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 6 of 20.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government to review its current Budget and Reserve accumulation policies in order to help present-day Singaporeans reduce their financial burdens and improve their quality of life, while continuing to save for future generations of Singaporeans." [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Ms Hazel Poa. (proc text)] Last November, during the debate on the Cost of Living Motion raised by the Workers' Party (WP), I attributed a large part of the rising cost of living problem to the policies of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government. Today, I will delve deeper into the Government's Budget and Reserve accumulation policies to justify what I have said. The Singapore Government have put in place a good Reserve accumulation system, started by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, to facilitate the accumulation of the huge Reserves we have today. However, because our Reserves are not accumulated from natural resources, there is a cost to accumulating our Reserves, which comes from the sacrifices of the Singaporeans. For example, much of the land reserves came from the acquisitions of land from Singaporeans at below market prices during the 1970s and 1980s, while the financial reserves are accumulated through the investment of land sales proceeds, Government surpluses and the Central Provident Board (CPF) balances of Singaporeans. Whatever the Government has accumulated in surpluses and Reserves, these are the people's money, not the Government's money. The cost of accumulating Reserves is tolerable when our economy and incomes were growing rapidly.”
“Mr Speaker, I think I would also like to make a point that the Minister has not been attentive to what I said. I said there is no reason to doubt the finding. I think people know why I raised the question, because justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. In this case, we are not asking for – or at least I am not asking for – that, in the future, any complaints about our Police force, we will make a big fuss out of it. But in this case, I am saying it is very special, well, unfortunately, it is very special, because a Policeman has given up his life. So, I thought we should investigate this case with a Committee of Inquiry. But, of course, we respect the decisions made by the Minister. I am just asking the Minister what has been, in his mind, when he made the decision? Just that.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his internal investigation report which has provided a lot of new insights into the case. There is no reason to doubt the findings. I also agree with the Minister that we have to look after the morale of the Police force. However, in this case, a Police officer has taken his own life after alleging workplace bullying, racial discrimination and unfair treatment after whistleblowing within the SPF. A better way to clear the air may be to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the case rather than through an internal investigation. So, may I ask the Minister why he has chosen an internal investigation by the Police force itself as opposed to appointing a Committee of Inquiry. Just a matter of interest.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just have one question for Minister Josephine Teo. I am glad that many Members have pointed out that digital inclusivity is also about ensuring that digital systems are inclusive and user-friendly and not deployed just for profit-seeking by businesses. That indeed is PSP's core position as presented by my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa. In view that, I would like to ask the Minister how she will respond in relation to what we have discussed and debated today about digital inclusivity, how she will respond to the many negative feedback from Singaporeans about SimplyGo. Incidents like SimplyGo will affect the trust in digital systems in the long run.”
“Okay. [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Sorry, I missed that one. I raised my voice because I thought it was for objecting to the Bill. Can I register my objection to the Bill?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not objecting to the formation of the Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sorry. I did not mean to stop the formation of the Committee of the whole House.”
“PSP does not support this Bill in its current form. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.”
“Recently, we have witnessed several banking and e-payment outages at banks, such as DBS and OCBC, which would be prime candidates to be designated as critical entities under the proposed Bill. These banks are already under domestic control and their operations are subject to regulations by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. These outages demonstrated that it is not enough to just have oversight over the ownership and management of such entities, if we are really serious about ensuring national security. There must be a whole-of-country approach towards ensuring the resilience of such critical entities. For example, there must be a talent pipeline made up of a strong Singaporean Core that is able to operate, manage and maintain key systems, such as data centres and other IT infrastructure, within critical entities. We also cannot rely excessively on outsourcing these key systems to other foreign countries to save costs. Some of these infrastructure and systems must always be maintained in Singapore. Finally, we must have a robust regulatory framework that enforces stiff penalties, commensurate with the scale of the failure when these critical entities fall short of delivering essential services to the public. It is in our national interest to ensure that critical entities provide these essential services with minimal and infrequent disruptions in services to the public, even in the absence of extreme situations, such as a war, pandemic or extreme weather caused by climate change. Mr Speaker, PSP believes that we do not need such sweeping legal powers under the proposed Bill to control our significant and critical entities. Rather, we should focus on the resilience of such entities where the Singaporean Core is no longer overseeing and manning them.”
