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 3 of 20.
“But the plan that you put up, is actually not so good. You can even say detrimental. That is why the Government now is coming back after more work and saying, "Oh, this plan cannot go through". The plan is not a good plan, from the point of view of continuing with the social mission. And I have got one more point to raise afterwards. It is that it is also not a plan that provides enough protection to policy-holders. I, myself, am a policy-holder. So, it is not fair for the Minister to say that I am trying to characterise the deal in bad light. I am just stating the fact. Anyone with basic financial knowledge would not disagree with me. This is an asset stripping exercise.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Allow me to do two responses to what the Minister had directed towards me during his speech. My first point is also about civil servants, something similar to what Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had just said. Today, I have not said anything about civil servants. What I have said is, I would like to acknowledge the effort put in by MCCY and MAS to scrutinise the transaction and come up with this Bill. So, this is an appreciation of the work done by MCCY and MAS. But I have directed at the Ministers — it is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minister to ensure that they are appraised of all relevant and important information, and to consider them fully before making decisions and public pronouncements. I am saying that because on 6 August, we spent more than one hour clarifying during Question Time about this whole deal without complete information. So, we are running parallel all the time and you can also say that it was quite a waste of time. But what happened now is that now, with more information, we know that the Ministers and the NTUC CC, actually, they do not have the information on the capital reduction. So, we understand that point. But still, we are concerned about the coordination and how things are being presented before the information is complete. So, that is one point. I want to respond to the Minister when he said that I am bringing in the civil servants and all that, a point that is similar to what Assoc Pro Jamus Lim has said. The second point that the Minister has said is about my characterising the exercise as asset stripping. In finance, nobody with some knowledge about finance would disagree with me. It is a fact. It has nothing to do with the intent. You can intend. Your intentions can be good.”
“Then as it is now, the public has been left with the impression that our government agencies are siloed and coordination within the Government is poor. Or to put it simply, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It is the responsibility of Cabinet Ministers to ensure that they are apprised of all relevant and important information and to consider that fully before making decisions and making public pronouncements. We cannot fall into the trap of minding the process and missing out the outcome. Deputy Speaker, Sir, PSP is raising all these questions with only one objective and that is so that we can ensure that our institutions and processes are always aligned and working well to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. We almost made a grave mistake here. Fortunately, there is a silver lining in this whole saga. It has highlighted the important role played by Singaporeans in checking the decisions of our public institutions. In particular, we saw Singaporeans with expertise and social repute speaking out and helping the public understand complex issues. This has helped Parliamentarians, like myself, to voice out more effectively for Singaporeans. We hope that they will continue to do so. Majulah Singapura.”
“And if NE had agreed so easily to relinquish control of Income to Allianz with so little assurance about the ability of Income to carry out its social mission, it is arguably justifiable for policy-holders to be concerned whether in a future deal there will be safeguards to protect the surpluses in the policy funds accruing to the policy-holders. Hence, contrary to what the NTUC leaders have represented to Singaporeans, we can say that this transaction is not good for Income, not good for its policy-holders and will not allow Income to continue to fulfil its social mission. The leaders of NTUC, NE and Income owe the public a more substantial explanation to this. Finally, before the Ministerial Statement on Monday, did MAS and MCCY brief or explain to Allianz and Income that this deal is against our public interest? If yes, I would like to ask what was Allianz's response? Did Allianz offer to withdraw the current deal so that today we do not have to go through this debate? Sir, we urge the Government to take lessons from this incident. We can do more to improve whole-of-Government coordination when making major decisions that impact areas governed by multiple agencies. The debate over the Income-Allianz deal this week has reminded me of another instance during this term of Government when we had to debate a Bill on the Certificate of Urgency in 2021 to restrict the use of TraceTogether and SafeEntry data to only serious crimes. In June 2020, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had assured the public that TraceTogether data will be used only for contact tracing. Then, in January 2021, another agency, the Ministry of Home Affairs revealed something different, that the police could access TraceTogether data under the Criminal Procedural Code.”
“Sir, earlier, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had provided her view on why she felt the communications of the reasons for the sale of Income to Allianz have been misleading. NE and Income Insurance need to come out to explain why they agreed to a capital reduction plan when both parties had in their joint statements on 4 August 2024 stated explicitly that capital resilience is necessary to provide affordable, inclusive insurance on a sustained basis. Explanations are also needed from NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng for the joint statement he made with the President of NTUC on 5 August 2024 which said, "The NTUC Central Committee was briefed, and after full and serious consideration, the NTUC Central Committee decided to support NTUC Enterprise's consideration of the offer from Allianz". They added, "We believe the offer is good for Income, good for its policy holders and will enable us to fulfil our mission from a stronger position". But now we know that the proposed transaction includes a capital reduction plan and MCCY, I quote, "is not confident that the proposed transaction would not affect the ability of the co-op movement as a whole or of Income itself to carry out its social mission". So, when the NTUC Central Committee was briefed on the offer, were they briefed on the full details of the transaction, including the capital reduction plan? And if so, did the NTUC leaders believe in good faith that the offer would enable NTUC and Income to fulfil its social mission from a stronger position? And what were the reasons that led them to reach such a different conclusion from MCCY? If the NTUC Central Committee did not know the full details, then why did NE and Income not brief them on the full details of the transaction?”
