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 20 of 20.
“1% of our total financial assets to fight COVID-19 in 2020. We commend the Government for its shrewd financial management skills and, at the same time, Singaporeans can rest assured that our national finances remain intact and we are far from squandering away our past savings. So, it appears that there is no need for the tax and fee hikes to take place so soon. We should let Singaporean households recover from the aftershocks of the pandemic and find their footing before we take further action. The finances of many Singaporeans have been severely affected by COVID-19 and the Government must support Singaporeans as they work to recoup their financial losses. It is the most opportune time to focus on grooming the resilient Singaporean and not just economic resilience. Economic resilience belongs to the Government-led economic development model, which has become ineffective in these technologically disruptive and pandemic-prone times. Now, we want each resilient Singaporean to become an independent decision-making unit which, collectively, will make Singapore a stronger economy and society. The first step to grooming the resilient Singaporean is to re-examine our overall safety net policies, like the CPF, MediShield Life, CareShield, HDB lease and so on which will go a long way to increase the confidence of Singaporeans and re-boost their energy to rise to the challenge to build our economy and society. The crucial economic inputs in this new era are creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, and not land, capital and cheap labour anymore. We also have to understand that civil servants are not the best persons to decide which entrepreneur to help or which industry to promote. We need the resilient Singaporeans to make those crucial decisions on their own.”
“The $22 billion of loan guarantees are for the Government to provide guarantees of up to 90% of the loan principal for various forms of credit given by commercial banks to SMEs. Hence, this is not an immediate expenditure as the loans are provided for by the banks. The $100 billion support measures are paid for by $18 billion of accumulated fiscal surpluses of the previous term of Government; $52 billion of drawdown from the Reserves; $8 billion of reduced current expenditure for FY2020; and $22 billion in loan capital. According to the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to hon Member Mr Leon Perera in June this year, the $22 billion in loan capital is expected to be repaid in the future and is, hence, fiscally neutral. Thirdly, while the Government does not want to disclose the National Reserves for security reasons, it has nonetheless published detailed annual financial information on our national assets and liabilities. In its latest Government financial statements as at end March 2020, it was reported that we own a total of $1.35 trillion in financial assets – and $1.35 trillion is $1,350 billion. At the same time, according to the latest revised fiscal position for FY2020, the Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) remains at $18.6 billion. Given that the NIRC is 50% of the Net Investment Return (NIR), the NIR for 2020 is $37.2 billion. Accordingly, the net decrease of the total financial assets for FY2020 will be the $52 billion drawdown minus the $37.2 billion NIR, which gives us $14.8 billion. This is still a very sizable sum. But it is not $52 billion or $100 billion. This $14.8 billion represents only a 1.1% decrease in our total financial assets. The conclusion from all these is that we have used up only 1.”
“Although the Government has given most of the relevant information in answers to Parliamentary Questions, Ministerial Statements and published financial statements, these questions need to be answered in a more precise and simplified manner so that the layperson can comprehend. I have attempted to do this below and I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to correct me if I am inaccurate in my humble attempt to address those queries. Firstly, the $100 billion spending is approximately broken down into the following categories: $37 billion of financial transfers to Singaporeans, PRs and local companies; $12 billion of tax and public fee rebates; $29 billion of increased expenditure to fight COVID-19; and $22 billion of loan guarantees. Of the $37 billion of financial transfers, $23 billion is paid to local companies through the Jobs Support Scheme to preserve jobs for Singaporeans and PRs. Seven billion dollars are paid directly to Singaporeans in the Care and Support Package, Solidarity Payment, Self-Employed Income Relief, SingaporeRediscovers Vouchers and so on. Of the $12 billion of tax and public fee rebates, $2.5 billion is in the form of rental relief for SMEs and $0.9 billion for worker levy waivers. The drop in GST and betting taxes accounted for about $4 billion. The $29 billion spent on fighting COVID-19 includes spending on the upgrading of testing facilities, providing new housing facilities for the foreign workers, funding projects like the $2 billion allocated to the SG Together initiative, $2 billion to the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and $1 billion to the Jobs Growth Incentive.”
