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 16 of 20.
“So, let me reiterate that we are neither racist nor xenophobic, and this debate is squarely about jobs and livelihoods of our PMETs, who are adversely affected by the foreign talent policy. The provisions on people movement in FTAs like CECA are only a small part of a much larger problem. To be clear, we need foreign talent. They play an important role in complementing, transferring skills and knowledge, as well as providing opportunities for cross-fertilisation of ideas. But those that are brought in and masked under the EP and SP schemes are not, by definition, really foreign talent. They are foreign professionals let in without quota, resulting in displacement of our own workforce. By drawing on Mr Goh Chok Tong's definition of mediocrity, a foreign talent should be one who earns more than $500,000 a year, or $40,000 a month. While we do need foreign talent, more importantly, we need to protect our Singaporean Core. And what is the Singaporean Core? It is simply our citizens, natural or new, who recite our Singapore Pledge, and whose interest the Government has the prime responsibility to look after. The current policies have seriously hollowed out our core. In many key industries, our PMET core is no longer the dominant force that we can rely on for long-term growth. The very people that can ensure the future of our country are being displaced and hollowed out. It has been a long debate and we have covered a lot of ground. However, as expected, the Government's stance on the causes and the severity of the problem Singaporeans are facing is very different from ours. As a result, probably the new policies that the Government is going to come up with will not solve the problems thoroughly and Singaporean sufferings may have to go on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministers and Members for their participation until so late tonight. Rest assured, I am time-limited. So, I only have 40 minutes for my speech. I come to this House to respond to a challenge by Minister K Shanmugam to debate on CECA. He has been puzzling me because it was in reference to his remarks made on a racial incident, which has nothing to do with CECA. The very fact that he linked the incident to CECA was both disingenuous and troubling. The Prime Minister also, in his National Day Rally speech, claimed that those who question CECA, wanting to put Singaporeans first, had a strong racial undertone. Minister Lawrence Wong also reiterated many of those accusations throughout his two speeches today. But when I asked Minister Shanmugam for instances where I have commented about CECA prior to accepting his challenge, he cannot reply me. He went on to ask me a few other questions but he did not reply to me. So, these are clearly attempts by this Government to put a label on those seeking more information disclosure and more objective discussion on CECA as racist and xenophobic. I think I will leave that issue as it is. We have done all our explanation that we are not racist or xenophobic. At the end of the day, justice is in the heart of the people. The people will decide. Political labels are convenient to use to discredit someone but they are not helpful for an open and objective discussion. By the way, I will also have to object to Minister Tan See Leng's words just now saying that PSP is attacking foreigners. Maybe it is a slip of his tongue, but I have to correct that. All of us here today have one common objective and, that is, to improve the job prospects and livelihoods of Singaporeans. And I have stayed focused on that objective.”
“Minister, sorry. What is the difference in the timeframe? Both are from 2005 to 2020, right?”
“Sorry, Speaker, Sir, I still have one response.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, what I have said is that the policies have actually produced some problems. So, we are here to discuss how to solve the problems. I did not say I agree with your policies. In fact, one of the reasons why we differ on our assessment of the situation is because I think for some of the basic assumptions, there is a big difference. But we will discuss again on that. So, please continue, Minister.”
“Okay, then, I will direct one question first. First of all, you mentioned about the number of PMEs that were — jobs that were increased from 2005 to 2020. On 6 July, your number was 380,000 for locals and 112,000 for EPs. Today, you give us a figure of 300 and 100. What is the change? Why, why the change? First question. Minister, please.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for your passionate, informative presentation. I have a few clarifications. One is PSP has never said we want a closed society or economy. We have just suggested policies that you disagreed with. But today, we are happy that we are here, that all of us recognise that there is a problem. But, of course, before I come to this debate, I know the problem is we cannot agree on the causes of the problem and the severity of the problem. As a result, our solutions will be very different. So, what the Minister has said just now, I would like to one, clarify that we have not said that we want a closed economy or society. We also want an open society. How we maintain an open society, how we send the message to foreigners, it depends on how we Singaporeans get united and speak with one voice. Now, we have two voices: one from the Government, one from PSP; and maybe the other alternative parties as well because we got the feedback from the ground. So, what we want, whatever you said, today we come here to realise that there is a problem and that means the past policies have some problems. You cannot just say, "Oh, we just continue with those policies". So, that is why we are asking for a rebalance and I would want to explain to you a little bit more what rebalancing we are talking about.”
“The reason why we raised this Motion has nothing to do with race or xenophobia. We will continue to debate on why we think the situation in Singapore is far worse than what the Government has presented to Singaporeans. Okay? We will debate again. Thank you.”
“Sir, I strongly object to what the Minister said about PSP's position on race.”
“All these issues that the Minister has raised are not related to the Motion today. Now he is going into the statements I made at my maiden speech. So, can I ask that we go back to the debate proper?”
“I would say some minority of the people might interpret it that way.”
“How it is interpreted, I think, depends on who is listening to it.”
“Okay, what I was referring to was at the point of appointment, the year of appointment, the point when he was appointed, he was still a foreigner. But anyway, when I made that statement, I was not in any way, having Mr Piyush Gupta in mind. I was just talking about the many CEOs that DBS had got; they never had a succession plan. That was the intention. But, that is okay. Being one of the top lawyers in Singapore, maybe the Law Minister could make some interpretations and ask me in that way.”
“Okay. What I was referring to was actually referring to the point he was appointed, not at this moment.”
“I did not change my mind. My stance has always been like that.”
“Sir, if the Minister means that I am differentiating naturalised Singaporeans and homegrown Singaporeans, then I can confirm, the answer is no.”
