Throughout the investigation in February, did the Police offer to activate the Appropriate Adult Scheme for the mentally-challenged? Or is it incumbent in our system that the suspect should ask for it and the Police do not volunteer it? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As I have shared earlier, we want to be fair and professional in how we deal with the suspects. We will observe, we will find all ways we can, to see if there is a need for support. So, it is not that the person has to declare or has to ask for it. Even if the person does not ask for it, when we feel that it helps in the investigation process, we will activate it. We want to make sure that the person has a fair process, as part of the investigation.”
“Because the unvaccinated group consists of: one, the 70,000 seniors who are still unvaccinated and probably, like just now, one of the Members had raised the issue, maybe we should isolate them a bit more, or rather pay attention specially to them so that we cut down on their infection rate. But these 70,000 had come down from 200,000 in August. So, maybe there is very little leeway that we can actually convince them to get vaccinated. So, we have to isolate them and special care has to be given to them and more volunteers may be assigned to look after them and all that. But there is also another group of unvaccinated people in our country, 240,000 of them, between 13 years old and 59 years old, relatively healthy, but they chosed not to be vaccinated for various reasons. They are healthy and so, is it appropriate to also impose the vaccination differentiation policy on them, especially the latest MOM advisory which actually may affect their livelihood? Is it fair to impose something that destroys a livelihood of a person who chooses not to be vaccinated? Thank you. Sorry for the long explanation.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what exactly caused the infections in our country to suddenly surge to the thousand cases level, around about the end of September? What are the various routes of infection, especially for the seniors? Because that is the base where the subsequent fatality comes about, which the Senior Minister of State has shared just now. For example, there are some rumours, unconfirmed information in the public arena, that a lot of these seniors, those who are living alone, come from the nursing homes and those who are infected in their own homes, together with their children — how many of them are actually having another COVID-19 patient inside the home, under the Home Recovery Programme? So, these various routes of infection would be something that, I think, we hope to get more information from the Senior Minister of State. Second is that, while we are saying that the fatality had gone up, are there changes in our treatment protocols for the seniors in the hospital? And then, is there a possibility that we have some preventive treatments for seniors and also for other citizens or other residents in our country, to lower the risk of COVID-19? So, in other words, are there potential treatments that we can introduce? So far, there has not been a lot of information on that from the Government. And thirdly, of course, the most sensitive topic right now in our society is that: is there a justification to impose vaccination differentiation on the whole group of unvaccinated people?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I want to ask the Minister, is he going to answer my question on the appointment of the Tribunal?”
“Minister did not answer my question. I asked a question.”
“Sir, I would like to clarify further with the Minister. One is that the appointment of the tribunal is recommended by the Cabinet, right, to the President? In that case, does the President have the power to reject the appointment? First question. Second question is, just now I asked for some examples of Asian countries that are affected by foreign interference. I am looking for examples where there are more permanent damage, like really affected a national election and things like that. But what the Minister has pointed is this one senator being found with connections with a country. Those things in the normal course of our security operation, we can identify already. Do we need an extra law? Secondly, is that Minister talked about the Indian electric infrastructure and all that? Similarly, our healthcare system data was compromised some years ago. Is FICA needed before we can prevent all these things? Or even with FICA, are we going to be able to prevent these kind of events? Minister, please.”
“Mr Speaker, there the Minister goes again. I am not going to go into all these legal interpretation. If we want to argue, we argue out of this. But most of the things that I have said is in section 99, and I did not say detention without trial. I say he can arrest you, of course, through due process, but after he arrests you, you are not bailable and all that, those are provided in section 99. But, anyway, I am not going down that line. Minister, let us go on with the other questions.”
“Okay, what I have said is according to the legal advice that my Party had gotten from senior lawyers. So, you say those are not accurate, they are not right. Then, that is exactly what we have been saying or I have been saying in this Parliament. The discussion and the debate in this Parliament actually should not be conducted in a way that is just interpretation by you. Let us have a Committee, let the experts trash it out and then bring it to this main Chamber. We might as well call this legislative Chamber, legal Chamber. The legal experts who are advising me disagree with you.”