“85 billion in cash to its shareholders within the first three years of completing the transaction. So, were all these discussions on Income's social mission and capital buffers on 6 August meaningful? With the knowledge of the capital extraction, we can see that this deal was essentially an asset-stripping exercise in favour of the shareholders, especially NE and Allianz, with little consideration for the social mission and the interest of the 1.7 million policy-holders. Had the deal gone through, NE would have relinquished control over Income while unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars from the capital reduction exercise. In my view, this would have been another sad case of Singapore losing control over a key strategic company for cash, instead of maintaining these companies for our economic development and security. Since the Global Financial Crisis, capital adequacy standards have been increased significantly. In my view a capital reduction exercise should have raised alarm bells in MAS even from a prudential standpoint, especially given that NE has had to put in capital injections of about up to S$630 million over the years. I was ever surprised to hear Minister Chee Hong Tat disclosed on Monday that based on the plans submitted, MAS did not have reason for concern as Income was projected to continue to meet regulatory capital requirements with a healthy margin even with a capital reduction. While we trust that MAS officers are highly professional and have conducted a thorough review of the deal from a prudential point of view, can the Minister further explain why MAS does not have any further prudential concerns over the capital reduction plan, especially considering NE's history of having to inject capital into Income over the years?”
“Why is this information that is highly relevant to the proposed transaction being gatekept at different agencies within the Government? Throughout this whole affair, it seems that every gatekeeper is concerned only about the part of the process owned by them and no one is keeping an eye on the overall outcome. In our system, the buck stops with Cabinet. On a major financial transaction involving a national icon like Income that requires regulatory approval, it is Cabinet that must make a final decision. Why does it seem like there was no coordination within Cabinet on the exchange of important information relevant to the transaction before the August Sitting, so that the Government can take a more informed view and we could have had a more productive discussion in August? On Monday, Minister Chee Hong Tat said that at the time, MAS was still doing technical assessments and did not surface the details of the transaction to the MAS Board before the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting. But Minister Chee Hong Tat and Minister of State Alvin Tan are both members of the MAS Board and would have been in a position to proactively question MAS officials for the full details of the transaction, which would have included the capital reduction plan before they answered questions in this House on 6 August. Why was this not done? On 6 August, the officeholders rehashed again and again how Income's capital buffers have come under pressure. Minister of State Alvin Tan also emphasised how Allianz has committed to continue Income's pledge of S$100 million over 10 years from 2021, to provide social mobility among the lower income and support the well-being of seniors. But now we know that Income and Allianz had all along planned to return about S$1.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will first declare my interest as an independent director of a life insurance company registered and operating in Singapore. As my colleague Ms Hazel Poa has said PSP will support the Bill if it is necessary to block the Allianz-Income deal. For the sake of Singapore and the 1.7 million policy-holders of Income, it is important that we stop this deal in its current form. After we discussed the deal in this House on 6 August, I expressed my hope that this deal will be restructured so that NE remains as the majority shareholder. I am personally very glad that the Government has listened to the concerns expressed by Mr Tommy Koh, the two former CEOs of Income, Mr Tan Suee Chieh and Mr Tan Kin Lian, and many Income policy-holders, and decided to block the deal. I would like to acknowledge the efforts put in by MCCY and MAS to scrutinise the transaction and come out with this Bill. However, I am seriously concerned at the process by which we arrived at the conclusion to block the deal. We learned on Monday that MCCY had no prior knowledge of Allianz's offer for Income before it was publicly announced in July. Furthermore, it was only after the 6 August Parliamentary Sitting that MAS shared the terms of the proposed transaction and Income's capital reduction plan with MCCY. But why did MAS wait? I accept that sometimes, because of market sensitive information, it may not be possible to publicly disclose the full details of a proposed transaction. But in this case, we are talking about information being shared within the Government, between agencies. All the agencies knew that this issue would be debated in August, because they received notice of our Parliamentary Questions.”
“This should be done at a national level, but it will especially benefit residents in the West, who are currently very reliant on the East-West Line. The PSP hopes that the recent unprecedented disruption will spur the Government to conduct a thorough review of the plans under the Land Transport Master Plan and Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme to improve public transport in the West while striving to level up our public transport for the whole of Singapore. Public transport needs to serve everyone in Singapore. We must work harder to realise the vision of a 45-minute city for all Singaporeans. For country, for people.”
“In the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 released by the Land Transport Authority in 2019, a vision was set that by 2040, Singapore would become a "45-minute city", meaning that 90% of public transport journeys during peak hours could be completed within 45 minutes. However, for residents in the west, this vision is far from reality at present. PSP believes that to achieve this vision for western residents, the Government should implement two proposals currently under study regarding the JRL. The first is to extend the JRL from Pandan Reservoir station to Haw Par Villa station on the Circle Line. The second is to connect Jurong Town Hall station on the JRL with Jurong Lake District station on the CRL to form an interchange station. To expedite the extension of the MRT network in the west, we also suggest that the Government include skip-stop services in this year's Bus Connectivity Enhancement Plan, connecting various parts of the island to allow western residents to commute to work and travel more quickly. We hope that last month's major massive breakdown will make the Government pay more attention to the current inadequacies in public transport in the western region. Every Singaporean deserves better public transport services. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, last month's massive train breakdown has shown us how dependent the residents of the West are on the East-West Line to get around Singapore. We hope the Government will be in favour of the proposals to link the JRL to the Circle Line and the CRL to reduce that dependency. In addition, for more immediate relief and to complement the less developed MRT network in the West, we have recommended the Government to consider introducing a network of skip-stop bus services.”
