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 4 of 20.
“Thank you, Madam. I would like to further ask the Minister of State about what he has just mentioned. I think this whole debate today is that we want clarity. What the Minister of State has mentioned is that the social mission of Income is no longer a very important part. Because he mentioned that currently, there are only a few policies with regard to that. That may be the case. But, however, social mission also means intact. Maybe today, the condition of the market, Income does not need to do that much on social mission, but it gives Singaporeans a sense of security that we always have a life insurance company there, protecting us. Just like we seek comfort in the fact that FairPrice is always there. FairPrice is no longer the cheapest in Singapore, we know. But when there is a food crisis, we have FairPrice. So, we are also talking about the long term.”
“After all, NTUC Enterprise is a co-operative set up by NTUC and affiliated unions, and the Singapore Labour Foundation – which is a Statutory Board of the Ministry of Manpower – has been providing funding to NTUC over the years.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. May I first declare that I am an independent director of a life insurance company registered and operating in Singapore. I have three supplementary questions for Minister of State Alvin Tan. My first question is, although he has touched on the assurances that Allianz has given for the deal, but I would still like to ask whether Allianz has given a commitment in writing to allow Income to continue its social mission. If yes, is there a time limit to their commitment? If no, would he agree that NTUC or NTUC Enterprise, has no basis to give the assurance that Income's social mission will be continued? Because after all, if you sell a majority stake to a private company, you cannot have that assurance given to Singaporeans for the very long term. My next question is whether the Government actually continues to view NTUC Enterprise and Income as social enterprises or private companies. Because Singaporeans are confused that NTUC Income's CEO, Mr Andrew Yeo, had stated two years ago, that the corporatised Income will remain an NTUC social enterprise, while NTUC Enterprise Chairman, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has just implied in a recent interview that Income should be treated as a private enterprise and thus, we should not interfere in this transaction. My third question is, if the Government continues to view NTUC Enterprise and Income as social enterprises, is it not in the interest to intervene in this transaction to ensure that Income continues to be majority-owned by Singaporeans, so that the social mission of Income will not be affected?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. First question: what is our total official aid given to the Palestinians over the last 10 years? Second question, which is also one of my questions for written answer actually, is whether our country has made any defence sales, such as weapons or any other material that can cause harm to civilians, to Israel since 7 October 2023?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Sorry, one more supplementary question. But I think what we need is that the local equity market, in a way, there has not been an integrated effort to promote the market. So, now, I think we have reached a stage whereby I think we should be paying more attention to it. So, what I am asking is that, does the Government have a very definite integrated plan and does the Government feel the urgency now to give priority to promoting our local capital market? I think from what the Minister have said just now: you are doing this, you are doing that. But I think there ought to be a new emphasis. And I think a lot of the market participants have actually voiced these concerns to the Government for many years already.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one question for the Minister. Given that a vibrant local equity market is an integral part of an innovative economy. Over the last 20 years, actually, the equity markets in Singapore have been on a steady decline, in terms of the number of IPOs that have come onto the market, the liquidity and all that. So, does the Government plan to have an integrated plan on reviving our local equity market? Is there a plan that the Government has in mind?”
“Mr Speaker, I noted from the Minister's reply that the embassy staff in question for this case has left Singapore. I have one additional supplementary question for the Minister. Did the Israeli Embassy or any other embassies take any other actions to state their case in the Israel-Hamas conflict since 7 October 2023 and what actions has the Government taken in response?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like the Minister to confirm – because I have gotten feedback from some residents that when they want to downgrade from a higher ward class to a lower ward class, they are told that even after the downgrade, they will have to pay the price for the medicine of the higher ward class. Is that correct?”