“Fourthly, while the decisions by a Minister would still be appealable to an independent Reviewing Tribunal, section 46 of the proposed Bill is a judicial review ouster clause, which provides that the Tribunal's decision is final and cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into action in any other Court of law. Judicial review is only allowed under extremely narrow grounds to ensure that the procedures under the Bill, regulations or rules have been complied with. It is also noteworthy that these regulations and rules are made by the Minister himself; and by the Tribunal itself, pursuant to sections 45 and 44(3) of the proposed Bill. It is very troubling to us that, yet another law is being passed where there is limited provision for judicial review on the grounds of national security. This ouster clause is very similar to the ouster clauses under the Internal Security Act and FICA. It breaches the principle of the separation of powers by limiting the checking powers of a co-equal judiciary upholding the rule of law. It is noteworthy that even in the UK where Parliament is supreme, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 provides for judicial review beyond complaints of procedural improprieties. Without amendments to the provisions discussed above, PSP opposes this Bill. PSP believes that while it is fundamentally in the interest of our national interest to ensure that key entities in critical business entities and business sectors remain under some level of domestic control and can maintain business continuity under all circumstances. We can do this without having such sweeping legal powers on the books.”
“While the proposed Bill currently provides for the designation of these entities to be publicly announced in the Gazette, it would be better for these economic areas and entities to be designated under a Schedule to the proposed Bill so that Parliament has greater oversight over the designation of these critical entities. Today, Parliament is asked to support the Bill without knowing which are the economic areas and companies that are likely to be affected. Secondly, under section 27 of the proposed Bill, critical entities will be required to seek approval for the appointment of key officers. Section 28 of the proposed Bill also allows the Minister to remove key officers in the interest of national security. PSP is very concerned about such provisions, which are very broad and could potentially be used by the Government to interfere with the business decisions of private companies or as a tool for retaliation. It is, theoretically, possible for the Government to use these powers under section 28 to remove the CEO or director of a critical entity, who has joined an opposition party, in the name of national security interest. Thirdly, PSP is concerned by the broad powers of a Police officer to enter premises without a warrant under section 49 of the proposed Bill. Can the Government explain why these broad powers are necessary under the proposed Bill, in addition to (a) the power to obtain information by written notice under section 48, of which non-compliance constitutes a criminal offence; and (b) the power of entry with a warrant under section 50?”
“Mr Speaker, the Significant Investments Review Bill seeks to protect Singapore's security interests by regulating significant investments in and control of critical entities. Under the proposed Bill, a screening regime for ownership transactions in critical business entities will be set up. This is similar to the screening regimes in other countries, such as the UK and Ireland. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) agrees that we can enhance our national security, by ensuring that key entities in critical business sectors always remain under some level of domestic control. These sectors would include defence, military supplies, telecommunications, transport and banking. We do not oppose setting up a screening regime for ownership transactions in such sensitive sectors of the economy. However, the powers granted to the Minister to designate entities as critical entities under section 17 of the proposed Bill are very broad, as any entity can be designated as such. We are particularly concerned about the following provisions. Firstly, in the interest of transparency, will the Government spell out the sensitive economic areas where entities are likely to be designated as critical entities under the proposed Bill? Will these sensitive economic areas extend to areas which are not considered sensitive in other jurisdictions, such as the media? The NSI Act in the UK, for example, has subsidiary legislation that designates 17 sensitive areas of the economy, such as AI, defence and transport, where acquisitions must be subject to government review.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for answering my question clearly that, in the past, when the Ministers have taken up international appointments, they would have also taken up appointments in their private capacity. I have two more clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister. One, is the current position taken up by Senior Minister Teo in TotalEnergies in his private capacity? Two, if, in the past, Ministers had been taking up positions in their private capacity and so, now for the President, the Cabinet is being advised by the AGC that there are some issues. I think to be a responsible Opposition, we still want to understand what are the issues that the AGC has raised? Is it pertaining to the fact that: one, that the Cabinet does not have complete control over the President's appointments and that is why we need this Bill? Or is it because there are certain appointments, just like what the WP and us are saying, where he can perform his role in his official capacity, that should be no problem. But if certain appointments require a private capacity, what are those appointments? Is the AGC's position along those lines? Can I seek the Deputy Prime Minister’s clarification, please?”