“What we need is a network of skip-stop buses to complement the MRT in moving people between towns quickly. This is especially important for areas currently not served by MRT. The second type of skip-stop services is to connect more far-flung areas to key transport nodes and community hubs faster. These may be similar to the "express feeder" bus services that LTA is going to introduce under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Plan. For example, we should introduce skip-stop service 870E to connect Tengah with Jurong East MRT and a skip-stop service 871E to connect Tengah with Bukit Gombak MRT and Beauty World MRT. These will be much faster than the current services 870 and 871. We can also introduce a bus service linking Tengah and Boon Lay, which is something many Tengah residents have asked for during my engagement with them. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) urges LTA to seriously consider using the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme as an opportunity to boldly reimagine our bus system. This should be done at a national level, but it is especially important in the West, where rail connectivity is not as good as the East, but the commuting population is fast building up. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, last month, an unprecedented six-day massive disruption occurred between Jurong East and Boon Lay stations on the East-West Line. This made Singaporeans living in the western part of Singapore, especially in Jurong West, Jurong East and Clementi, realise how reliant they are on the East-West Line as a critical rail infrastructure.”
“" These two proposals to extend the JRL will greatly increase rail connectivity from the West to the Downtown Core and the rest of Singapore. We are glad that, this morning, Minister Chee Hong Tat has mentioned that the Ministry of Transport will look into these proposals. The second approach to improve public transport in the West is to introduce a network of inter-town skip-stop bus services. This can be implemented relatively quickly, compared to increasing rail connectivity. These skip-stop services would be different from existing express bus services. They will only stop at a few high demand stops in each town throughout the entire route to allow commuters to connect between towns more quickly. They will also run all-day, in both directions, at good frequency. The existing routes that stop at all stops can be still retained to feed commuters from the lesser-demand stops to the high-demand stops. Two types of skip-stop bus services should be introduced. The first type is the long-distance skip-stop bus services that connect different towns in Singapore. In the West, we currently have services 30 and 143, which provide important inter-town connections for residents of Teban Gardens, Pandan Gardens and West Coast, which are areas currently not served by MRT to the East and Central Singapore. There are also services, such as 180 and 974, which link Bukit Panjang with Boon Lay and Jurong West. All these are important long-distance inter-town bus services that complement our MRT network, but they are too slow. Basic bus services travel at about 15 kilometres per hour, about half the speed of the MRT. While we currently have faster express buses like Service 30e, many of them only operate during peak hours.”
“While a 45-minute commute may never be feasible for them because of sheer distance, we can do more to reduce their commuting times as much as possible. Today, I would like to suggest two approaches to improve rail connectivity and bus services to relieve residents in the West from their dependence on the East-West Line so that we can be closer to realising the vision of a 45-minute city in the West. The first approach is to improve rail connectivity for the West by connecting the JRL to the Circle Line and CRL. There have been two unconfirmed proposals regarding this. The first proposal is to extend the JRL from Pandan Reservoir to Haw Par Villa on the Circle Line. This will allow residents in Tengah, Bukit Batok West, Ayer Rajah and West Coast to travel to the Downtown Core by MRT with just one transfer at Haw Par Villa. It could also benefit students travelling to and from the National University of Singapore. This proposal was first announced by then-Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew in 2015. Later, in 2022, then-Transport Minister S Iswaran updated that feasibility studies are still ongoing, even though this potential extension appears to have been dropped out of the Master Plan 2040. The second proposal is to build an interchange infrastructure to connect Jurong Town Hall station on the JRL with Jurong Lake District station on the CRL. These two stations are within walking distance of each other but are not currently planned to be connected as an interchange. Then-Minister S Iswaran also said, in 2022, that the authorities would study this as, "We need to create meaningful connections in our MRT stations for convenience and resilience.”
“The six-day disruption prompted us to ask whether the Master Plan 2040 is sufficient to make a 45-minute city a reality for residents of the West, even if everything is operating normally and all the plans in the Master Plan 2040 come into fruition. The Government will argue that the upcoming Jurong Region Line (JRL) and Cross Island Line (CRL) will improve connectivity in the West. But even after these two lines are built, the East-West Line will still be a major bottleneck for travel between the East and West of Singapore for residents of the West. This is because the JRL connects only to the East-West Line for east-west travel. The West of Singapore is not some "ulu" hinterland. It is home to very dense population centres such as Jurong West, upcoming new towns such as Tengah and major employment hubs in Jurong East and Tuas. Existing towns, such as Queenstown and Bukit Merah, will also soon be redeveloped and densified and many new jobs will be created in the Jurong Lake District. All these residents and jobs need to be better connected to the rest of Singapore. Currently, for a resident of Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Batok, Pioneer or Jurong West, working somewhere in the Downtown Core, like Raffles Place, a 45-minute commute by public transport to their workplace is still far from reality. This is very different from the East where entire new towns, such as Marine Parade and Bedok and even parts of Tampines, are accessible from the Downtown Core within 45 minutes. And on top of the Downtown Core, we must also strengthen connections from the West to other parts of Singapore. With decentralisation and greater job mobility, residents of the West could find themselves working in the Punggol Digital District or Changi Business Park.”