“Because as an ordinary citizen watching the TV and all that, all the foreign interferences in Taiwan and Australia, for example, seem to be a joke. It was just a theatre of actions and all that but in the end, all the foreign interference seems to be unravelled. So, I ask the Minister to quote us some examples and educate us. The third question is, we spend a lot of time talking about judicial review. What the Minister seems to be saying is "Trust me, trust me". I ask two questions with regard to that. The Tribunal is appointed by the Minister, right, under this FICA? Two, if judicial review can be done in other country, even with respect to national security issues, why can we not do it?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. One, basically, the question revolves around what the Leader of Opposition has also been asking. I do not think the Minister has given enough convincing arguments about what is the hurry, why FICA is needed and why the judicial review is not needed. First of all, my first question, what is the hurry. The Minister has been saying for hours that three years of consultation has been done, they have done a lot of things and all that. But what we have heard here is that those things are about identifying what need to be done and what are the threats, what are the foreign interference threats and all that. But just now he mentioned something that, oh, he also consulted some Singaporeans. But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there is little consultation of the general public. And what the Minister was trying to say just now is that it seems to be – I mean that is how I interpret it – let us have the law first and then Singaporeans will understand the law, that the law is good for them and all that. That is not the way the law should be implemented. So, since there is not enough consultation of the general public, should the Minister not consider postponing the passage of the Bill? That is my first question. The second question, is FICA effective in protecting us much more than all the resources and the laws we have before this? We already have them, they are all there. Can the Minister point out a few examples, do not quote all the foreign countries example, quote Asian countries example, examples of Asian countries that have suffered from foreign interference.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My second question is: is there such a principle in law where if you have no intention to commit a crime, then even if the Government introduces harsher laws, it does not concern you. What kind of principle is that? (In English): Okay, the saying that if you had no plans to be against the law, so the law should not concern you. What reasoning and what principle is that?”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Here, I would like to ask Minister of State Sun Xueling two questions. First, the Government has been scaremongering. Can you give an example where a country in Asia was affected by strong foreign interference? Secondly, what kind of principle is it? If you have no intention to commit a crime, then no matter how harsh the law is, it does not concern you. The Minister has been talking about this principle, and now the Minister of State is also talking about this. May I know what kind of legal principle it is?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a question for the Minister of State. Is it okay?”
“For the sake of Singapore and Singaporeans, Mr Speaker, I urge you again to exercise your power, under Standing Order No 68 to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I oppose the Bill. Singaporeans deserve better. And I just received a message from a Singaporean through my handphone which says, "I want freedom of information. I don't want FICA."”
“(In English): Mr Speaker, the excessive controls of FICA over civil rights would not stop a determined foreign state from conducting foreign interference. While our capable security agencies and diplomatic channels are dealing with it, the best defence against foreign interference is not more laws to control our own people but to raise the awareness of our people towards national security threats. Hence, the anti-terrorist awareness campaign, SGSecure, which is aimed at all Singaporeans, is a wise move. Like what the Leader of the Opposition has commented just now, this Government should be more proactive in educating Singaporeans on what is online foreign interference, so that every citizen can be its eyes and ears. Accordingly, we should not have laws to restrict and control Singaporeans' interaction with foreigners. But we should encourage more interactions so that we know first-hand if there are developments of concern to the interest of Singapore. Mr Speaker, all things said, and to reiterate, is it wise to hastily pass a legislation giving extensive power to a Minister without judicial oversight? I, as do many Singaporeans, urge you and all Members of this House, to delay the passing of this Bill and allow for public consultations and the appointment of a Select Committee to scrutinise the Bill. You have the power to do so, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order No 68. It can be done. And how each Member votes on this Bill will represent his or her legacy to the present and future generations of Singaporeans. All Singaporeans are watching you. A yes vote means the Member is willing to sacrifice the rule of law, which is the foundation of all democratic nations.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] My Singapore compatriots, FICA, in name, is a law to prevent foreign interference, but, actually, it is a tiger in sheep's skin and may severely infringe on our democratic and civil rights. National security is, of course, something that we are very concerned about and we also support giving the Government enough resources to deal with it. For example, in Financial Year 2021, $22 billion was allocated to maintain domestic and external security, accounting for a quarter of the total Budget. Through the Internal Security Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the Broadcasting Act and POFMA, the Government has, basically, controlled threats to domestic security, public opinion and the transmission of fake news online. Hence, FICA is really a law that is unnecessary. It gives the Government the power to deal with citizens who hold dissenting views. We should learn from history, such as the lessons of militarism in Japan and Germany. Every time a government moves towards authoritarianism, it can bring about disastrous consequences for the country. The country needs checks and balances between the Government and the people in order to have lasting peace and stability. FICA is a law that could suppress public opinion and civil rights. We must guard against it. Do not think that FICA has nothing to do with our everyday life. This is because without freedom of speech, even discussions on employment and livelihood issues could be restricted. Therefore, PSP feels that the Bill should be postponed to give the people and the Special Committee sufficient time to scrutinise it thoroughly.”