“Yes, because I would like to develop further the issue about official capacity and private capacity. I am totally in support of the WP's position, explained by Member Gerald Giam. We are in support of the official capacity if our Ministers perform the international appointments in their official capacities. But I want to make one clarification with the Deputy Prime Minister. Our Ministers have, in the past, been always taking up all these international appointments. Is it the first time, through this Bill, that we are differentiating official capacity and private capacity? I would like to raise this clarification first. 6.56 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I listen to the debate, especially the points raised by Member Christopher de Souza. I am very confused. So, I want to make one clarification. Can I make a clarification to the Deputy Prime Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we are debating amendments to the Constitution to create a framework for the President and Ministers to perform foreign and international roles in their private capacity. This Bill also appears to address, urgently, the circumstances of the President since his inauguration on 14 September 2023. President Tharman is extremely respected by and popular among Singaporeans. He has brought honour to Singapore with his international achievements. Personally, I have great respect for him, and it was my honour to have worked with him briefly in the mid-1980s when I was an Investment Officer at GIC and he was an Economist at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). So, the objections that I will raise in this speech have nothing to do with President Tharman personally or his international appointments specifically. Rather, they arise from this Bill's violation of established legal principles and principles of sound governance, which I will move on now to elaborate on.”
“Mr Speaker, can I ask the Minister whether there is any growth in the starting pay of the most recent batch of graduates, given that inflation is very high now?”
“Point of order, Sir. A point of order, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is exactly because of that, I am not asking for a revisit on the pros and cons of the Affordable Home Scheme. I am just saying that based on what the Senior Minister of State has said, does she agree that the current schemes has got these two disadvantages: one, HDB prices will continue to go up as long as land cost goes up; two, and when the Government or HDB sells the BTO flat, there will be a subsidy and this translate into HDB deficit and this deficit goes to the budget and all Singaporeans have to pay for it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is only fair that Senior Minister of State answers my question first and then I will answer her question.”
“Mr Speaker, sorry about that. What I mean is that I am trying to compare our Affordable Home Scheme with the current BTO scheme of the Government. Of course, there will be some disadvantages, some problems, some issues that we need to overcome, but I think the Affordable Home Scheme's problems can be overcome too. So, we are making a policy decision here. The current BTO scheme has led to increasing prices of the BTO, because you have to incorporate the rising land cost. As a result, it has led to rising HDB prices. Secondly, every BTO flats need to be financed by HDB and it creates a deficit which, ultimately, is paid by all the Singaporeans. So, there are two disadvantages of the current BTO scheme. Do you agree to that?”
“Mr Speaker, I have one more clarification for the Senior Minister of State. So, comparing with our Affordable Home Scheme — of course, there will be issues that we still need to discuss about the Affordable Home Scheme. But the current Government home scheme, do you agree that it has led to high HDB prices? At the same time, every BTO flat, not only the buyers pay for the land cost but all Singaporeans have to pay for the deficit?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. One, the HDB recently reported a $5.38 billion dollars deficit. A lot of this is probably due to the subsidies given to the BTO buyers because HDB paid $5.9 billion to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) at the same time in the same year. Sir, I have two questions: will this deficit $5.38 billion ultimately be paid by the Singaporean taxpayer? And two, when the Plus and Prime flats come into operations, will this deficit actually go up higher?”
“One more clarification for the Senior Minister of State. As far as I know from the statistics, currently the big users account for 55% of the demand, right? The households 45%, right? Is that statistic correct?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Prime Minister does not think that this is developing into a brawl. But we are just trying to clarify further. So, can I reply to the Acting Minister through you, that one, I did not say that the Government did not consider social factors at all. What I am saying is that, when we are debating here, maybe we are trying to push and say that, let us consider the social factors a bit more? So, as a result, I think the Acting Minister has also misunderstood me. What I mean to say is that for water, for example, the water demand is increasing very fast but it is because of the big user. So, recently, when we announced the 18% increase in water price, if we have another category for the bigger user, then maybe the lowest 40 cubic metres do not need to have price increases. Push the price increase to the next category. So, is that possible or not? Of course, it will affect the competitiveness of the water-intensive businesses in Singapore but it is unfair for Singaporeans, right? When the big users are the ones who are increasing the demand and we have to put a lot of investment into water supply and then the costs are borne by the smaller user because of the price increase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think one of the basic approaches adopted by the Government is still to make sure that public services are profitable. I will stand by that. So, if they want to ensure that the public services are profitable, then it is profit-seeking. So, if there are certain industries like the bus services that you cannot make a profit yet, then it might be because that you are still trying out the model. Because this contracting is a new model, when compared to other things. But whereas in the established areas, like water and COE, you definitely have —”
“— make ourselves more competitive. So, we want to know whether if we alter the way the water is priced, the Leader of Opposition talked about having another category under 40 cubic metres. Is it possible to have another category, between 40 cubic metres and 80 cubic metres, so that we differentiate and we push the cost more to the big users? Because right now, you look at the water prices we are doing and whenever we need to increase our water supply, we need investments. And so, as a result, the burden of the investments comes back to the average Singaporeans. Do you agree with that? That is one point. Second point about the COE, it is the same thing. Cars are a scarce resource. So, we have to allocate that. But if we use the market system, the Singaporeans will be squeezed out of the market very soon, the average Singaporean. So, as a result, do you agree that we ought to see how we allocate this scarce supply of cars, not just by the market price but by the Government coming in? Maybe one of the solutions, do you agree, is to adjust the allocation to, like what I said in my speech, those that go to Cat B, shrink it; increase the supply for Cat A and C drastically. Currently, I think it is about 50/50, right? Maybe 70/30? Will that solve the problem? "Solve the problem" meaning, will that allow average Singaporeans a better chance of having a car, even going into the future?”