“These policies only act as a catalyst to heighten the already increasing public apprehension of more tax and fee hikes coming their way, giving rise to concerns, such as whether the GST will be increased soon, after 2021, for example, given that $6 billion is still parked under the GST Voucher Fund although the Government needs to draw down from the Reserves – when, in fact, announcing the shelving of the GST increase indefinitely could be a much-needed boost to the ailing consumer sector and remove another potential uncertainty on Singaporeans. We could also then make better use of the $6 billion parked under the GST Voucher Fund. This begs the question of the timing of these tax and fee hikes when the support measures are being phased out slowly. Can these hikes not be shelved till later? Can the SP Group not absorb the tariff increases with their past profits? Can ERP increases not wait? Can premium increases not be deferred for a period of one to two years as the current insurance claims are still way below the collected premiums after all? The man on the street must be baffled by the seemingly contradictory actions of the Government. On the one hand, it is purported that the Government is putting up $100 billion to help with COVID-19 support measures. Yet, on the other hand, the implementation of the tax and fee hikes. Is the country so overstretched financially that we have to replenish our coffers with those hikes in such haste? This leads to the three key questions often asked by Singaporeans regarding the $100 billion of COVID-19 support measures: how is the $100 billion spent? How is the $100 billion paid for? How much reserves are left after paying the $100 billion?”
“3% electricity tariff hike for the October to December quarter of 2020 was announced by Singapore Power, the SP Group, on 30 September. This is already approved by the Energy Market Authority. Here is a power-grid monopolist which does not generate electricity but makes billions of dollars since the liberalisation of the electricity market in 2012, sparing no time in raising prices at the first available opportunity even as Singaporeans struggle under the COVID-19 crisis. While the increase is for paying a higher price for the power generating companies, the gencos, the SP Group could have easily absorbed the increase from the past profits it has earned instead of passing the increased cost on to consumers. Thirdly, on 9 October, LTA announced that the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) at six gantries along the CTE would be increased from 12 October to ease congestion during peak periods. While ERP charges at some gantries along the CTE have been reintroduced in July and August following the end of the circuit breaker, it is hard to imagine that congestion has already built up to the pre-COVID-19 level. These untimely announcements were made consecutively in a short period of two weeks, adding hundreds of dollars more to household expenditures during these austere times when every cent counts to the average Singaporean.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for his Ministerial Statement, which sets the tone for our eventual emergence from the COVID-19 crisis. I fully support the efforts. However, there are some concerns and clarifications that need to be voiced and addressed. At this unusual time, it is crucial that our population has unshakable faith in the Government to lead them. However, the Government does not inspire confidence by hastily increasing taxes and fees while at the same time pledging COVID-19 support measures. Our population could view this act as "giving with one hand and taking with the other." Let me give you some examples that give rise to such a sentiment. Firstly, the MediShield Life premium increase of between 11.5% and 35.4% to be effective in early 2021 was announced on 29 September. That means an insured person who used to be paying $1,000 in annual premium will now have to pay $1,350 per year. While this change is under public consultation until end of October, the MediShield Life Fund already has $8.3 billion of total assets and continues to accumulate large surpluses of about $0.9 billion a year. Also, the new actuarial assumptions behind the projected future liabilities have not been disclosed. Such information is fundamental in determining the fiscal health of the scheme and justifying any increase in premiums. The increase in coverage which accompanies this premium hike is scant comfort to Singaporeans who are still struggling with the financial woes of COVID-19. In any case, there is also no information on how much this increased coverage would have cost the MediShield Life scheme if it had been implemented in earlier years. Secondly, the 9.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs that given the errors which have occurred at every level of the criminal justice system, is the independent review going to be considered within his Ministerial Statement to be delivered in November?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank Minister Tan. When we do our investments, we actually look more at – of course, now, we are talking about private equity investment, venture capital investment. We are more concerned whether the company is – when we want to invest in a particular market – we are more concerned whether the company really has the local connections and so by implication, whether they have enough local talents, including the CEO on the company. That is what we are more concerned about in terms of making the investment decision.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarification. I still hold on to my disappointment. I still keep to that, although I do appreciate the clarification given by Member Derrick Goh on the senior management of DBS Bank. In terms of why I want to keep to my statement is because when I gave the speech, when people listened to the speech, including the new citizens and foreigners in Singapore, they would have appreciated that I said it was over a period of 22 years. Why did the Government not put in certain safeguards in the process or certain other rules to ensure that we have the skills transfer. Localisation is not the word anymore, but at least to ensure that Singaporeans will be groomed to take over the job. In that context, I do not think that it will taken very, very negatively by the international community. Singapore is open enough. Foreigners know that we are very, very open. In fact, if we failed to do certain things to safeguard the interests of Singaporeans, I am afraid we may be laughed at.”