“Between the ISA, NPPA, Broadcasting Act and POFMA, this Government already has extensive powers to deal with any internal security threat, manage public opinion and prevent the spread of false information online. So, is there a need to give this Government further powers to deal with foreign interference at the expense of our citizens' constitutional rights? As there is no urgency but ample reasons why we should delay the Bill, we should then make best use of the opportunity to evaluate the implications of FICA properly. We understand all that has been said about combating foreign interference. But we cannot ignore the basic principles of democracy, which is not based on a benevolent ruler but on separation of powers and checks and balances. A law like FICA, which ignores those principles, ought to be considered carefully and over a long period of deliberation. Just look at some of the frightening implications on people, on an accused person under FICA. It is possible that you may inadvertently commit an offence because the definition of an offence is broad and vague. There is no need to give you a reason to arrest you and, if evidence is offered later, the Government does not need to reveal the source, and detention is non-bailable. You cannot choose your own legal Counsel and can be tried in absence. And to cap it all, there is no judicial review for all the actions that are taken against you. Thus, FICA appears even worse than the Internal Security Act. There are many more provisions and, to me, all sounded like a joke for someone living in a modern democratic society, based on the rule of law. FICA can be described in Singlish. This also called law? Or, in more accurate English, tyranny in the name of law. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.”
“As I said, do we need to restrict our citizens' freedom further to achieve better outcomes? We deploy substantial resources to national security every year. For FY2021, we are spending $15 billion on defence; $6.5 billion on home affairs and $0.5 billion on foreign affairs, all for the purpose of upholding and protecting our sovereignty. This makes a total of $22 billion accounting for more than a quarter of our operating Budget. There are also tough laws in place to deal with internal security and public issues. To start with, we have the Internal Security Act (ISA) which was passed in 1960 when we were still part of Malaysia. The Court of Appeal's ruling that the ISA was subjected to judicial review was already overruled in a legislative amendment in 1988, giving the Government wide powers in administering the ISA. Incidentally, Malaysia had repealed its ISA in 2012 while our ISA is still in force. Then, we have the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) since 1975, which is designed to ensure there is no foreign control on Singaporean newspapers and limits the circulation of foreign printed media. There is also the Broadcasting Act 1994 which requires online sites discussing Singapore's political issues to register for a licence with conditions covering foreign funding and interference. The NPPA and Broadcasting Act allowed the Government to have almost monopoly control over the narrative on major policies and issues through the mainstream media. That was until the rise of social media as a strong alternative platform from around 2010. As a result, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) came into being in 2019 to allow the Government to tackle the spread of fake news and false information online.”