“Realising the vision of a 45-minute city in the West of Singapore under the Land Transport Master Plan 2040. Mr Speaker, Sir, the massive breakdown on the East-West Line between Buona Vista and Jurong East Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations between 25 and 30 September reminded Singaporeans living in the West of Singapore of how reliant they are on the East-West Line. This six-day breakdown also happened to coincide with the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and the announcement that Singapore's population exceeded six million for the first time. When it comes to rail connectivity, the East side of Singapore is far better than the West side. There are three rail lines running parallel to each other, connecting the East to the Downtown Core. Namely, the East-West Line, Downtown Line and Thomson-East Coast Line. Had the East-West Line failed in the East instead, residents would have more options compared to those living in the West. On the other hand, during the six-day disruption, residents in the West who were travelling to and from their workplaces downtown had no alternative option to get them home by MRT. They would either have to use the bus bridging services replacing the MRT or endure long bus rides, such as services 174 or 502. As a result, many residents have complained to me that it took them more than three hours to commute during the initial days of the breakdown. In 2019, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has set an ambitious goal in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 to make Singapore a 45-minute city where Singaporeans should spend no more than 45 minutes to complete nine out of 10 peak-period journeys.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, first of all, for his comprehensive replies. I would also like to thank all the engineers and technicians who had worked day and night and sometimes under extremely bad weather to get the East-West Line, west of Jurong East Station operational again. And the bus drivers, public transport workers and volunteers who responded to the call for help. In order not to subject them to another such incident, it is important that we investigate this incident thoroughly. As a result, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister regarding the COI. First of all, I think many Singaporeans would like the Minister to explain the difference between this breakdown and the 2011 breakdown when a COI was called, and what made the Minister conclude that these two breakdowns are different, and a COI is not required this time. My second supplementary question: does the Minister think that a new COI for this breakdown as well would be useful for us to confirm that all the findings and the remedial actions recommended by the 2011 COI has been implemented till today, and whether there are any other new factors other than technical and engineering factors, like organisation factors, that we should take into account for the breakdown this time.”
“Yes, Sir. I would just like to say that I appreciate all the clarifications that both Ministers have done today. Thank you very much. When I talk about responsibility, I am actually talking more about when Income made the announcement, were they withholding information? Because we Singaporeans are all debating this deal. If this capital extraction is included right from the beginning in the deal, this information should have been made available to all Singaporeans.”
“Deputy Speaker, I have two questions, maybe for Minister Chee Hong Tat. One is, can the Minister confirm that in assessing the prudential requirements of the deal, MAS had taken into consideration the capital extraction, although the Minister said just now that MAS had not approved the capacity extraction? Have they considered, even with the capital extraction, the prudential requirements are still satisfied? The second question is maybe both Ministers can decide who to answer this question. This is about information given to Singaporeans. For the last few months, we are of the impression that the information given is all that we have. So, now we know about capital extraction. This is a very important condition of any financial deal. I am surprised, I am shocked and I am very unhappy today that this important condition is not being disclosed to the Singaporeans, when we were all discussing about this deal. So, whose responsibility is it for not disclosing this information? Can the Government give a commitment that it will pursue responsibility with regard to this? Maybe the company and all that, because this is a very important condition for the financial deal.”
“If the deal involves the acquirer extracting capital from the entity, can this fit into the criterion that it will be in the interest of the policy-holders? If it does not, then, is it that MAS had not done its job? I would like to have an answer to that.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker Sir. First of all, I really, from my heart, welcome the Government's decision to block this transaction, which I have questioned very much at the 6 August Sitting, with the help of information from many well-informed Singaporeans, like Mr Tan Suee Chieh. It is a big relief to NTUC policy-holders, of which I am one. The Minister today, in announcing the turnaround of the Government's position, because what we heard on 6 August is actually very different. However, from what the Minister has said, it seems that all the processes are proper. So, it begs the question, my first question is, who in the Government, in such big financial transaction, will be the final goalkeeper? Who is the one who will finally look at the outcome of the deal or any policy decisions, and not just the processes? It seems that NE has gone through the right process, MAS has also done the first round of assessment and the case was presented to Parliament on 6 August. We were debating, we were asking questions in a different direction. We are trying to say at that Sitting that this transaction needs to be reconsidered. But of course, the Minister and the Minister of State at that time had given us very different impressions. So, my first question is, in the future, when we have big financial transactions like this, can we get the assurance from the Government that there will be someone – in this case, we are happy that MCCY acted as a goalkeeper to look at the outcome of this transaction. So, in the future, can I get assurance who is going to do this goalkeeper role? The second question I have is, what Minister Chee had mentioned just now, is that part of MAS' responsibility is to assess the deal in the interest of policy-holders.”
“Mr Speaker, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first question is: when he said one in five hawker stalls have rental below $500, does that statistic include non-cooked food stalls? Secondly, since the Government is liberalising the manpower policy with regards to the hawker stalls to include the LTVP holders, has the Government also considered liberalising it to allow Work Permit holders to work in hawker stalls? Because, currently, as far as we know, there is a scheme called the mini-restaurant licence scheme, whereby some hawkers at the coffee shops and food courts are allowed to employ Work Permit holders.”