“— on the point that our disappointment on DBS still not having the homegrown CEO now is because of the process. I want to ask the Minister whether the debate that we are conducting over the last few days when we are questioning certain issues, rebalancing certain issues that we are looking for is against the spirit that he is trying to explain to us just now.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to Minister Iswaran's point, I would like to reiterate and confirm that PSP is committed to an open and inclusive society and economy. However, we have differences with the Government, probably, with regard to the many issues on how we want to go about achieving that. And I think this Parliament has started the ball rolling to get us in that direction. Over the last few days, I think we have debated on the issues of foreigners and jobs. There are differences there. PSP would like to see this population growth being slowed down, would to see a cap on the foreigners, at least for the immediate future, and to ensure there is skills transfer. The disappointment that I expressed —”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have one clarification for the Minister. I have heard from what he said that there are few things that we have to take note of and cultivate in a person in education, like in character, moral values, intercultural interactions and also lifelong learning. I think the important thing is while we have all these ideals and objectives that we want to achieve, what are the supporting changes that we are going to make to the curriculum, the delivery, the assessment and the pathways. Of course, I think the Minister has covered some of them. If you can share more on those, I would appreciate very much.”
“But, at the same time, when we were to create jobs and have a new economy, we need to have new capabilities, we need to have Singaporeans who can think independently and with the leeway to think. That is very important. So, these are the two questions I want to pose to the Prime Minister. Thank you very much.”
“I want to get the best people to go in. And as the buffer shrinks, I will make my decision again." So, whether it is the Opposition or the electorate, from the position of the electorate, there is no question that, at the moment, everybody wants the present Government to continue. But that does not mean if, going forward, the performance of the Government does not improve, the electorate is going to sit by. But that is going to be very, very long down the road. So, that is one thing. So, I wish to ask Mr Prime Minister to clarify whether what I said is something that is useable in the current political climate we have. Secondly, what we are asking for now, in a lot of ways, is actually a rebalancing. We are not talking about a revolution. For example, on the issue of social safety net, what we are saying is, "Do you not think Singaporeans' livelihoods now is too hard?" And they are so hard to the extent that you cannot expect them to become entrepreneurs because their financial security is not there. There is no long-term plan that they can be comfortable about. As a result, we say, "We know we have this amount of national Reserves, can we not use the returns and help to improve the financial position of the Singaporeans so that they can have peace of mind to think of participating in the new economy that we are trying to put into our country?" A lot of the debates have gone on about recruitment drop, how to create jobs and how to take back some of the jobs from the foreigners, which is not really something that we want to go very far with. We want to maintain our current foreign talent model as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity. I am mindful that this is the first time I am attending Parliament and also just an NCMP, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a few clarifications. I do not know what privileges I have in terms of how I am going to speak but it may be a bit of my own opinions plus a bit of clarification and questions. So, it will be a mixture of that. First of all, I think the Prime Minister had given a very touching presentation on the situation in Singapore today. But what we want to say is that, on the point of the free rider, I am not sure whether that concept is being used in line with what economists have in mind. But nevertheless, we do not go into that. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is, Singapore voters looking at the situation today see that there is actually a gap between having a strong Government, because the Government at the moment controls over 90% of the seats. So, as a result, there is a very comfortable margin. Because of that margin, you cannot prevent the voters from thinking, "Actually, there is a margin of error I can afford. So, as a result, I can have the best of both worlds – a strong Government and a strong Opposition voice in Parliament. Let us try." And I can tell you, Mr Prime Minister, I am a very new politician. In fact, I am a rookie. I do not know much. But in the process of the last one year, when I interacted with voters on the ground, I felt that the Singaporean voters are really, really, very smart. They know how to control the process. So, what they are thinking now is, "There is a buffer, so I leave it. And I will wait until that buffer shrinks and I am not going to vote everybody, anybody in. Even if PSP is not good enough this round.”
“Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Minister.”
“I just want to clarify that what the Minister said is that the number of dependents from the 50,000 PRs and new citizens, is more than 15,000. Is that right or wrong?”
“Clarification. Is that okay, Mr Speaker?”
“I thank the Minister again. This will be my last clarification.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. But I would also like to stress that what we are talking about here is actually the pressure on our people, whether it is the original Singaporeans or the new Singaporeans, we actually do not make that distinction. However, if the Minister is saying that there is an increase of 50,000 every year and you have only an increase of 35,000 in PMETs, then we cannot deny the fact that there is pressure in the job market of the PMETs. So, the situation is not as rosy as what the Minister has painted. That is my question. Thank you.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. I thank the Minister for giving such an informative presentation. Can I clarify one point? The Minister mentioned that from the period of 2014 to 2019, the average increase of PMETs for locals is 35,000. May I know whether the Minister has the data for the number of PRs and new citizens granted during that period? I happen to have a number that tells me that the average increase for every year during that period was 50,000.”