“Many Members of this House are probably not adequately prepared for a thorough debate today. It is difficult to understand why the Government is trying to rush the passage of this Bill or why the debate on this Bill cannot be postponed by three to six months to allow for proper scrutiny and consultation involving a wide range of stakeholders. Just earlier this year, the Government established a two-month-long public consultation process for the Copyright Bill. The POFMA Bill also went through a long consultation, lasting more than a year and, in addition, through a Select Committee, before it was passed into law. So, where is the Select Committee for FICA which, arguably, should be held to even greater scrutiny in light of the removal of judicial supervision of the Government's usage of FICA's powers and our citizens' constitutional rights? We should also delay the reading of this Bill because we should be now focusing our resources and attention on the worsening COVID-19 situation in our country. The number of infections has shot up exponentially and there are more and more distressed situations amongst many of us Singaporeans. This is a time when Members of Parliament should be busy helping constituents get through the many challenges in their lives due to the current COVID-19 crisis, instead of being distracted to mull through and digest this draconian Bill. On the other hand, the Government is not new to dealing with foreign interference for which it has been well-equipped to deal with after many years of experience. PSP recognises that foreign interference had existed in the past and will continue to exist. But countering foreign interference is an ongoing task and this Government already has substantial resources to deal with it.”
“Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is strongly against foreign interference in our country's affairs. But the PSP cannot support the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, which I shall refer to as FICA, in its current form because of the insufficient evaluation by both parliamentarians and members of the public of its far-reaching implications. So, PSP calls upon the Government to delay the passing of the Bill, hold public consultations and appoint a Select Committee to scrutinise the Bill closely. The Minister has just got through two hours in this Chamber on the possible amendments. These are exactly what should have been done in Select Committee. Is it realistic or fair to expect parliamentarians to understand the pros and cons of the amendments in just a few hours of debate? So, our recommendation is based on three considerations. One, for such an important Bill, it should not be rushed through Parliament, disregarding proper legislative processes and the feelings of Singaporeans suffering under a worsening COVID-19 crisis. Two, countering foreign interference is an ongoing task and sufficient resources have already been deployed to it. Do we need to restrict our citizens' freedom further to achieve better outcomes? Three, is it wise to pass a legislation giving extensive power to a Minister without any judicial oversight? The possibility of abuse cannot be ruled out. FICA is a complex Bill with 127 sections over 249 pages and the content difficult to make sense of, even for senior lawyers. In spite of that, the Bill was only tabled at the last Parliamentary Sitting on 13 September, barely three weeks ago and we are already rushing through its passage today.”
“I understand that, Mr Speaker. I am proposing an amendment to the question.”
“I am referring to the Bill that we are going to debate.”
“Mr Speaker, I propose an amendment to the question that the Bill be now read a Second time. To leave out the word "now" and add —”
“The petitioners pray that the hon Members of this Parliament take steps to: (a) delay passage of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill into law, pending greater and more extensive public consultation on the implementation, effects and implications of the Bill for the general public; and (b) refer this Bill to a Select Committee for further consultation and deliberation on the appropriateness and the necessity of the measures contained within the Bill, with adequate representation from a variety of stakeholders." Sir, the Petition has been handed to the Clerk at the Table. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Thank you. [(proc text) Petition handed to the Clerk at the Table. (proc text)]”
“Speaker, Sir, I present to this Parliament a Petition from Mr Howe Wen Khong Rocky, Mr Xu Yuan Chen and others of like opinion. Including the two petitioners named above, there were a total of eight valid signatures. The petitioners allege that the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill contains extremely broad definitions that serve as a catch-all for a wide range of legitimate activities. They are concerned that the Bill proposes vast powers for the Minister for Home Affairs to issue directives to censure online content and criminalise the financing of online media platforms. Further, the Bill allows the designation of Politically Sensitive Persons, which, once designated, would require adherence to a range of onerous reporting obligations and affect their right of free association. Yet, the avenues of appeal pertaining to powers within the Bill are limited and judicial review in open Court restricted to only procedural matters. If enacted, the law will have serious ramifications for multiple stakeholders and large sections of society, including academia, business, civil society and the media. Singaporeans have an interest in a law that is more resistant to the potential for misinterpretation, misapplication, or even abuse, in future. The petitioners ask for a delay in the passage of the Bill into law, pending greater and more extensive public consultation, and the referral of the Bill to a Select Committee to consult and deliberate on the appropriateness and necessity of the measures included. Apart from the eight signatories, the online petition with the same demands has garnered signatures from 39 civil organisations and 7,419 individuals as of 10.30 am this morning.”