“Mr Speaker, I think we have gone through a lot; we covered a lot of ground. But as I hear the debate go on, I just felt that probably it is about balance. Policymaking is about balance. So, I would like to ask the Acting Minister two questions with regard to that. I think the way the Government conducts policies today, a lot is profit-seeking and using the market model. So, I think, as the alternative parties, what we are bringing to the House is that we hear a lot of feedback about problems. So, the angle must be, besides using the market model completely, there must be more consideration for the social aspects of a lot of the policies. So, let me ask the Acting Minister two questions in relation to that. One is, for example, the water price. We know from the statistics provided by the Government that most of the increase in the water demand comes from the big users – the water-intensive industries and all that. So, maybe the Government wants to make ourselves more competitive —”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, through you, confirm with Member Sitoh Yih Pin that I did not recommend a drawdown of the reserves?”
“Four, introduce a universal health scheme for Singaporeans, essentially based on the Government-paid MediShield and CareShield premiums for Singaporeans. Fifth, introduce a minimum living wage to give Singaporean workers a minimum take-home pay of $1,800 per month. Mr Speaker, the objective of the integrated cost of living relief package is to provide a robust and substantive response to relieve the financial stress of Singaporeans, both immediate and in the long term. PSP has also estimated that it is manageable with the fiscal resources we have currently. We hope the Government will make improving the financial well-being of Singaporeans the cornerstone of our new social compact. For country. For People.”
“Of the 5Cs, the credit card is the most attainable, but the credit card has fallen into a necessity to facilitate "buy now, pay later" when cash is tight. Singaporeans are talking less about the 5Cs not because they do not want it anymore but because for many Singaporeans today, it really can only be a dream. An urgent reset of our policies is needed to address the structural issues that our economy faces. Singaporeans must have more to look forward to than the rising cost of living. Economic growth must lead to rising real incomes and better lives for everyone and not just a select few. We must help Singaporeans to improve their long-term financial well-being so that they will have the savings to withstand emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. The financial leeway will also allow Singaporeans to have the freedom to develop their potential, which will be beneficial to our economy in the long term. Over the last three years, my primary focus in this House is to speak on policies to improve the financial well-being of Singaporeans. Today, I will put all these into an integrated cost of living relief package with the following five measures. One, first and foremost, reduce GST to 7% to clearly demonstrate the Government's determination to dampen the inflationary psychology. Two, increase the immediate relief package from the current $1.1 billion to $5 billion to include financial help for the middle class and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This will also be a much-needed spending boost for the nascent post-COVID-19 recovery; Three, introduce the affordable home scheme and Millennial Apartments scheme to make HDB flats more affordable, strengthen retirement adequacy and offer more choices to young Singaporeans.”