“Some of them I met when they were released and the family members also shared with me, that some have transformed their lives. They shared that the whole process actually helped them. While no one likes our loved ones to be detained, nevertheless, Singapore's safety and security is of utmost importance. Some of them even said that without this intervention, they would not be what they are today. So, as I shared earlier in my reply, it has worked well. We would welcome any suggestions that you have given. We will look at them, but I think what is key is that we want to look not only after Singaporeans. We want to look after our country and we want to help those who are affected to get the right rehabilitation and reintegration journey. We want to help them. We do not want to just change for something that is very theoretical. If we do not have something that has worked well, I think it is fine. But based on my ground experience, my engagement inside the prison, even outside when they are released, I feel it has worked well, Sir.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his replies to my questions. I have a few further clarifications to make. In principle, PSP would like to support the Bill if our recommended safeguards are adopted. Can I ask the Minister of State whether our safeguards are really out of the ordinary? Because, for example, when we asked for the condition, or the requirement, that a sitting judge be part of the Advisory Committee and this condition to be codified in the Act, this is something that the Government is currently already practicing, as what the Minister of State has said and what I have read about the Bill recently. It is already something being practised, so what is the problem of codifying it in the Act itself? My second question is, putting in another requirement for this Bill that the President can act in his discretion is something that is also under the ISA, which carries the same draconian power to detain an individual without trial. So, since the ISA also has this condition, that the President can act in his discretion, why can this condition not be also put into this CLTPA Bill? Those are the clarifications I am seeking. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I maintain my stand and the reply that I have given to Mr Leong. And I want to share with Mr Leong, when I say that the system has worked, actually the system has really worked. I work very closely with the inmates and some of them are also under the CLTPA. I could see that not only when they were detained but also the processes that they went through. Some of them, their family members wrote to me, and I met the family members and I assured the family members that they would have the reviews done annually.”
“While the Minister must hear the Advisory Committee's views and recommendations via its written report to the President, the Minister does not need to follow those recommendations before making or renewing the DO or PSO, since the President does not have discretionary powers under the CLTPA and must follow Cabinet's recommendations. The PSP believes that these three proposals will strike the appropriate balance between personal liberty and public peace and order. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we would like to stress that the PSP does not for any moment take for granted the benefits that Singaporeans enjoy from our peace and order. We also recognise the CLTPA's role in keeping Singapore safe. However, we also recognise that our circumstances have changed substantially since the enactment of the CLTPA in the 1950s and that detention without trial must always be considered with utmost caution and reluctance. We should also clarify our laws and codify the current practices that are already in place. In light of these considerations, the PSP will oppose the extension of the CLTPA, unless the safeguards are enhanced. Thank you. For country, for people.”
“However, as the powers given to the Government under the CLTPA is so draconian, PSP is of the view that equally strong safeguards must be put in place to protect innocent Singaporeans against any potential abuse of these powers. We, therefore, propose to enhance the protections against possible abuse with three recommendations. The PSP's first proposed safeguard is to legislatively require that sitting Supreme Court Judges sit on the Advisory Committees. While we note that Minister Shanmugam said in 2018 that Advisory Committees will be chaired by sitting judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the Government stopped short of codifying this change. The PSP is of the view that we must codify this requirement to uphold the separation of powers, provide greater clarity for all and strengthen the perception that the Advisory Committees are independent. We believe that there is no downside to this. The PSP's second proposed safeguard relates to the making of DOs and PSO. Besides the Public Prosecutor's consent, the Minister must also seek either: one, the Advisory Committee’s concurrence; or two, the concurrence of the President, acting in his discretion, before the DO or PSO is made. The PSP's third proposed safeguard relates to the extension of DOs or PSOs. If an Advisory Committee objects to the extension of the DO or PSO and the Government disagrees, any extension should only be granted with the President's concurrence, acting in his discretion. The reason why we are proposing the second and third safeguards is because the ultimate decision-maker, currently, is still Cabinet.”