“I thank the Member Janet Ang, for raising her clarification. It is past midnight. The only thing I want to confirm is that, yes, I am 62 years old. So, that is why I know we are from the same generation. That is why I related the example. But I do not think we want to go further into explaining what you just said because it will enter another debate. I hope to have another opportunity in the near future to talk about wage policy and retirement. But that will be for another forum. I hope that is okay for Ms Janet Ang.”
“I thank Dr Tan Yia Swam for the clarification. One on the lack of manpower in certain sectors, as we have said, we are not saying that we clamp down on foreigners immediately. We are saying that we have to chart a path. Because this path going down, does it mean that we need more and more foreigners? That cannot be the case, right? Because that is not something that Singaporeans want. So, we may need to chart a new path now. But at the ground level, there are a lot of different requirements. So, we will handle it accordingly.”
“I thank the Member Desmond Choo for the clarification. I appreciate all the work that NTUC has done for Singaporeans. In fact, NTUC was formed, no, FairPrice was formed around the time of the oil shock, the oil crisis, right? I was still a small boy. I remember going to the Community Centre to collect rice from NTUC FairPrice. I do not think it was called FairPrice at that time. So, yes, the things done by NTUC, we Singaporeans, we all know. In fact, in this House, we are all for Singapore. We all know. We are just trying to say what is the right direction forward. When it comes to talking about general welfare for workers and all that, I think NTUC has done a tremendous job as well. But when it comes to wage policy, I think there is some room for improvement. Sometimes, it is not because of NTUC. There is an overall national policy called foreign talent policy. And then, there is some preference to make sure the businesses do well before the workers. Okay, I mean, that may lead to another debate. But maybe suffice to say that, okay, we think that there is some room for improvement as far as wage policy is concerned. I hope that answers the question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for making that statement. So, we can confirm that, from the debate today, the Government's stance is that the old policies still stand. PSP says you need new policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me close by reminding that democracy is famously described as government of the people, by the people, for the people. So, let us not forget that it is the interest of the people that the Members of this House and this Government are elected to serve. There is nothing wrong in voicing out for them and championing for them. Singaporeans deserve better. The many Philip Wens out there deserve better. For country, for people. Sir, I beg to move the Motion.”
“It is a debate about developing our very own talent by looking into new ideas to create opportunities for them. The PSP position is clear. We recognise the need to stay open as an economy. We are pro-trade but not "free for all" trade. We recognise the need for real foreign talent to complement our Singaporean Core, transferring skills as well as sharing experiences but we want a healthy balance of foreign and local workforce achieved through sound immigration and employment policies. We want these policies to be designed and executed fairly, with Singaporean interest first. We call for urgent and concrete steps to be taken to alleviate the current problem and we have given suggestions on what needs to be done. The Prime Minister has said in his National Day message that he recognises the anxieties about jobs and that his Government will make changes over time. But time is of the essence. The changes must start now before this dire situation gets to a point of no return. Many of us have heard or read about the story of Mr Philip Wen, whom I happen to know. He was a senior vice president of a bank but now has to drive Grab for a living. Please do not be mistaken. There is nothing wrong with driving for Grab as it is an honourable job. But this is a good illustration of underemployment, which many of our PMETs are facing. Their skillsets could have been much better utilised. Yet, they are forced into a no-win situation. There are many more sad stories, as we discovered through our survey of 750 PMET respondents. It pains us to know that we have our own talent that are not treasured and the very Government that is supposed to look after their interests has the priority elsewhere, maybe on economic growth.”
“To every Singaporean, we have a duty to make sure he is not discriminated against in the job market. Over the years, while Singaporeans have constantly provided feedback on their predicament, the Government has insisted that all attempts in trying to curb immigration and foreign workforce growth in order to safeguard Singaporeans will end up hurting the Singaporeans themselves. I quote Dr Amy Khor from her speech at the Population White Paper debate in February 2013, "To curb immigration or foreign workforce growth in order to safeguard Singaporeans could in an ironic twist hurt the very people this reversal is intended to help." I wonder what Dr Amy Khor has to say now. Before the ironic twist has happened, the silver bullet unleashed by the foreign talent policy has actually shot down many Singaporeans' livelihoods and may hit Singapore soon. Well, time is a powerful witness. When Singaporeans' anxiety has persisted for the last 10 to 20 years, I think it is difficult to justify that the current policy is not flawed. Hon Members of this House, contrary to the original promises presented in the Population White Paper, the foreign talent policy has created in Singapore an imbalanced population with a diluted national identity, an economy with inadequate technological innovation and significant displacement of Singaporean workers. This has been a debate that many Singaporeans are concerned with and anxiously waiting for. This is not just a debate about a particular section of CECA, nor has it anything to do with racism and xenophobia. It is a debate about alleviating the plight of our PMETs adversely affected by the foreign talent policy. It is a debate about the need to safeguard the Singaporean Core, which is a pillar of our economy and our future.”