“For MediShield and CareShield, the Government has also been accumulating large surpluses ahead of actual expenditures. If premiums can be reduced, Singaporeans will have more balances in their MediSave Accounts to earn more interest while they are young. PSP has proposed for the Government to pay for the MediShield and CareShield premiums all together and establish a universal health scheme for Singaporeans. It is not an overstatement to say that "a chicken wing for a whole chicken" approach is the main cause of social anxiety for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, at the launch of the Forward Singapore Festival, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that Singaporeans today no longer talk so much about the 5Cs. He said that Singaporeans still want a good material life, but the Singapore dream is also about finding fulfilment, meaning and purpose. PSP wholeheartedly agrees that there is more to life than material success and consumption. I have also spoken about self-fulfillment and ikigai, which is "purpose" in Japanese, in the public. But we believe that Singaporeans are no longer talking so much about the 5Cs because the structural issues in our economy and the cost of living crisis have now made the 5Cs completely unattainable for many middle-class Singaporeans even if they are frugal and work hard. Today, condominiums and cars are unaffordable on a middle-class salary. Fewer and fewer households are owning cars. Yesterday, the Acting Minister for Transport confirmed that car ownership has dropped to 33% today from 40% in 2013. Even motorcycles feel out of reach for many Singaporeans. It is well-known that country club membership fees have soared because of the influx of wealthy foreigners. Cash is tight because of inflationary pressures.”
“But this is to the detriment of the present generation who are facing the heavy and unnecessary burden of higher taxation and rising cost of living. We urgently need to review how our fiscal resources, including our Reserves, are being used before we contemplate raising taxes on the people. The Reserves and Budget should serve Singaporeans and not the other way around. More discerning Singaporeans have pointed out long ago that the PAP Government likes to give Singaporeans a chicken wing and then take back a whole chicken. Essentially, what it means is that the Government is a shrewd financial manager who gives out occasional short-term handouts but commits Singaporeans to long-term payment schemes that require them to pay out consistently over the long term. The total long-term payouts will be much larger than the short-term handouts. Take public housing as an example. For every Build-To-Order (BTO) flat sold, the buyer will have to pay hundreds of thousands for the land cost and have to take up a housing loan to service it. If that loan is serviced for 25 years, the buyer's CPF balance could be reduced by as much as half a million dollars. In exchange, the Government will sweeten the deal by giving out CPF Housing Grants of $30,000 to $60,000 through HDB. It begs the question why can the Government not waive the land cost so that Singaporeans can keep the half a million dollars in their CPF account for retirement instead? This is exactly what the PSP has proposed in the affordable home scheme, which waives land cost for owner occupiers of HDB flats. It is obvious that, in this way, Singaporeans' financial position will be significantly improved and that will yield a lot of social benefits.”
“PSP has spoken many times in this House that this Government has ample fiscal resources and, yet, it has always tried to justify increasing taxes and fees for public services whenever possible. PSP has objected many times to the increase in the GST from 7% to 9%. It is unnecessary, untimely and uncompassionate. While the working class will get GST vouchers, the middle class will have to pay an additional $1.2 billion in GST per year after the 2% GST hike and may have to pay even more taxes because of the GST vouchers. The increase in GST is unnecessary because our fiscal position is strong as there is room to use more of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for current spending, instead of tucking the bulk of it in the long-term endowment and trust funds. While we agree that public services like electricity, water, public transport and so on should be operated efficiently, the ultimate objective should be to maximise long-term social benefits and not short-term profits. When Singaporeans are faced with intense inflationary pressures at the moment, the Government could have delayed the fee increases in the public services for three to five years, for example. This is especially so when the Government is expected to reap billions of windfall revenues from inflation, Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) and COEs in fiscal year (FY) 2023, apart from the fiscal buffer we have from NIRC. The Government should price public services based on long-term considerations to provide stability to Singaporeans' livelihoods, which will increase long-term social benefits. Our fiscal resources have been hoarded away in the Reserves, supposedly for the sake of the future generation.”