“While gangsterism still exists today in Singapore, the extent of lawlessness is, we believe, not as rampant as it was back in 1958 when the executive power to detain without trial was introduced. The most important question which we face today in this House is whether the Act is still relevant, and more importantly, necessary in light of our present circumstances. This consideration must include other pieces of criminal legislation in force and the sufficiency and efficacy of our judicial system. A balance has to be struck between personal liberty and public peace and order. Have we struck the right balance with this proposed extension? As such, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister. One, does the Ministry intend to continually renew this piece of legislation for as long as crime in Singapore is not completely eradicated? Otherwise, can the Ministry share with this House under what circumstances it is prepared to do away with this piece of legislation, which was intended to be temporary when it was first enacted in 1955? Two, can the Ministry update this House regarding the steps it has taken over the years to review if our current judicial system can be strengthened to better deal with crimes of the nature that this Act is currently invoked for, without having to detain persons without trial? Three, can the Minister clarify whether the Public Defender's Office is authorised to represent detainees under the Act to guarantee their access to counsel? Mr Speaker, PSP recognises that the CLTPA does play a part in bringing greater safety and security to law-abiding citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to extend the operation of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, or CLPTA, for another five years, starting from 21 October 2024. This extension is not to be taken lightly because it continues to empower the Government to detain individuals without trial. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill was first introduced in Parliament back in 1955, as one of the measures to counter the communist threat in Singapore. However, the most concerning part of the Act, namely the section empowering the Minister to direct a person to be detained without trial, was introduced in 1958 to deal with gangsterism. During the Second Reading of that amendment Bill, the Chief Secretary then, Mr EB David said, “It is only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness, which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use. No democratic government will lightly curtail the liberty of any individual by executive action, nor would it wish to curtail that liberty for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. With the slowly increasing mutual confidence between the police and the public, I sincerely hope that it would not be very long before the conditions in which these gangsters can flourish will no longer obtain. The normal processes of law will, once more, be adequate to detect and punish crimes and these special powers can be thankfully surrendered.” This Act was enacted in 1955 and if it is renewed this time, it would be its 15th renewal. Sixty-six years have passed since the introduction of the provision empowering the Executive to detain criminals without trial.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. One, will the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) allow the breeder to visit the cats, even after they are seized by the AVS? Second question, from now on, will the AVS put in a more detailed regulatory framework to allow for small breeders to continue their business? And three, is the Animal Lodge the only place currently available for potential breeders to run their business? I think the Animal Lodge is in Tengah; that is what I have been told. And that is the only place that breeders are allowed to breed the animals, I heard. Can the Minister of State confirm that? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. As the animals are seized as part of investigations, owners will not be able to visit them while investigations are ongoing. However, the cats will remain under the care of NParks and are regularly assessed by NParks, until investigations are concluded. The other supplementary question is about the regulatory framework. It is something that we continue to look at. If Members have any feedback, they can share them with me and email us. Currently, The Animal Lodge is the only one available. We are also assessing demand. We will keep track and work with the industry to see how we can expand it if there is high demand. At this moment, we feel that it is adequate. 1.29 pm”
“Sir, every time we raise questions that may not be in line with what the Government wants, we are always accused of being divisive. In this case, the Minister for Education just said that we are not being united. But I think what we are trying to do here, can I ask the Minister, from the response the Minister had given to us on this issue, does it reflect enough transparency and also clarity on the process of how the materials are being decided? We are not particularly against any topics to be raised actually, as long as there is a defined process. What is the expert panel that decide on the topic, for example, and after deciding on the topic, why can the material not be made just transparent? Why must we ask the parents to come to the school to ask for it? All these materials are taught to our children and they ought to be 100% transparent?”
“Sir, in our Parliamentary Question, we did request for the Ministry to release the teaching materials for the CCE lesson, but the Minister had replied that he will not release the slides in his reply during the COS, I think. We would like to, first, express deep disappointment that the slides in question, which form the primary teaching resource for the CCE class, have not been released to this House or to the public. So, my first question is: despite what the Minister has said, how is it justifiable not to release the CCE lesson slides to the public, when the materials had already been imparted to our children? This is my first question. My second question, as an extension of that, can we have the Government's commitment that all teaching materials for CCE in the future, should be made available to the public, so that parents would know what has been taught to their children? I have actually made an effort to go to the bookstore and got the textbook for CCE for Primary 6 students. From the content of the textbook, you cannot imagine that a complex and controversial current issue, like the Israel-Hamas conflict, will be taught to our children. So, I urge the Government, in future, to make the material transparent and available to the public.”
“Yes. So, does he agree that his conclusions are not complete, as long as the jobs statistics do not separate the Singaporeans from the permanent residents (PRs), because there are these changes within the resident employment that are not completely transparent to us?”
“So, as I have said and as I have highlighted in the jobs debate a few years back, the conclusions that the Minister is trying to present is not complete.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his enthusiastic response to our questions on Singapore manpower policy and all that. However, I would like to highlight, like what I have done a few years ago, during the job surplus —”
“Sir, this is a very important issue which has attracted a lot of concerns from Singaporeans. I think the Minister for Education had mentioned during the COS that the PQs will be addressed today as well. It is just a simple act of yours to extend the timing. The PQ timing, anyway, was originally one and a half hours. If you do not want to exercise that, then can I have your assurance that the related PQs will be at the top of the queue at the next Sitting?”