“It is more social economic analysis but, on top of that, philosophy, history, how human beings have behaved over history, those are important things for policymaking. The second point I want to make is tripartism. Tripartism has been practised since Independence. However, in my opinion, the weak NTUC link in the tripartite partnership has become obvious during the foreign talent policy saga. I believe Mr Patrick Tay and all the NTUC leadership and the NTUC staff are working very hard. But if the overall policy is pointing at a different direction, the results that come out of their hard work speak for itself: lowly-paid workers constantly needing governmental financial support to get by despite working full-time; PMETs in their 40s and 50s finding themselves extremely vulnerable to discrimination; and now, underemployment. So, NTUC needs a lot of soul searching if it still wants to be relevant in representing the interests of the Singaporean worker. We also urge Singaporean employers to stand up against discrimination. They will have the most to lose in the long term, if the current situation leads to a radical change of our business culture and mode of operation without a robust Singaporean Core. We urge employers to take the lead in rooting out discrimination in the job market so that we can build a competitive yet fair, multicultural and multinational workforce with Singaporeans at the core. Lastly, the conduct of the Government. The Government needs to show more empathy rather than pay lip service in order to understand the psyche and the real experiences of the working citizen. Many of them are struggling. Even if one Singaporean is being discriminated against, we should take action. Let us not argue about majority, widespread or not widespread.”
“Yes, we agree that some data may be sensitive but, please, put it in an organised format for people to analyse. There are so many people in Singapore who will be able to analyse the data if the data is presented regularly and in an organised manner. Today, Minister Tan See Leng provided, I would say, quite a lot of new data but the new data was not actually available for us to analyse without him telling us. So, the Government is doing what I call guerilla data. Whenever they want to prove a point, they give you a little more data. Look at the chart that Minister Tan See Leng has given us. Below the chart, it is stated Labour Survey Report. That is available. After that, "administrative data from the Research Department of MOM". Without the administrative data, we do not have the whole picture. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has called for transparency, accountability and independence in matters of national governance. Singaporeans have the right to information in order to make informed opinions and judgement. We urge the Government to introduce the Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible, although we are not the first one to raise this. The Workers' Party has always been talking about this and we thank them for that. Parliament also has a constitutional role to play in ensuring that sufficient information is provided and policies are thoroughly debated. To this end, we recommend the setting up of a standing parliamentary select committee in every Ministry, with representatives from both the ruling and alternative parties to improve information flow to facilitate more substantial policy deliberation. Policy deliberation is about an integrated deliberation. It is not just a legal interpretation.”
“Third, I did not put any time limit to reduce the headcount of work pass holders although I would like actually today if we can come to some conclusion as to what is the number of displaced Singaporeans. So, that becomes a target that we can work on. But since the Government claims there are very few displacements, then we will not discuss that anymore. But I did not put any time limit to reducing the headcount. I also did not put any time limit to reducing the single nationality number. But for all these, there is an aspirational or planning target, and maybe, we should put a 10% cap on the single nationality on that. What I am trying to say is on the policies that PSP has recommended, actually, we are very mindful of the effect that the implementation has on the job market and also, indirectly, what kind of messages we are sending to foreigners. Next, we also have to reflect on how the problems of the foreign talent policy have been allowed to fester, develop and exist for the last 20 years. It tells us a lot about the checks and balances in our governance system. In particular, we have to question the freedom of information, the tripartite partnership and the conduct of our Government. First, freedom of information. Throughout this long-running saga on the foreign talent policy, accurate data has been lacking, which has contributed to the large amount of fake news and speculation floating around. In my own experience of preparing for this debate, I cannot find the figures of intra-corporate transferees. Of course, today, the Minister provided a few more years but the thing is: why give it out piecemeal? You are the one who is generating the data. You should be putting the data in an organised format.”