“Hence, the current cost of living crisis faced by Singaporeans is not entirely due to the global supply chain disruption arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fact that Singaporeans have little savings to weather financial emergencies. The events after the pandemic have only exacerbated the situation that Singaporeans have been subject to by the Government over the recent decades. Singaporeans have been worried about the cost of living for many years because they feel that their wages have not kept up with the cost of goods and services that they need to lead a meaningful life in Singapore. CDC vouchers, GST vouchers, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates and so on can be very helpful for Singaporeans in the short term, but these handouts do not solve the fundamental structural issues that are at the heart of the rising cost of living in Singapore today. To help Singaporeans get out of this cost of living crisis, the PSP believes that we will need to nudge the Government to change its two favourite financial management approaches, namely, the "pay and pay" and "the chicken wing for a whole chicken" approaches. The Government's approaches may have served us well in the early days of nation-building when public finances were tight and wages rising fast. However, they may not be appropriate in today's context when wages are not rising as fast as the cost of living. It is especially worrying if more and more middle-class Singaporeans cannot keep up with the current standard of living. First, let us talk about "pay and pay". Many Singaporeans often jokingly refer to the People's Action Party (PAP) as a "pay and pay" party because it seems to run Singapore like a company and operates like a profit-seeker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the Motion moved by the hon Leader of the Opposition and Member Louis Chua, which calls on the Government to review its policies so as the lower cost of living pressures on Singaporeans and their families. It is especially apt to describe the ongoing inflationary pressures faced by Singaporeans as a crisis. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, when many Singaporeans are still struggling financially, the cost of almost everything in Singapore has gone up. In contrast, the Government does not seem to be too concerned about this crisis and continues to add oil to the fire. The GST hike confirmed in Budget 2022 was one of the factors that accelerated the pace of inflation as businesses took the opportunity to raise prices far more than the GST and other cost increases. Food prices have surged because NTUC FairPrice stood by instead of doing more. I still remember, in the early 1970s, I used to queue up at a community centre with my mother to buy heavily-discounted basic foodstuff and necessities supplied by NTUC. Today, NTUC FairPrice's prices are not even the lowest in the market. It is commonly known that lower prices can be found at the Sheng Siong supermarket instead. It appears that the role of NTUC and, by implication, that of the Government, has changed drastically over the last few decades. NTUC FairPrice no longer serves as the anchor of price stability. The Government, instead of being the independent referee and price stabiliser in the economy, has become a profit-seeker in direct competition with the private sector. In many sectors, the Government is the market maker and has influenced the price levels in those sectors, the most obvious and problematic one being the property market.”
“Singapore's position on all our foreign policy and domestic issues should be for Singaporeans to decide only. For country, for people.”
“We must prevent the Palestinians in Gaza from being permanently displaced to Egypt or any other nation. Even before the recent events, the living conditions in Gaza have been difficult for the Palestinians. Israel must immediately allow all humanitarian aid to be delivered into Gaza and fully restore civilian access to fuel, food, water, medical aid and other basic necessities. PSP supports Singapore's long-held position that just, enduring and comprehensive peace in the Middle East must be based on a two-state solution based on relevant UN Security Resolutions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long-standing and complex issue dating back to and beyond the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. It is also an issue that is of interest to the main communities of our society. We urge the Government to enhance education on the Israeli-Palestinian history in the future so that Singaporeans can have more accurate and complete information on the conflict. This will help to reduce the risk of Singaporeans being swayed by biased, inaccurate or one-sided emotional discourse, which we have seen on both traditional and social media platforms. We urge Singaporeans from all communities to be mindful of what we say and do regarding this issue, especially on online forums. We all have the responsibility to refrain from engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that could threaten the peace and harmony that we enjoy in Singapore. We call on all Singaporeans to report any signs of potential radicalisation to the authorities. In line with this, PSP rejects any attempts by foreign players to influence Singaporeans or dictate to Singapore what could be done in relation to this conflict.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the Motion brought to this House by hon Member Vikram Nair and also the amendments by hon Member Alex Yam today. Like many Singaporeans, the PSP is distressed and saddened by the tragic violence and loss of life in Israel and the Gaza Strip since Hamas launched its attacks in Southern Israel on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent retaliatory military actions taken by Israel. We unequivocally condemn the violence committed by both sides against innocent civilians, especially women and children. The lives of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians must be protected. We strongly support the United Nations Resolution ES-10/21 on October 28 calling for a humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip. We call for Hamas to immediately and unconditionally return all civilian hostages safely to their families and to facilitate a ceasefire and for Israel to respond favourably to such a move if it happens. We call on Israel to comply with international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. Israel must not collectively punish a captive civilian population, nearly half of which are children and teenagers under age 18, in the Gaza Strip. Israel must immediately rescind its order for Palestinian civilians, which includes gravely sick patients in hospitals, and UN staff to evacuate from northern Gaza Strip to southern Gaza Strip. More than a million Palestinians in Gaza have been internally displaced by the recent conflict. This internal displacement must not be allowed to evolve into a repeat of the Nakba in 1948, when 700,000 Palestinians were permanently displaced from their towns and villages.”