“Sir, can I ask you to exercise your power under Standing Order 22(1) to reinstate the Question Time today to one and half hours for the Parliamentary Questions (PQs), so that the PQs on the issue of the Israeli-Hamas content for the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lesson can be clarified. I am sure many Singaporeans would like to know more. But looking at the order of the Oral PQs today, the related PQs are unlikely to be answered today. So, can I have my request, Sir?”
“15 am In place of the Prime and Plus Housing schemes, Progress Singapore Party recommends that affordable, high-quality interim rental apartments to be built at these locations to offer a broad range of young Singaporeans a chance to live in a prime area at least once in their lifetime. By concentrating young people together, we can even improve their prospects on dating apps that work by location. By having our young people living, working and socialising in these locations, our CBD and surrounding areas can become more vibrant like Shibuya and Shinjuku in Tokyo or Tsim Sha Tsui in Hong Kong. The older mature estates, such as Marine Parade, Bedok and Ang Mo Kio, need rejuvenation too. These estates were developed rapidly within a short period of time and their 99-year leases will consequently come to an end at about the same time. The demographic profile of these estates is also becoming older. We can start redeveloping these estates now, by redeveloping some older blocks of flats into Millennial Apartments. We hope that the Millennial Apartments Scheme will be a game-changer that will relief the pressure on couples to rush to secure a flat and give young Singaporeans more choice to fulfil their aspirations. I urge all young Singaporeans to consider and decide for yourself whether Progress Singapore Party's Millennial Apartments Scheme is superior to what the People's Action Party Government has to offer today. Housing for Singles”
“Mr Chairman, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the Government's move to support the urgent housing needs of couples who are waiting for their BTO flats to be completed, with one-year rental vouchers under PPHS. We are happy to see that the Government has further recognised that rental apartments play an important role in meeting the housing needs of our younger Singaporeans. However, the PPHS voucher scheme is temporary and may drive up rents for some groups of Singaporean tenants, such as single mothers, LGBTs and couples who do not qualify under PPHS. We urge the Government to go further and consider PSP's Millennial Apartments Scheme as a new policy to develop rental apartments into a viable, alternative housing for younger Singaporeans. PSP's Millennial Apartments Scheme is a strategy to make up for the inherent long waiting time under the BTO scheme and to address the current acute shortage of alternative housing options for married couples, young families or groups of singles. The long waiting time for BTO flats is widely regarded to have a significant negative effect on our Total Fertility Rate (TFR). Millennial apartments are smaller in size, so HDB can build more flats on the same plot of land to ease the current housing pressure. The smaller quality rental flats are rented out on a two- to five-year basis for Singaporeans who are waiting for their BTO flats or singles who want to live independently. This will provide medium-term housing stability for young Singaporeans while they figure out their life plans and longer-term housing needs. The Millennial Apartments Scheme is also a strategy to rejuvenate our Central Business District (CBD) and mature estates by creating a vibrant young community in each of them. 11.”
“Chairman, I just want to make one point. It may not be a clarification in the strict definition. But we did not start off stating that SLA has mismanaged the properties. We were just raising questions. And we want answers to the questions. A lot of things have been said, but there are still many questions that are unanswered. So, that is the state of affairs. We did not start off saying that SLA has mismanaged this or mismanaged that, but we are saying that there are questions. So, if you can provide the answers, then you will be able to erase the doubts in the minds of many Singaporeans.”
“Chairman, I agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that since the Ministerial Statement last year on Ridout Road, a lot more information has emerged about the black and white bungalows. But that does not mean that there is no further information that Singaporeans would like to know. For example, up to today I do not think the Ministry has shared what is the total income derived and what is the total maintenance cost spent on managing the black and white bungalows, and what is the total land area occupied by the black and white bungalows and all that. So, these are questions that Singaporeans would like to know and if enough information is being given, then we can assess better whether we have a big underutilised asset here or not.”
“Chairman. I have three questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. First question, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the rental income from the state properties far exceed the maintenance cost. Can I specifically ask for the total rental income and total maintenance cost attributable to the black and white bungalows? Second question, what are the various plans under study now to manage the black and white bungalows to generate a higher return for the Government and, in turn, for the taxpayers? How is the Ministry going to publicise these plans? Because the feeling is that currently, there is not much publicity on the heritage properties and how to invite more Singaporeans or investors to come and suggest ideas to better the performance on these bungalows. Third question, as an overall strategy, is there a review on whether there is a need to preserve so many black and white bungalows for heritage purposes?”