“And unless the Government can provide new information to prove otherwise, unfortunately, as of today, we still cannot agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore. Next, I would like to address the policy recommendations that I have made in reply to Minister Lawrence Wong and also Minister Tan See Leng. First of all, PSP is for an open economy and society. So, our policy recommendations are not meant to make Singapore a closed society or economy and our policy recommendations are meant to make a point – a point that all of us agree upon that we change course. We have to change course. But after we have agreed to that, I would think that we can throw in or rope in a lot of other things and provide the leeway for us to implement those policies. They need not be cast in stone. And among the policies that I have recommended, only the price-related policies or what I call price-control policies, have got a timeframe. For the quota policies, I have purposely made it no time constraint. I hope you have noticed that. Okay, in terms of the policy: firstly, I think you really need to eliminate the wage disadvantage against Singaporeans. Hence, the EP levy. I do not think Minister Tan See Leng's two attempts to reply to my EP levy as a necessity to equalise the compensation package of the EPs and Singaporeans really answered the question, because the 17% employer's CPF contribution is a direct differential. You cannot avoid that. And being an employer, that will go into his decision-making. Second, in order to attract more foreign talent, the Government also agrees that the qualifying salaries should go up. So, it is just a matter of how fast. My policy may be a bit faster.”
“Next, what I want to comment about is from Mr Saktiandi Supaat who mentioned that Singaporeans are now very active in the global financial market. I like to hear that. But I would also like to remind him we Singaporeans have been in the forefront of the financial market since the 1980s. I started work in GIC in 1986. Before that, many of my seniors, not just in GIC, but seniors in the financial sector in Singapore were already pioneers in financial innovations in New York. They go to New York and they make the innovation. Some of the innovations were interest rate swaps and all the equity and bond derivatives. I am not so capable. But I set up one of the first equity derivative desks in Tokyo in 1987. Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned about my PR recommendation. I recommend to control the number, manage the number down. But he did not read my recommendation correctly. I actually said the recommendation is for work pass holders. So, I am in support of Singaporeans with foreign spouses and giving the PR to the foreign spouses. I am in support of that. But for this recommendation, I am referring to PR and citizenship to the work pass holders. So, to reiterate PSP's position: one, we think the foreign talent is not a silver bullet to solve all our problems; two, the foreign talent policy is the root cause of the influx of foreigners and that has caused a significant number of displacement of Singaporeans; three, unfair wage competition is the main economic driver of the displacement; four, decisive and concrete measures are now needed to rebalance our job market; five, and lastly, the FTAs and CECA are part of the equation when we consider immigration and employment policies.”
“No. Skills and know-how – that comes to the capabilities of our economy. The whole foreign talent policy, as far as we can see up to now, contributes little to our capability building, partly because our Singaporean Core are being affected. Our Singaporean Core are no longer learning over time in the same job. They have been displaced. Another thing I want to point out to Ms Janet Ang is that we hope the top managers in Singapore would also understand that and support Singaporeans and not keep saying "Singaporeans don't have this, don't have that", because they are now under a system that does not have the incentive to make them work hard, to make them work in the way we want them to take up the challenge and all that. Those prospects existed in our generation, Ms Janet Ang. In this generation, it is more challenging. And, now, the leadership of the country has brought in an additional trouble for them and, that is, competition from foreigners. Not that we want to avoid competition. But, as I have said before in my speech, the competition was not really fair, to start with. So, other than the discriminative structure that we have talked about in the job market, actually, our economy now is also in a very different operating structure, thanks to the 20 years of foreign talent policy. It will not be easy to transform. We know that. Like a GLC senior manager, who is a very close friend, recently shared with me, "Ah, if you want me to overhaul my whole system now, it will be very high cost because it's totally dependent on foreigners now." But I think we still have to make the change. If, together, we have a consensus, we can rope in a lot of initiatives, a lot of resources. We can give each other time – employers, workers – but I think we need to make the change.”