“It is more than what we see in the world today, for example, what I am trying to say is, can you find another trade union in the world where the trade union chief is a Minister. Are there any countries? Please, if there are, tell me. So, as a result, you cannot deny our impression. No opposition, few opposition politicians are being given appointments in NTUC and all that. So, we do not really understand the exact decision-making process there. But from the structure that you can see from the outside, if the NTUC Secretary-General is a Minister or a former Minister and there are many leaders in the NTUC who come from the ruling party, I think we are entitled to think that the independence of NTUC ought to be better than this.”
“Yes, yes, of course, of course. I think this is broad enough. First of all, I must speak out in support of the WP, what Members Gerald Giam and the Leader of the Opposition and the other Members have said. I do not think the opposition is not in support of tripartism. In fact, no political party who aspires to run the country one day, would not want the support of the trade unions. Tripartism is a given. Everybody will want to cultivate that tripartism. And we understand. All of us know history, that trade unions in other countries and by nature of their organisation, they must have the political power to institute change in a country. So, as a result, trade unions will want to be affiliated with political parties. And, of course, the opposition, whether it is the WP – of course, I cannot speak for the WP too much – but the PSP, for example, we would welcome, we want to cultivate the most harmonious and the best working relationship with trade unions. However, I think the issue here that we are trying to push, trying to clarify or trying to stress, is that the nature of the relationship between the NTUC and our Government is more than what we have seen in the world today. An hon Member: [Inaudible.]”
“Sir, we have sat here and heard about the arguments about the independence of NTUC from the two parties. I think it may be useful for a third party to come in and say a few words, and also to demonstrate that there are benefits of having a third party in this Parliament.”
“Sir, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State, which we have gathered from our conversation with the platform workers. That is why I had two recommendations in my speech yesterday: one is to introduce a base fee; two is to take cancellations and rejections of orders during bad weather out of the performance of the workers. I understand what the Senior Minister of State said just now about not micromanaging the situation, but can I get a sense or a commitment whether the Government will encourage these two issues to be brought up in a negotiation at the platform work associations. That is one question. One more question is regarding CPF contribution. I think currently, the rule is rather onerous. Once you opt in, you cannot opt out. Is it possible for the Government to consider that maybe the platform worker, after they have opted in, whether they can reconsider the decision after a certain period, maybe on an annual basis?”
“Yes. An ideal education system is one that allows a child to learn over time at his own pace, based on his ability and interest. A high-ability child should be given more stimulation, while a slow-learning one should be given more time to develop. I acknowledge that MOE has slowly moved towards that in recent years. But like what Member Ms Denise Phua had said just now, I think we can do more. The problem with our current education approach is that it is still very much focused on sorting out the students and labelling them. That has a lot of implication on the subsequent academic advancement of the child. As a result, parents play to the rules and pressure their kids, often at a very young age. So, my question to the Minister is: does the Ministry have plans to reduce the sorting and examination pressure currently experienced by our students?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to have a little bit of a preamble.”
“PSP thus proposes that platform companies remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform worker’s performance. It is taking a leaf from major platform companies, such as Deliveroo, that do not penalise riders in this way. PSP calls on the Government to urge platform workers to form platform work associations and work with platform companies to improve working conditions of platform workers, especially in bad weather conditions, to ensure a safe and fair working environment for all platform workers. (In English): Notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions made in my speech, the PSP supports the Bill. For country for people.”
“PSP proposes that MOM regularly obtains data points from platform companies to monitor the percentage of jobs completed by platform workers who opt-in to CPF contributions and ensure there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against these workers. In addition, PSP would like to propose a minimum base fare which could be negotiated between the platform work associations and the platform companies to ensure that platform workers’ income will not be affected by the increase in the operating costs of platform companies. For example, the PSP’s view is that platform companies and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare, calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month, before CPF contributions, for 44 hours of work per week. On the safety of platform workers, PSP supports the provisions that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled to. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies and will reduce the financial risks and income loss, should a platform worker suffer a work-related injury and unable to work. PSP also supports the draft Code of Practice for Platform Services, especially Part 4.5.1, which limits the load to be delivered, because it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads. However, PSP suggests that Part 4.5.2 of the draft Code of Practice be amended. Platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations.”
“] The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers. There are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore, as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce, and many of them are lower-income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years. While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms. Hence, PSP believes that it is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers. On equitable pay for our platform workers, PSP supports the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers, for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995. PSP believes that this is a step in the right direction, which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions. However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten the commitment from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased costs from paying Employer CPF contributions?”