“Where appropriate, SLA should review whether it would make better economic sense to develop these land parcels in line with the URA Master Plan and invest the land sales proceeds as part of the Past Reserves. Sir, there needs to be greater transparency and accountability over how SLA is managing State lands. This House has a responsibility to ensure this. State properties like black-and-white bungalows should generate good value for the taxpayer. Under no circumstances should they be allowed to be under-utilised, fall into disrepair and be vacant for years. We can do better. Use of Properties Managed by SLA”
“While the Government has been very careful to recover the market value of land, even if it is for public housing, it seems less concerned about the fact that state properties can be vacant, not generating any income and falling into disrepair for years, even if they are in prime and prestigious areas. In August last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question about the occupancy rate and median vacancy period of black and white bungalows, but these specific numbers were not revealed. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) calls on SLA to reveal these statistics, not only for black and white bungalows, but for all state properties under its charge. The rental values of many black-and-white bungalows are negatively impacted because they are not retrofitted to modern standards. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa asked Minister Edwin Tong, why SLA does not install modern amenities to improve demand and rental rates. The Minister's response was that modernisation could be carried out if SLA was able to cluster and rejuvenate these bungalows. PSP urges SLA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether higher rents will make it worthwhile for SLA to modernise black and white bungalows with amenities like air conditioning, like what other private landlords do. 7.00 pm Singaporeans would also like to know what is the total land area occupied by the 2,600 state properties and SLA should look into making better use of large land parcels that currently form part of the state properties. These large land parcels are currently not attached to value, because it is market practice to use Gross Floor Area (GFA) as the guiding component in determining rents. They are also considered "liabilities" to the tenants.”
“Mr Chairman, last year Singaporeans learned about two of our Ministers who were renting large black and white bungalows sitting on hundreds of thousands of square feet of prime land from SLA for $20,000 to $30,000 a month. The subsequent debates on the issue make Singaporeans aware of a large under-utilised asset that forms part of our past reserves. My cut today will focus on some questions regarding how state lands, including black and white bungalows, are managed. SLA has a responsibility to judiciously manage these assets. This is especially important for cases where the lands are rented out for less than 10 years because in these cases the rents do not form part of the Past Reserves protected by the President. For 2022, it is stated in the Government Financial Statement that the Government received $1.4 billion in rent, presumably from the 2,600 state properties managed by SLA, which include about 600 black and white bungalows. However, we have little other information on the management of state lands and properties. We do not know the total cost of maintenance, for example. We also do not know how many of these properties are vacant and for how long. For example, No. 26 Ridout Road was vacant and in a very bad condition for more than four years before it was rented out. Are there any other similar cases today? We believe that no landlord would allow this to happen with their properties. Why did SLA and its managing agents allow this to happen? Who are the managing agents and how are they appointed? Such a situation should never have been allowed to happen.”
“Yes, the question is whether going forward, MOF can provide us with more detailed fiscal projections, spending and revenue projection, one? Secondly, is that the projections on the endowment and trust fund. How do you decide what amount you want to put in, the expected payout and all those things? I think that would allow us to understand the whole budget process better. Because right now, it seems that there is a budget process and there is also an off-budget process. All the money is in the endowment and trust funds. So I think we need actually an integrated view of this whole budgeting process. And the third thing we want to know is that since we have already passed the SINGA Bill and the big infrastructure projects are under this SINGA Bill and the SINGA Bill is also reported in the Budget – in terms of the capitalised costs and all that – so can Parliament have more information on the projects that are inside the SINGA Bill, that are under the SINGA financing? So all this I think would help us a lot going forward, to understand better about how we have used our money.”
“Chairman, okay, I will let the matter rest. But before that, my question actually specifically asks for a breakdown of these taxes, but okay, we let the matter rest. We are just talking about I think today and over the whole process of the Budget debate, one of the key themes that we were talking about is transparency. We hope that we can get more data and information so that we can understand the whole Budget process better. And over the years – this is my fourth Budget debate – I found that there are actually many information that is still lacking. However, I will let the matter rest. I just have one question left for the Minister and that is in view of what I said just now, to increase the amount of information that we can get, there are three areas at least I do not know whether the Government can commit to offer to us going forward. One is that MOF had come up with the medium-term fiscal projections last year, but the whole report is actually very brief. Going forward, can we offer more details as to how the analysis is being done, what are the basic data and all those details and things? I have seen a lot of financial reports in the course of my career. I would say that by the standard I know, the medium-term fiscal projections report is very brief. There is not enough information. It is like you want us to just take the conclusion. But I think we need to know the analysis behind it. 6.45 pm”
“Chairman, yes, I thank the Minister for the further clarification. So, now we have confirmed basically that this big item of $8.44 billion, which consists of the Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax, Land Betterment Charge, it is all lumped up into one very big amount and there is no further breakdown on it. It is okay. I mean, I just want to confirm that that is the case, that that is the way we are treating the accounts.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Minister for the detailed reply to the various questions, when I asked for more details on the estimates. However, I would like to ask on the Other Taxes, even in the Budget Book, it did not break down the Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax and Land Betterment Charge. Minister, can you confirm that?”