“Sir, that is definitely not the case. When you are citizens, naturalised or homegrown, you are citizens. I have raised the issue during my maiden speech because I was talking about the succession plan, about skills transfer, which is part of what we are going to discuss today. About DBS, when he was appointed the current CEO, he was to still a foreigner. Why was the chance not given to a homegrown Singaporean? The bank should have had a succession plan that grooms Singaporeans to take over the job. That was what I was trying to drive at.”
“I do not have a view yet. I am trying to get a view, if the Government is prepared to release more data, about ICTs and about all that, then I will have an economic view.”
“My answer is, at the moment, in terms of the legal interpretation that this agreement does not have further implementation, implications and all that, I do not have an opinion.”
“Yes, but then, in order to have a legal interpretation of provisions, you must look at other parts of the agreement and then you must look at other practices.”
“Okay, Sir, as I have said just now, at this point, I do not have any legal opinion on the provisions provided under the agreement.”
“I disagree with what the Minister said about his interpretation of the Motion and that I do not understand the Motion and all that. I already said again and again, that the Motion statement that I put up is about the economic effects of the provisions. I do not expect this Parliament to just argue about legal interpretation. This Parliament is about jobs and livelihoods of our people, about the economy. So, what we are arguing, actually is a larger part of, should be about economics, social, economic issues. We are not going to stand here and keep arguing about a legal interpretation of a clause.”
“Thank you, Sir. Minister, you have made a lot of accusations there. One is that we go back to square one again about my Motion statement. I bring the Motion statement to this Parliament about the economic effect of the provisions in the FTAs. I am not bringing to Parliament the legal interpretation of the provision. But if you have a legal interpretation, I am fine. I am just telling you that I am concentrating on the economic effect of the provisions. Second point, you say you provided the data but I asked for a lot of data that is not provided. Three, the displacement in Singapore and that is a key point that we are debating today. The Government says it is due to global forces. I say, or PSP says, a large part of it is not due to global forces. So, that is what we are debating about. So, do not jump the gun and come and make the conclusion now.”
“Sir, these 30,000 PMET vacancies, again, is a number that now the Minister has brought out. Okay, but if all these vacancies and numbers are being presented in a proper time series dataset, then, we will be able to analyse the numbers better. So, at the moment, I cannot give him an answer on that. Because you always come up with single data and ask me for answers.”
“Sir, I am not going to say what is the number in my head until the Government gives me more data. Not that I do not have an idea of how many Singaporeans are being displaced.”
“Underemployed. Underemployed Singaporeans have come forward to reflect to us, feedback to us. We have also seen in statistics, the number of gig workers, they are increasing. And also the number of self-employed Singaporeans is also increasing. So, there are Singaporeans that are being displaced. So, we got some rough numbers, but we want the Government to give us more accurate numbers.”
“Sir, that is not accurate because we are seeing so many underemployed Singaporeans around. The number of gig workers —”
“Yes, at this moment, I will need more data from the Government before I can come up with an accurate number.”
“Sir, of course. The Government is always controlling the numbers, controlling the data. I will have to refer to the Government to give me some data to come up with an accurate answer. I got some numbers in mind, but I would prefer to wait for the data.”
“Okay, the number of rebalancing that we need to do depends on the Government's estimate of what is the number of Singaporeans that are being displaced, which is something that I will push during the debate.”
“Sir, can I confirm with the Minister that he only has one question, that question? Are there other questions there?”
“Speaker, that one is easy. I agree that all these ICTs and the 127 professionals need to go through our work pass route.”
“Sir, what I am saying is that I am focusing on the economic effects of those provisions. And looking at the economic effects, there are some initial doubts whether the movement is easier than what the Government has represented or not. But we still cannot come to a conclusion yet because we need more data from the Government. And the Government is withholding the data.”
“My non-legal opinion would include my interpretation of the economic effect. So, it will be a bit different from what the Minister is asking.”
“Okay, I can then say that at this point, I do not have a legal opinion of those provisions.”
“Because we are looking at the economic effects of the —”
“As of now, we do not agree to the interpretation of the legal documents as it is now.”
“I would have the same answer. We went back to consider the points put up by —”
“Sir, may I ask my colleague Hazel Poa to come in and answer those questions?”
“No, as I have said, I am not arguing about a legal document. What I am arguing about is, there is a legal document, but the way you implement the legal document and the economic effect can be different. Because after the legal document —”
“We do not think that we can interpret, I mean, we can draw a conclusion from just the explanation given by the Minister.”
“My view is that we are not arguing about a legal document today.”
“The provisions that we put in the Motion is actually pertaining to the economic effect of the provisions.”
“Sir, to the Minister, we are arguing not about a legal document, just a legal document, not just the letter of the word. We are arguing about economic effect.”
“So, let us focus on the numbers. If you do not give us the numbers, how are we going to answer to Singaporeans that, really, CECA has no influence over our immigration policies? We asked for ICT numbers but only one year's number is given. Can you give all the numbers? If you give all the numbers from 2005 to 2020, and the number of ICTs who have later on become PRs and new citizens, and obtained new work passes —”
“Yes, yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, please give me some time.”
“Sir, as I have said just now, the word "free flow" is not the property of PSP. It has been used by the Government as well. So, let us focus on what exactly — we are just talking about the numbers of foreign nationals that have come into Singapore.”
“There will be some people who will think that there is racial undertone, yes.”
“Yes, okay, actually just now my answer was going to that point. But it does not mean that if someone accused somebody who is trying to find out more and discuss about an economic agreement thinks that the person is racist, then we need to shut out the whole discussion.”
“Sorry, Minister. I want the Minister to repeat the question again.”