“Third, we reinstate localisation as an important key performance indicator. We should stipulate that there is a succession plan to replace each foreign manager at the end of his visa period. Further visa extension can only be granted if that manager is due for promotion and his previous position is taken up by a Singaporean. Fourth, we should protect entry-level jobs for our new graduates and give them the opportunities to learn and to acquire the necessary skills. We should require foreign PMETs to have longer working experience before they are allowed to join our workforce. Last but not least, we would like to stress that citizenship is sacrosanct to Singaporeans who are justifiably concerned about the erosion of national identity and the dilution of our citizenship. Since we are talking about economic relationships, there is no need to put citizenship into the equation. Citizenships should only be awarded to Permanent Residents who have stayed here for a long time and have passed a stricter set of naturalisation criteria. We also recommend that a Citizens' Commission be set up to oversee the award of citizenships. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, all our recommendations above are in support of what the President has said, "As masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in the rights and privileges of citizenship". The PSP believes that this Parliament must serve the interests and protect the sovereign rights of our people. We will stand-by the Government if it decides to take any decisive action needed to achieve that. We assure you that PSP will uphold this Parliament as a Singaporean Parliament and not a partisan Parliament. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion. 1.45 pm”
“Despite the Government's good efforts, it is difficult to create good jobs in a short period of time and existing jobs are still the best opportunities for employing our people. Going forward, we need to tweak the foreign talent model to improve prospects for Singaporeans while building Singapore's competitive edge. Borrowing from the experience of the Offshore and Onshore Banks in the early 1980s, we propose the designation of a group of Offshore Companies which have products and services that are sold predominantly overseas and Singaporeans do not yet have the skills to produce. They should also satisfy minimum capital and business spending requirements. We can allow Offshore Companies a freer hand in attracting talents from all over the world provided they uphold the non-discrimination principle towards Singaporeans and follow the minimum salary requirements for Employment and Social Pass Holders. For all the other companies which we shall categorise as Onshore Companies, we recommend tightening our MOM regulations and procedures to achieve better outcomes for Singaporeans. First and foremost, we stipulate that Singaporeans must be well-represented in the top management and human resource function to ensure that the procedures are followed properly. Second, we apply a foreigner-to-citizen ratio cap to all Onshore companies and their business and functional departments. This allows us to strengthen the Singaporean Core in our economy and in all the important professions. An over-presence of foreign PMETs in a particular profession, for example Infotech, may lead to the hollowing out of our locals from that profession in the long run and we will end up lacking crucial skills to run our country and economy in the future.”
“We have just been made to pay very dearly by a black swan event – the COVID-19 pandemic – as we try to stop the widespread infection at the dormitories for foreign workers. In the planning of our country's future, it would be wise not to assume that COVID-19 is the worst possible scenario. There may be other risks related to immigration that we cannot foresee. Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP is a strong supporter of an open economy and society and we believe that the Government must have good reasons to push for the foreign talent model. However, the Government can perform better in its communications. Our foreign talent model is a "free flow of people" model, just like the exporter model, which is based on the "free flow of goods" and the financial centre model, which is based on the "free flow of capital", which we have successfully implemented in the past. These models can help us attain competitive advantages but there is always a need to balance the conflicts of the foreign and domestic interests in each of them. The foreign talent model which involves the competition for jobs in our own territory is especially sensitive. The Government should provide more timely data to obtain the buy-in for the strategy. For example, regular disclosure on PMET statistics broken down into Citizen and Permanent Resident categories and details of the intra-company transfers under the various Free Trade Agreements would be very useful. Without clearer data, Singaporeans cannot have an informed discussion on whether the existing foreign talent model is benefiting us. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the immediate future, we recommend decisive actions to reduce new work pass approvals and renewals in order to channel more existing jobs to Singaporeans.”