“How many projects with total investments of more than $1 billion are expected to be initiated in 2024? 5.30 pm Finally, what has been the amount invested by MOF as capital injections into Temasek Holdings in 2023 and 2024, and why is this not accounted for as a separate line item? Endowment Funds Chairman, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the Government’s efforts to support the retirement and healthcare needs of younger seniors through the Majulah Package. As usual, the Government has set aside money from the current-year Budget to fund the full cost of the package upfront. This time, the Government has set aside $7.5 billion and the projected cost of the package is $8.2 billion. But how do we know whether we have set aside too much? Back when the Merdeka Generation Fund was set up in May 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong told the House that the Government would set aside $6.1 billion and that the projected cost of the Package is over $8 billion. But on page 78 of the Government Financial Statements released in July 2023, there is now a note that says, “The estimated liabilities under the Merdeka Generation Fund as at 31 March 2023 are $6,021,419,859.64.” Even after adding the total net drawdown of about $400 million since 2019, the total cost of the Package now does not seem to add up to $8 billion. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain whether this means that too much money was initially set aside when the Merdeka Generation Fund was set up? If yes, what will happen to the excess funds? Use of Public Resources”
“Chairman, in the 1970s, MOF provided the House with detailed breakdowns of the fees and taxes collected. For example, we know that in 1972, the Government collected about $190,000 in car park fines. The information provided today is much less detailed in comparison. I would like to use my cut today to ask for more detailed information on the revenue and expenditure estimates. First, on revenue. What are the taxes lumped together under “Other Taxes”, account code B90? This item has increased from an estimate of $6.3 billion to a revised estimate of $8.44 billion. What are the reasons for this increase? Why does MOF not provide a breakdown of these taxes, given the sizeable amount? What is the estimated amount of levy collected for Work Permit, S Pass and Migrant Domestic Workers respectively in 2023 and 2024? What is the account code for ERP revenue and what was the estimated amount collected? What are the reasons for the significant increase in corporate income tax from 2022 to 2023 of about $5 billion? Why is there a significant estimated increase in property tax collected for private properties of $753 million in 2024 despite the upward revision of the Annual Value bands announced in Budget 2024? Why is there a big estimated increase in land sale revenue from $18 billion in 2023 to $31 billion in 2024? Next, on expenditures. How much has been disbursed to SPH Media Trust in 2023 and how much estimated for 2024? What are the HDB deficits for 2023 and 2024? How much was spent by Ministers travelling overseas to fulfil the obligations of their international appointments in their private capacity in 2022 and 2023? How many ongoing development projects have cumulative investment of more than $1 billion?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for Manpower for clarifying on that issue. What, I think, we gather from this is that the change in the Special Account is not because of the Government wanting to save money on the interest paid, but it is a matter of financial management principles. I want to clarify that that is correct. Secondly, and that is my final point, is that I totally agree with Deputy Prime Minister's point that any scheme, whether it is a permanent scheme or a handout scheme, it has to be properly designed in order to achieve its objectives. But generally, we still hold the opinion that the handout scheme has got a short-term nature and because it comes so often, it does create more dependency than a permanent scheme. 2.18 pm”
“Yes, Sir. I have two last questions on retirement. The first question is, how much more the Government is currently paying to the Special Account (SAs), because of the difference in interest rates between the SA and the Ordinary Account (OA)? And second question, will the Government consider grandfathering the SA for Singaporeans who are above 55 years old now, going forward?”