“Lastly, the Government says you send wrong signal to foreigners; PSP says as long as we Singaporeans are united, Government and alternative parties all united and say we have to change course, I do not think foreigners can say much because that is the way we have chosen. And I do not think the foreigners are here just because we give them work passes. They are here, they have made a business decision and a strategy. There are many factors involved. Work passes are just one of the factors. In fact – afterwards I will elaborate on our policy recommendations – we are not saying that you do not allow the foreign companies to come in with the number of work passes they want initially. But it must be transitional. There must be localisation over time. We cannot allow them to continue to keep the same number of foreigners from the very day they come in. So, as long as we are united, I think we can put the message nicely to the foreigners. After all, we can set up a fair consideration framework for foreigners. Why the fair consideration framework for Singaporeans? That is something, as a Singaporean, I feel very puzzled about. An interesting point was brought up by Ms Janet Ang. I respect Janet as a senior executive in the private sector. She mentioned that Singaporeans did not have the relevant skills, work knowledge and global experience. But I would like to say that if Singaporeans continue to be uprooted from their jobs, where do we get the opportunity to accumulate the skills and know-how over time? Like I said just now, you cannot expect the Singaporeans to pick up new skills all the time. Are you going to say that if foreigners come in and replace the Singaporeans because it is low-cost, the Singaporeans lost the job and then he has to go and acquire a new skill again?”
“It is so easy to say "train again, take up the challenge" and all that. The examples you quoted, I am sure, is a small minority of those Singaporeans who can really change to a new industry and learn new skills. Fourth, the Government says discrimination is sporadic; PSP says probably it is structural, we have to look at it because the foreign work pass holders have been in Singapore in large numbers for the last 20 years and they are a very influential force in the job market. So, if you want to rectify the discriminative situation in the job market, legislation may be too slow. Fifth, foreign talent creates jobs, says the Government; but PSP says the work pass holders we are attracting are all average work pass holders. Where do they have the ability to create jobs? So, they are just here to share our jobs. The jobs done by them, most of them can be done by Singaporeans as well. In that sense, Prof Hoon Hian Teck's lump of labour fallacy may not apply. Sixth, Member Mr Patrick Tay also mentioned this, that there is a lot of resistance from employers if you want to change the foreigners policy. Of course, that is expected because, after all, they are profit seekers. But PSP says: how long can we kick the can down the road? At some point, we have to change and this is a golden opportunity because now we can tell the employers work harder, "We can give you the quota now, but make sure you promise to scale down your people in three years' time." This is the opportunity to convince the employers to work together and we change the course of our economy. If not, our economy will continue to be stuck in a low value-add position.”
“We might have to come back one year later again and debate on the same problem. Singaporeans would note that PSP has done our best to convince this Government. Let me go through the differences between the Government position and PSP position. First, the Government says displacement is due to globalised and fast-changing world. PSP says a large part is due to work pass holders. Two, the displacement problem is not serious, the Government says. PSP says probably a lot more serious. Coming back to the 380,000 PME jobs that the Manpower Minister had presented to us in the 6 July Ministerial Statement, we are trying to ask him if he is sure that this number represents a net job creation for Singaporeans. So, there were some exchanges just now with my colleague, Hazel Poa, as well. There was no conclusion. But let me just share some numbers with you. Three hundred and eighty thousand PME jobs created for locals, and that is for both Singaporeans and PRs, from 2005 to 2020. But during the same period, 600,000 PRs had been awarded to work pass holders. So, the reclassification is likely to be a significant factor. But we do not know what is the number because we do not have the number from the Government. On top of that, there were 400,000 University and Polytechnic graduates during that period. So, a million people seeking jobs versus 380,000 jobs created. So, I do not know how to reconcile the numbers, but maybe in other future forums, we can continue to discuss that. Third, the Government says emphasis is on training and retraining Singaporeans; PSP says better prevent job displacement first. Let the foreigners do the skills transfer because once a person is displaced, it is difficult for him to find a new job.”