“So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to explain how adjusting the minimum Qualifying Salaries can totally negate the negative impact of Singaporeans workers having to pay CPF but EPs do not have to pay CPF.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State on the impact of the CPF contribution on the Singaporean workers vis-à-vis the EP. I have discussed or debated about this several times with the Minister and also the Senior Minister of State, over the course of the last few years in this House. And the reasons that the Minister and the Senior Minister of State have given, are the same as what he had said today – that that disadvantage for the Singaporean workers has been mitigated through adjusting the minimum Qualifying Salary. But what I would like to clarify and like to say is that one, there are two things about the minimum Qualifying Salary. One is that the Minister and the Senior Minister of State has said that the minimum Qualifying Salary will be adjusted according to the age of the EP. But that adjustment is not totally transparent to the public or to all of us. We need more information as to how they adjust that and then that would negate the negative impact on Singaporeans. Secondly, the minimum Qualifying Salary has been adjusted over the years. However, I think I would also like to point out that it is only in recent years that a minimum Qualifying Salary has been adjusted upwards many times. For the longest time, since 2000, when we opened the flood gates for foreign workers, the minimum Qualifying Salaries has actually remained at very low levels. In fact, I think until December 2020, the minimum Qualifying Salary was only $3,900. I cannot remember all —”
“While the returns each year will be much more volatile than a fixed interest rate from CPF, CPF members should be able to earn a higher return through the lifetime retirement investment scheme over 30 or 40 years. On top of this, the lifetime retirement investment scheme can help grow our local fund management industry and preventing Singaporeans from being over-invested in property. The Government had accepted the recommendation to set up the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme in 2016. However, it has still not yet been implemented. Why is this the case? The Government should not stay silent on this issue and set up the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme so that Singaporeans have the option to increase the returns on their Ordinary Account and Special Account savings by investing them in low-fee, passively managed investment products. If the Government is not prepared to allow Singaporeans to do this, then it should increase the interest rates that it pays to CPF members. This is possible because GIC returns more than 4% a year. The Government should share with Singaporeans more of the differential between what it pays Singaporeans in CPF interest and what it earns from GIC in investment returns. This will go a long way in improving the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans whose wages have been depressed by the influx of lower-wage foreign workers over the last few decades. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding what I have said, I support the Bill. For country, for people.”
“Singaporeans currently have limited options to increase the returns on their CPF savings. They can only leave the money in their accounts and earn the fixed interest rates given by the Government, or invest savings above a threshold in the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). Although the experience of the CPFIS, which is essentially a self-managed investment account is not encouraging, perhaps due to limited investor knowledge and lack of investment opportunities in the local capital markets, we should allow Singaporeans to put more of their CPF savings with professional managers. In 2016, the CPF Advisory Board had recommended that a new lifetime retirement investment scheme, which is managed by professionals, be introduced. Under this scheme, CPF members will be allowed to invest some of their CPF savings in simple-to-understand, low-fee, well-diversified life-cycle investment products. Such products will be passively managed and carefully selected by the CPF Board. The funds would most likely invest in higher-risk, higher-return assets such as equities when the CPF member is younger and lower-risk, lower-return assets such as bonds when they are closer to their retirement age. Similar funds are offered by the Australian superannuation scheme or 401K scheme in America, which some Singaporeans may already be familiar with. This will be an additional option for most CPF members which may earn higher returns on their investable CPF savings. According to statistics published by the US Department of Labor, 401K plans return about 6% to 10% per annum when we assess the rate of return over a five-year period.”
“However, we believe that, even until today, not enough has been done to mitigate the negative impacts caused by this policy, which has helped to make Singaporean workers less competitive against foreign workers and depress the wages of Singaporean workers. What can be done to mitigate these negative impacts? PSP would like to put forth two suggestions. Firstly, we need to level the playing field for Singaporean workers by imposing a $1,200 monthly levy on all EP holders immediately. We have made this call in this House before, during the Budget debates in 2021 and 2023. In March, the Minister said that I keep harping on this thing about imposing a levy. But I am going to repeat this again. This levy will take up a smaller portion of the high salaries of the true foreign talents and differentiate them from lower-wage foreign professionals who are being used as low-cost labour and depressing the wages of Singapore professionals. This way, we will be able to get the best, highest quality talent to come to Singapore from anywhere in the world. Secondly, we need to ensure that Singaporeans earn higher returns on their CPF balances to compensate for the lower wages they earn as a result of the expansion of the foreign PMET intake in the last two decades. In a written answer to my colleague Ms Hazel Poa's question in September, Minister Tan See Leng revealed that the overall average CPF interest rate, including extra interest, across the different types of CPF accounts and balances, from 2018 to 2022, is close to 4% per annum, which means it is less than 4% per annum. As CPF balances are long-term retirement funds kept with CPF Board for 30 to 40 years, there is room for the returns on CPF accounts to be higher.”