“Sir, thank you. I think that would be a bit confusing. I think I have two more questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I still have a few more questions. First of all, I think one of the most important takeaways for this Budget debate is to have an accurate assessment of the cost-of-living crisis Singaporeans are facing today. So, to that end, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether he agrees with our points of view. One, part of our inflation problem is self-inflicted – due to the GST, which he had explained is a one-off thing, and other tax increases. But there is also the thing of escalating property prices, which has been an ongoing policies and also external environment-created phenomenon. And two, Singaporeans have very little savings to cope with the crisis because, in our opinion, the schemes that the Government has put in in the past had not allowed the Singaporeans to build up their savings. So, as a result, this is a good opportunity when we are looking at how we restart and how we promote a new social compact, to think of new ways of doing things. What the PSP has proposed is that do pay attention to more permanent schemes, rather than temporary handouts. So, this is the first question I wish the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm and opine on. The next question is, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government has a planning target for a minimum income for an individual and for a low-income family, and has the Progressive Wage Supplement help all workers and their families to attain their minimum income? Even if you say you do not want to put up a minimum income as an official thing, that the public know, do you actually, as part of your planning, have something to reference to? What is the minimum level of income you want Singaporeans to have in order to survive?”
“Thank you. Thank you, Sir. First of all, I would like to take what Deputy Prime Minister had said just now about the drawdown rate for the endowment and trust funds. I would like to give a little bit more information of what I know about those funds, based on the financial data published by the Ministry of Finance. And I hope Deputy Prime Minister can clarify that. I think Deputy Prime Minister is right to say that various funds have got various drawdown rates. But by and large, I think we need to tell Singaporeans that for all the endowment and some of the trust funds, they are for social purposes. The average drawdown, according to what I have calculated from the financial data, is about 5%. That 5% is based on payout divided by the asset balance. However, the trust funds that are for economic purposes, like what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, like National Research Fund, GST Voucher, public transport funds – generally, these funds have got drawdown rates of between 20% and 30%. In other words, funds that are for social purposes, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the drawdown may potentially last for 20 years. Five percent. Five percent means 20 years, the fund. And the funds for economic purposes, yes, it is less than five years. So, that is the data I got. And I think that is a more accurate answer. But, of course, I need the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that.”
“Okay, okay. Anyway, if there are questions to be asked, I think we should take the debate seriously.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thought we are scheduled to end at 3.00 pm?”
“Sir, running the risk of prolonging this debate that Member Sitoh Yih Pin as started, I would like to remind the House that I have mentioned many times in this House, that during the COVID-19 period, although we have spent $40 billion, we have raised more than $250 billion with a new mechanism called the Reserve Management Securities (RMGS). In a way, we do not need to replenish the reserves anymore, because we have actually accumulated more during the COVID-19 from the normal way that we are accumulating our reserves. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm that, please.”
“So, I must say that that is puzzling and we seek clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Sir, to piggyback on Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question on pre-funding, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister two questions? One is that there are many questions raised during the debate on the endowment and trust funds. Another Member who has raised quite a number of questions – which I am interested – was Ms Foo Mee Har. Can I seek clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister on the following questions: one, what is the rate of drawdown of the various endowment and trust funds and what happened to the undrawn amounts, which I have discussed and sought answers during the Public Finance Motion; two, how the Government determines whether expenditures should be paid out of endowment funds and trust funds or the operating Budget. My second question is: it was also observed that there is a fair amount of volatility in the overall Budget position, which was also pointed out by Ms Foo Mee Har. So, may I know what steps the Government is taking to increase so-called "Budget marksmanship" this year? Maybe I should go through some of the numbers to substantiate my question. One is that – first of all, the Budget for 2022 – the original estimate was a negative $5.3 billion. It was revised to $4.2 billion and then finally, the actual was a deficit of only $0.4 billion. And for 2023, the original estimate was $3.6 billion and then revised to $6.8 billion. We do not have the actual amount yet, but this revision of having a bigger deficit is on the back of what I have said yesterday; that in 2023, actually we have an unexpectedly large operating revenue in excess of our estimate, which is about $8 billion. So, despite that, the revised overall budget deficit for 2023 actually is a bigger deficit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have presented the "handout" approach of the PAP Government versus PSP's "permanent scheme" approach. The latter empowers Singaporeans with the certainty of help when they need it and encourages them to strive for higher goals with incentives. PSP estimated that the shift to the permanent scheme approach will not consume significantly more fiscal resources – because the Government already has more than 60 schemes in place and has locked away tens of billions of dollars in endowment and trust funds. PSP believes that we can do a lot more to improve the well-being of our citizens, work to combat future challenges, such as climate change and, provide support to worthy humanitarian causes abroad. As owners of one of the largest sovereign wealth in the world, Singaporeans deserve better policies that can lead to better lives and a more secure future. We must be aware that we have the ability and responsibility to do more for ourselves, for Singapore and also for the world. Sir, we support the Budget in hope that it is a step in the right direction. For country, for people.”