“The PSP supports these provisions. This is a much better improvement over the voluntary work injury compensation coverage currently provided out of goodwill by platform companies. We also note that the work safety of platform workers will be further strengthened by the draft code of practice for platform services, which the WSH Council has put up for public consultation last week. Under part 4.5.1 of the code, platform companies should limit the load to be delivered to the capacity of the delivery bag and/or the maximum load weight of the vehicle or active mobility device. The PSP supports this as it will better protect platform workers from being exposed to unsafe situations due to excessive loads. However, part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice does not address the fact that platform workers may feel pressured into accepting jobs during unsafe weather conditions, because of the penalties imposed by platform companies on cancellations. The PSP thus proposes that part 4.5.2 of the draft code of practice should be amended to include that platform companies should remove the penalties for workers who reject or cancel orders during bad weather conditions. Such cancellations or rejection of orders should not be included when rating the platform workers' performance. This is not an extraordinary step because there is at least one major platform company, Deliveroo, that does not penalise riders in this way. We hope that MOM will consider these suggested measures to ensure that this Bill and the code of practice will be more effective in ensuring a safer working environment for platform workers. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“The PSP's view is that platform company and platform work associations should work towards an appropriate minimum base fare calculated with reference to our proposed living wage of $2,250 per month before CPF contributions for 44 hours of work per week. While platform workers are viewed by some as independent contractors, the workers, overall compensation is to a large extent determine by the platform companies. As a result, appropriate policy has to be set to ensure that platform workers are compensated fairly for their services. The 2022 IPS survey Precarity in Platform Work, a study of private hire vehicle drivers and food delivery riders, found that more than 90% full-time private hire vehicle drivers across all age cohorts were worried that they will no longer able to earn enough money because the financial incentives given by platform companies are increasingly being cut or reduced. Employer CPF should not be another reason for platform companies to reduce incentives for platform workers. Hence, once the CPF contribution regime is implemented in 2025, the Government should closely monitor the situation to ensure that platform companies are not reducing incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset the higher labour cost that they need to shoulder by paying CPF contributions for platform workers. When deliberating this Bill after the First Reading, we were of the view that while equitable pay is important, it is also important to ensure the safety of our platform workers is not compromised by the pressure of work. As such, we are glad that one of the key changes made in the Bill is that platform companies must now pay compensation to platform workers for work injuries at the same scope and level as employees are entitled.”
“During the Committee of Supply for MOM in 2023, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa had raised the issue of whether platform workers who opt in to CPF contributions will be discriminated against because they are more costly and asked whether measures were put in place to prevent discrimination against those who opt in. At the time, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon clarified that platform workers would not be covered under the upcoming workplace fairness legislation and that it is not in the interest of the company to discriminate against workers who opt in for CPF because over time, the bulk of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF. However, PSP is concerned that in the short term, there are insufficient protections to prevent Group A workers who opt in for CPF from being discriminated against. We are disappointed that the Bill does not contain provisions to prevent platform companies from discriminating against Group A workers. PSP proposes that MOM should regularly receive reports from the platform companies on the percentage of jobs that are completed by Group A workers as well as the percentage of Group A workers on their platform. MOM should regularly monitor these data points to ensure that there is no evidence of platforms discriminating against platform workers who may be more costly because they opt in to CPF contributions. We would like to go further to ask MOM to consider proposing the ultimate safeguard of a minimum base fare per delivery or right share. We propose that platform workers can form platform work associations that functions similarly to trade unions. A minimum base fare could be negotiated between the platform work associations and platform companies as part of the negotiations on the Collective Bargaining Agreement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the introduction of the Platform Workers Bill as an important first step in improving the welfare of platform workers. They are now more than 70,000 platform workers in Singapore as of 2023. This is a significant portion of our workforce and many of them are lower income and have been displaced from the job market in recent years. While platform workers generally enjoy more flexibility than employees, they are also subject to significant management control by platform companies when their supply of services are matched to demand by algorithms. It is timely that our legislation is now being updated to create a new class of workers distinct from employees and self-employed persons to protect the rights of platform workers. This Bill recognises the need to ensure equitable pay for our platform workers. We support the change made by the Bill to align the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform companies to those of regular employees and employers for platform workers born on or after 1 January 1995. This is a step in the right direction which will ensure that younger platform workers have adequate protections for housing and retirement. The opt-in regime for older platform workers also meets the desire of many older platform workers to opt out of CPF contributions on their earnings in order to maximise their take-home pay. However, in order to ascertain that this change will really benefit the platform workers, we would like to ask the Government if it has gotten commitments from the platform companies that they will not reduce incentives or earnings rates for platform workers to offset their increased cost from paying employer CPF contribution.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have one supplementary question. But first of all, I would like to stress that neither I nor the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) have ever advocated for a closed Singapore. We understand the benefits of an open society and open economy. But as the number of foreigners or foreign visitors increase over time, I think we will need additional measures to protect the security of our country and our society. As such, I have one supplementary question. Given that some of the Chinese nationals have come to Singapore and committed crimes, like scams, money laundering and, now, even burglaries, is the Government considering tougher penalties on these cross-border criminal activities? I think we need to, in addition to all the measures that the Minister of State had explained just now, also increase the deterrent on people coming to Singapore and committing crimes.”
“Sir, I have already said, the outcome is a more objective way of drawing our boundaries, with certain parameters, not necessarily politically motivated. We do not know what the political results will be, but definitely, we would like to see, for example, our constituencies being more compact, where the residents of one constituency are living closer to one another. Like now, I live in Braddell Heights, I do not know my fellow constituents in the far end of the other part of Marine Parade, for example. We can go on and on. I am sure we can provide more parameters, but just answer me. This parameter is what I mean by the outcome that we are aiming for.”
“May I ask the Minister what were the questions that were posed to me? Did he say a process or an outcome?”