“In the mid-1990s, there were only 50,000 EP holders in Singapore, accounting for less than 3% of the labour force at that time. Today, as of June 2023, there are almost 200,000 EP holders in Singapore, accounting for close to 6% of the labour force. I am not suggesting that the exemption of EP holders from CPF contributions has been the only reason driving the increase in the number and proportion of EP holders among the workforce in Singapore. But there is no doubt that this policy does make our local professionals less competitive against foreign professionals. A company can hire a foreign professional holding an EP at a monthly salary of $5,000. Same as Singaporeans. But the employer would have to pay an extra $850 in CPF contributions for the Singaporean worker. The Singaporean's wage bill for the employer is $5,850, but the Singaporean only gets to take home $4,000. As for the EP holder, the employer's wage bill remains as $5,000 and the EP holder gets to take home the whole $5,000. It is a win-win situation for both the employer and the EP. It should be no wonder that the employers in Singapore have become more reliant on EP holders since the rules were changed almost 30 years ago. The Minister for Manpower has denied that several times in this House in response to my questioning, quoting other costs that the employers have to bear. However, the fact remains that the change of the law in 1995 has given an advantage to employers who employ foreign workers and PMETs. That advantage became a menace to Singaporean workers after the Government opened up the local job market to foreigners since the early 2000s. We are not calling for a return to the old days, where EP holders had to make CPF contributions, in line with Singaporean workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the main objectives of this Bill being debated today is to amend the CPF Act 1953, to limit CPF schemes to SCs and PRs only. This is the culmination of changes to CPF that began almost 30 years ago. Prior to August 1995, some categories of foreign workers, most notably, Employment Pass (EP) holders, had to make CPF contributions in line with the prevailing rates of Singaporeans and PRs. Similarly, their employers also had to make CPF contributions for these foreign workers. However, after 1 August 1995, all foreigners were exempted from CPF contributions. At that time, the Ministry of Labour, which is now the Ministry of Manpower, stated that the only reason for the change was to streamline the CPF rule for all foreign workers. But even in 1995, there was already concern that exempting foreign workers, especially EP holders, from CPF contributions would have negative impacts on Singaporean workers, especially the middle-ranking PMETs, because employers would benefit from lower wage cost when they employ new foreign staff. An article in The Straits Times on 15 July 1995 noted that Singaporean workers would become less competitive against foreigners if employers do not make up for all or some of the CPF forgone by the foreign worker, especially if the foreigner was here on local terms. Even the then Menteri Besar of Johor, Mr Abdul Ghani bin Othman expressed his concern that the rule change would make Singapore a more attractive place to work for Malaysians, especially those from Johor. Were these concerns without basis? We can now examine this with the benefit of the experience of the last 30 years. Since the rule change in 1995, the number of EP holders in Singapore has increased substantially.”
“Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) agrees that we need to control our vehicle population in Singapore. However, given the recent rise in the COE prices, we are concerned about whether the average Singaporeans will be squeezed out of car-owning opportunities very fast in the future. As a result of that, I would like to raise two supplementary questions to the Senior Minister of State. In the recent announced COE quota increase of 1,614 additional COEs, the Government has allocated 863 to Cat B; 546 to Cat A and 200 to Cat C. May I ask what is the reason for the Government to allocate fewer COEs to Singaporeans who are in need and more to Singaporeans who can pay? The second supplementary question is: would the Government consider scrapping the Open category altogether, because it tends to be for the bigger cars, and allocate the COEs in that category to Cat A and Cat C?”
“Sir, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. First supplementary question: I agree with the Senior Minister of State that right pricing is important. So, is it possible to reduce the water price increase for households by introducing a progressive, multi-band pricing system to replace the current two-band system? This is fairer because, as the Senior Minister of State has said, most of the future increases in water consumption will come from the larger users in the non-household sector. Second supplementary question: can the Senior Minister of State confirm that the current water pricing formula has already taken into account fully the cost of producing water from our local sources? If so, can Singaporeans expect that, barring unforeseen changes in ingredient costs, including energy, the water price will not shoot up drastically after the expiry of the Johor Water Supply Agreement in 2061?”
“Sir, yes. That is exactly what I was saying just now. I did not say our banks are complicit in this scheme. What I am saying is how our rules will play out in ensuring our system continues to be robust and more robust in the future. What the Minister has said is that — 4.41 pm”