“Personally, I regard jobs as the foundation of human dignity. If a breadwinner is unemployed over a prolonged period of time, a multitude of undesirable social outcomes will follow. Dr Ang Yong Guan, the former President of the Singapore Psychiatric Association, has said that "economic problems contribute to much of the mental menace we see in our society today". So many social problems can be solved by organising ourselves differently in our economic relationships with one another and in relation to foreigners. After two decades of rapid immigration growth, the foreigner's share of our population stands at about 40% today. As a result, one can expect the group dynamics at the workplace to have changed drastically and we must take the rumblings from the ground about Singaporeans being discriminated against seriously. The recent announcement by MOM that there are now over 1,200 companies on the watch-list of the Fair Consideration Framework is one more confirmation of discrimination taking place at the workplace. This phenomenon is hard to swallow because Singaporeans are being discriminated against in our own country. Without stricter regulation, this situation is unlikely to improve as foreigners increase further as a share of our total population. Currently, there are about four foreigners to six Singaporeans in the workforce. But, if the population will to reach 10 million, it is estimated that there will be six foreigners to four Singaporeans. While the 10 million population is not a Government's target, it may still be reached eventually unless immigration is slowed down substantially. As we are entering unchartered territory, we should give ourselves more time to assess and ascertain the full impact of an outsized foreigner population.”
“From Dr Albert Winsemius, the Dutch economic consultant who worked closely with Dr Goh Keng Swee to develop our economy, to the many unsung heroes like Mr Peter John Bowyer, a British citizen who set up the computer centre at the Singapore Polytechnic, transferred his skills to the locals and then left quietly after the job was done; and Mr John Kovak, my General Paper teacher from New Zealand who planted the idea "the citizen of the world" in my head and coached my school's rugby team. We are very grateful to those foreign talents from the good old days. The Government, however, had introduced a different brand of foreign talent to us from the turn of the millennium. As a high-profile manifestation of that policy, Mr John Olds was appointed the CEO of DBS Bank in August 1998. At that time, I remembered a senior Japanese banker had called me and commented, "Leong-san, it’s like having a foreigner to run Mitsubishi Bank in Japan. It is unthinkable!". Mr Speaker, Sir, in my heart, I had supported the appointment of John Olds in 1998. However, I am deeply disappointed now because 22 years later after his appointment, DBS is still without a homegrown CEO. The current financial industry is very different from the time I started my career at the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation in 1986 when "localisation" was strongly advocated and supported by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. During those times, common conversations among my senior colleagues were "so and so has taken over or is slated to take over the top job at such and such global bank". Today, my fellow countrymen are not seeing localisation and have to guard their current positions zealously. We all agree that to protect jobs is the top priority.”
“Over the course of the next few years, we look forward to more information and resources provided to the Opposition for it to function as an effective voice and idea-generator. Mr Speaker, Sir, Progress Singapore Party, PSP, is a pro-Singaporean, pro-Singapore party. Noting the widespread resentment and objections of our countrymen, we recommend immediate actions be taken to restore the balance of interests between the Singaporeans and the foreigners in our country. We think that our Government might have overlooked the fact that our country is a global city-state and not a global city within a larger state. New Yorkers, for example, can choose to sell their properties, pocket the gains and move to another city in the US. But Singaporeans have nowhere to go without leaving the country. It is disconcerting to have many of our countrymen live outside Singapore in Johor and Batam while we are housing more than two million foreigners on our island at the same time. Surely, more consideration can be given to Singaporeans who are citizens of our sovereign city-state. We are not being xenophobic or nativist because we have a long tradition of accepting foreigners into our society. In fact, many of us have fond memories of the old foreign talents who have trained and helped us to "eat other people's lunch" and "not to take away our lunch". Many of them have contributed significantly to our nation-building.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad for this opportunity to thank the President for her speech which was "a breath of fresh air", and I hope to add value to the debate on two pressing issues of the day – immigration and jobs – which many hon Members have already spoken on. The President’s speech has highlighted many of the concerns of the Singaporeans who generally feel that the current socio-economic policies are not in their favour and are looking for change. In particular, they wish to know, why there are seemingly fewer good jobs for Singaporeans while the immigrant workforce has grown rapidly over the last two decades. Does it mean there is discrimination against Singaporeans? Why are there not enough skilled Singaporeans to take up the good jobs in the new industries as claimed, despite having our "world-ranking" Universities? Are there no corrective actions taken to increase the number of suitably qualified Singaporeans in areas where we are lacking? Why are Singaporeans paying higher and higher taxes when there are 40% of immigrants in our workforce whose taxes should have helped to reduce the tax burden? Do we have a net gain in tax revenue after deducting all the infrastructural and social costs incurred in supporting these foreigners? Unable to get satisfactory answers to the above, many Singaporeans have chosen to believe that the current immigration policy is a bad deal for them and for Singapore. I credit the Government for responding promptly to the Singaporeans' message. Acknowledging the people's wish for this Parliament to work together for better solutions, the Prime Minister has installed my esteemed colleague, Mr Pritam Singh, as the Leader of Opposition.”