“Sir, I think the Minister keeps saying that we are aiming for a political outcome. Can I ask the Minister did we propose anything that is targeted at aiming for a particular political outcome? We did not propose any of that and we do not know what will be the political outcome because it all depends on the electorate. But we have proposed concrete ideas as to why we think the electoral boundaries should be drawn with more objective parameters and I pointed out one just now to you, whether we can give the parameter to the EBRC that we want more compact constituencies? So, I want the Minister to confirm whether we actually aim for a political outcome in our debate today or did we actually put up ideas to say that we are asking for a more objective way of drawing the boundaries?”
“Yes. So, we can give a parameter to the EBRC that we want the constituency to be more compact. Given that, does the Minister agree that it is not just about the process that we are arguing today? It is about the outcome and this outcome does not necessarily be a political outcome that we are aiming for. We are talking about a more rational boundary drawing in Singapore.”
“Sir, I would like to make one point, that the Minister did not really answer the questions that I have asked. But okay, I just take it as that. But he is pointing out that today's debate is about the process. I think it is not just about the process. It is about whether the current system is the most desirable system for the development of a fairer electoral system in Singapore. So, I cannot imagine a situation where us, especially the Prime Minister who appoints the EBRC and also including all of us, we would accept a process that leads to an outcome that we find that is not desirable and that desirability is not measured by political considerations like, for example, whether it is good for the opposition or good for the ruling party. But we can use certain parameters, like what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has said. We can use certain parameters like, for example, we should stipulate to EBRC that, preferably, we want the constituency to be a compact —”
“My second question: the Minister also mentioned that the shape of a constituency or the current area of a constituency may be due to the urban planning that we have been doing. Yes, if that is the case, like what my colleague and other speakers have pointed out just now, why then is one HDB town divided, sub-divided amongst so many constituencies? We would expect that if the urban planning is being done properly, then one HDB town will more or less be inside one constituency. That is the second question I wanted to ask the Minister. And third, if there is no gerrymandering, then why have so many Singaporeans, although they have lived in the same place all their lives, experienced more than two times changing of constituencies. Why is that so? And fourth, what explains the disappearing of the SMCs, whereby the oppositions have done fairly well in an election? And lastly, if there is no gerrymandering and no other political intention, then whenever there is a huge increase in population in one place, leading to a decline in the weightage of one vote, that means the discrepancy of the vote, we can actually address it quite speedily. Why is that not addressed? Instead, our EBRC guidelines have been increased over the years – from 20% to 30%. Why is there a need to do that? So, these are the questions, Sir. If the Minister can answer them convincingly, then I think we can carry on with this debate and in more good faith.”
“Thank you, Speaker. When I sat there, listening to the long speech made by the Minister, I cannot help feeling that while we are here to say that there are some reasons to believe that the system is being politicised by the PAP, he in turn says that we are trying to politicise the whole system. But I think he has not answered the questions that we have raised or the doubts that we have raised. Why our electoral system or electoral boundary drawing has given rise to a number of phenomena or a number of things that we think is not normal? We will only be convinced unless the Minister can explain why these things had happened. So, to reiterate what my colleague Hazel Poa, the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have probably also raised; but I hope to raise a few questions and if the Minister can answer convincingly why this is so, then he will have a stronger case to say that we are politicising this whole debate. Firstly, if he says that there is no gerrymandering, I think we have to look at all these examples. Can he explain why if there is no gerrymandering, then why are our constituency borders, the shape of our constituencies, some of them are very odd-shaped? Even the Minister agrees that it is better to have a more compact shape because the residents in the same areas should have a better environment to mix with one another. And, of course, from an economics perspective, to maintain a constituency that is more compact, it is far more economical. So, why are some of our constituencies so odd-shaped? Like the constituency that I am living in, Braddell Heights, Mr Speaker's constituency. Why is Braddell Heights under Marine Parade GRC, miles away?”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Foreign Minister had previously characterised the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a family quarrel. So, I raise a question for the Foreign Minister, whether it is still appropriate to characterise the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a "family quarrel", in light of the ICJ's advisory opinion?”
“Speaker, I have three questions for the Minister. First, she said there is no limit for the casinos to accept cash. So, can the Minister confirm that the casinos are actually allowed to take in more than a million dollars in cash in one go? And, if possible, can we know what is the maximum amount of cash that our casinos have accepted? This is the first question. The second question is, while she said that the 13 months and 17 months sentencing given to the offenders are in line with international standards, can I ask whether, in the IMC review, will we be demonstrating our resolve further to look at this sentencing regime? Is it part of the review that the IMC will do? And my last question is, can the Minister update us what are the actions taken against all the institutions that are involved in this $3 billion money laundering case?”
“PSP supports the Government in amending several related laws following the money laundering case, including the CDSA Bill being discussed today, to strengthen our enforcement efforts against money laundering. PSP believes that the most important aspect of the anti-money laundering regime is proper sentencing. Many Singaporeans feel that the 13 to 17 months of imprisonment meted out to the 10 individuals involved in the $3 billion money laundering case is not sufficient to deter and prevent money laundering in Singapore. We would like to ask, under the existing CDSA, whereby money launderers can be sentenced to 3 to 10 years of imprisonment, why the offenders in the $3 billion money laundering case were only sentenced to 13 to 17 months? Furthermore, we hope the Minister can clarify, under what circumstances that money launderers can be sentenced to the maximum penalty? PSP believes that in order to prevent money laundering and uphold Singapore's reputation and moral values in our society, we should increase the sentencing of money launderers and take strong measures against the implicated financial institutions. (In English): PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.”