“As PSP have said in our manifesto 2020, anyone who puts in an honest day’s work should have enough to live with dignity. The Minimum Living Wage is a social standard that we should establish that is not completely linked to the productivity of the worker. Thus, we have proposed the Minimum Living Wage to be co-funded by the Government. The co-funding can come from many handout schemes as mentioned before. After ensuring a minimum gross monthly wage of about $2,200, we would like to recommend the Government to put in a permanent Progressive Wage Scheme to incentivise all Singaporean workers to continuously upskill towards higher gross monthly wages. Thirdly, we have urged the Government to set up a National Health Insurance Scheme funded by it rather than having Singaporeans pay for their MediShield and CareShield premiums. To minimise moral hazards, Singaporeans will have to co-pay healthcare expenses from their Medisave accounts. The Government can supplement the Medisave accounts with a Healthier SG bonus every year. For Singaporeans who practise healthy living, this bonus will become excess MediSave balances which can be transferred to their Retirement Account to boost their retirement income. PSP envisages that with the majority of Singaporeans covered under a few permanent schemes, the Minister for Finance will not need to distribute handouts to millions of Singaporeans during every annual Budget. Our social welfare and security structure can also be streamlined and consolidated to focus on a much smaller group of needy Singaporeans. This is especially important as it ensures that this smaller group, who still need further help beyond that provided under the permanent schemes, receive the assistance they need expeditiously.”
“PSP believes this begins with providing the individual with a minimum level of support and then incentivising him or her with attainable goals. Once the individual has reached these goals, he or she will be motivated to strive for more. This whole process requires a "permanent scheme" approach and not a handout approach. PSP’s permanent scheme approach will streamline and consolidate the Government’s 60 over schemes into a few permanent, national schemes which are easy to understand, provides a minimum level of support and an incentive mechanism for Singaporeans to work towards bettering themselves. I have been advocating this permanent scheme approach since my first Budget debate in 2021, but my proposals were completely ignored by this Government. I shall repeat three of those that I have recommended repeatedly. First and foremost, I have recommended the deferment of land cost from HDB flat pricing under the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). In our opinion, the AHS will be the beginning to many potentially positive socio-economic outcomes. For a start, it will immediately reduce the cost-of-living pressures on Singaporeans and allow them to have enough CPF savings without downgrading their HDB flats when they reach retirement. Most importantly, this peace of mind for housing and retirement will also apply to all future generations of Singaporeans. With the AHS, we will not need to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans through schemes like the Matched Retirement Saving Scheme and the occasional top-up of CPF accounts. The resources in all these schemes can be consolidated into one permanent scheme namely the AHS. Secondly, we have recommended the Minimum Living Wage which provides a minimum level of support to every working Singaporean permanently.”
“Many needy Singaporeans are already struggling. They may not have the time or energy to pay attention to what schemes they qualify for, even if these schemes can help them. They also lack the English language proficiency to understand these rules. Hence, despite the good intentions of the Government, the complexity of the handout approach means that many needy Singaporeans may not enjoy the benefits of the many schemes. Some of them may also not get the help they need fast enough, and this can be especially troubling when urgent help is required. PSP is a strong advocate for more support for Singaporeans, but the taxpayer’s money spent must motivate Singaporeans to strive for higher goals and not breed dependency in handouts. The PAP under the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew always sought to avoid breeding dependency. In contrast, the PAP Government of today is relying on a patchwork scheme of vouchers, rebates and top-ups that lower-income Singaporeans are increasingly dependent on, instead of pursuing systemic economic reforms such as reducing rent-seeking in the property market, strengthening labour protections, or introducing a Minimum Living Wage. Is this system dragging Singaporeans into a social trap rather than providing a social trampoline that allows Singaporeans to bounce back? This may be the reason why although the PAP Government has increased social spending very significantly since about 2011, it did not seem to have improved the financial well-being of Singaporeans proportionately. The main weakness of the handout system developed by the PAP Government, is that it does not empower the individual. The objective of empowerment is to give the individual the means to take initiative to better his or her own life.”