“PSP hopes that one of its recommendations will be to strengthen the sentencing regime and increase the deterrent effect against money laundering by way of imprisonment. We understand that MHA most recently reviewed the adequacy of the prescribed penalties against money laundering only in 2023. However, we believe that the sentencing regime should be reconsidered, given the relatively short jail terms that were handed down to those who had been caught in one of the largest anti-money laundering operations worldwide. Can I also ask the Minister if the Sentencing Advisory Panel will consider issuing an advisory on the sentencing framework for offences under the CDSA based on the lessons learnt from the $3 billion money laundering case? Finally, for any anti-money laundering regime to be effective, besides the perpetrators, strong actions against the gatekeepers like the banks and other financial institutions who contravene the rules are necessary. Can the Minister tell us for each of the banks and corporates involved in this case, the actions that have been taken against them and the internal actions these institutions have taken so far to strengthen their AML Regime? Following the review of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, we hope we will further strengthen the penalties against banks, other financial institutions and their senior management who contravened anti-money laundering rules. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fellow Singaporeans, the $3 billion money laundering case has severely damaged our country's reputation as an international financial center and has had adverse effects on our society.”
“In his written reply to my PQ on 8 May 2024, the Minister for Home Affairs told me that the risk of imprisonment is an important deterrent against money laundering. I agree to that. However, to an ordinary Singaporean, the jail terms of 13 to 17 months meted out to the nine men and one woman involved in the $3 billion money laundering case appear to be relatively short, especially given that the CDSA provides for jail terms of up to three to 10 years, depending on the nature of the money laundering offences. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of Singaporeans being caught for being money mules. In many cases, they handed over their bank accounts and private information in exchange for small amounts of money, usually in the range of hundreds of dollars each time. Some of these offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment for periods of two to three months for their offences. In comparison, the offenders of the $3 billion money laundering case got to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle worth millions of dollars in Singapore for several years before they were caught. Are the jail terms of 13 to 17 months proportional to the crimes they have committed, when compared to those of the money mules? It would be appropriate for me to ask at this juncture this question. With money laundering in the billion-dollar scale only attracting up to 17 months of imprisonment, what sort of money laundering crimes did the Government envision would potentially attract the maximum imprisonment sentences under Part VI of the CDSA? The Inter-Ministerial Committee Reviewing Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering Regime will publish its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter.”
“It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money launderer knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that he was dealing with criminal proceeds. This is a step in the right direction, which will enhance the prosecution's ability to pursue and prosecute money launderers. However, I am also concerned whether this will also lead to banks adopting an overly cautious approach towards restricting or closing bank accounts out of concern for potential legal consequences, thus hindering legitimate transactions. Does the Ministry envision any safeguards to protect legitimate customers who may be inevitably caught in such a scenario? We also support the move to reduce the threshold for casino operators to perform customer due diligence when they enter into cash transactions with patrons or receive deposits. However, at the same time, I would like to know whether there is a maximum cap on the amount of cash that a casino can accept in one transaction. For example, are our casinos allowed to take in cash exceeding $1 million in one go? Madam, most importantly, even though the Bill has strengthened the legal framework for money laundering offences, we are concerned that the sentences that have been meted out to the recent $3 billion money laundering case do not provide sufficient deterrence against Singapore being used as a base to launder the proceeds of illicit activities. We maintain the mandatory death penalty for serious drug trafficking offences because of the immense harm caused to drug abusers, their families and the community. But are we doing enough to punish money launderers who may be trying to conceal money which originated from drug trafficking or other serious illegal activities?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as the founder and CEO of a fund management firm. With my past experience as the head of a leading local stockbroking company, I am aware of the challenges and temptations faced by financial institutions with regard to money laundering. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the move by the Government to enhance the legal framework for preventing, investigating and prosecuting money laundering offences through this Bill. Over the past year, many Singaporeans have been shocked by the scale of the $3 billion money laundering scandal. Our nation's reputation as a rule-based financial centre has taken a great hit. As one of the premier financial hubs in Asia, we are structurally exposed to money laundering. People from all over the world want to park their money here because they know that their money will be safe. This has created huge economic benefits for our financial industry and PSP recognises this. But we want the money to be legitimate. Integrity is the most enduring competitive advantage for a global financial centre. We believe that even if the trade-off for taking a tougher stance against money laundering is slower growth of our financial services industry in the short term, it is a worthy trade-off in the long term. It is vital that we take steps to protect our reputation by tightening our legal and sentencing framework to deter money laundering. We support the Government's decision to reduce the standard of proof for money laundering offences. Under clause 11 of the Bill, the prosecution will no longer need to show under the CDSA the direct link between the criminal conduct and the monies allegedly laundered in Singapore.”
“Yes, so my question is, first of all, does the Government admit that they are only going to concentrate on the capital adequacy of Income and disregard the social mission? This is the first question. Secondly — okay, maybe the Minister of State can answer that first.”