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 9 of 20.
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State then, I think the issue that Singaporeans are most interested in is – I do not know whether MOH already got conclusion on that – is how will the outpatient patients be charged under the new Healthier SG scheme.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have one question for the Senior Minister of State. Will the capitation payment include all charges that the GP will charge the patient, meaning the capitation payment will include both the consultation and the drug cost of each visit by the patient? Or is a drug cost excluded?”
“It is reasonable to charge non-subsidised patients higher prices for the better services that they receive, but not the drugs they take because they are the same. A centralised drug procurement system at the national level would do away with the need for sudden policy changes to control healthcare costs, provide certainty to Singaporeans and strengthen their retirement adequacy. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I call on the Government to make a greater effort to address the inequalities in Singapore's healthcare system. This can amplify the benefits brought about by initiatives, such as Healthier SG. For many Singaporeans, financial pressures from the high cost of living are a major cause of their poor health, including the growing problem of mental illnesses. If more is done to improve the affordability and equity of Singapore's healthcare system, we can expect an improvement in the general health of Singaporeans as well. This should be one of the national priorities as we support healthcare beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.”
“The Pioneer and Medeka Generation Fund should also increase its payout to help older Singaporeans. Since 2018, the Pioneer Generation Fund has a balance of about $7 billion but it only pays out about $400 million, or about 5% to 7% of its total assets each year. The Medeka Generation Fund has a balance of about $6 billion but it only pays out about $200 million, or about 3% to 5% of its total assets each year. My third recommendation is for the Government to centralise drug procurement across public and private medical institutions. Currently, drug procurement is centralised for Singapore's three public healthcare clusters but not for private medical institutions. Consequently, private clinics generally pay more for drugs than the public sector, which can negotiate good prices. This drives up costs across the healthcare chain. Insurance must charge higher premiums to cover higher drug prices. This will cause the national healthcare expenditure to rise unsustainably. The PSP calls on the Government to centralise drug procurement across all public and private medical institutions and distribute drugs to public and private health facilities on a not-for-profit basis. This will reduce our overall cost of drugs by maximising our bargaining power as a small nation with the big pharmaceutical companies. In the public sector, the Government should ensure that the price of drugs charged to all Singaporean patients, subsidised or non-subsidised, is at or near the cost price of drugs. The Government can provide additional subsidies to lower drug costs for subsidised patients. But drug prices should not be marked up unreasonably for non-subsidised patients to cross-subsidise the subsidised patients.”
“My second recommendation is for the Government to top up and expand the use of MediSave, increase MediFund support for needy Singaporeans and increase Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Fund support for older Singaporeans. As of 2020, MediSave Account holders have accumulated $110 billion in balances. However, only $1 billion, or less than 1%, was withdrawn for direct medical expenses that year. This is a tiny percentage and has decreased from 2015, when $905 million, or 1.2%, was withdrawn from a $76 billion balance. This does not make sense, given Singapore's ageing population and increasing demand for healthcare. Are the rules of withdrawal from the MediSave Account too restrictive? The Government has always restricted withdrawals from the MediSave Account. But, on aggregate, Singaporeans are not even fully utilising the interest they earn each year on their MediSave balances for medical expenses, let alone their principal sums. The withholding of MediSave monies for use by its owner is even more unjustifiable than the requirement to maintain a Minimum Sum balance for the Retirement Account. I, therefore, repeat my call for the MediSave withdrawal limit to be relaxed. I also echo my colleague Ms Hazel Poa's suggestion at Budget 2021 for the expansion of MediSave eligibility for outpatient treatment. For low-income Singaporeans who have below average MediSave balances and, therefore, have trouble paying medical expenses, the Government should provide more help by either topping up their MediSave Account or increasing assistance from the MediFund substantially. Currently, the MediFund only dishes out about $100 million a year, which only covers a paltry 0.4% of Singaporeans' total healthcare expenditure of about $25 billion a year.”
“Retirement adequacy for Singaporeans is a perennial issue. First, housing cost depletes most of their Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings. So, many Singaporeans must continue to work beyond their retirement age to survive without selling their HDB flats. Insurance premiums take up another chunk of their CPF savings, which could have been used for retirement. In my Budget 2021 speech, I estimated that the total MediShield and CareShield premiums paid by a family of four up to 65 years old for the parents and 25 years of age for two children will drain at least $110,000 from the parents' CPF savings, not including the loss in compound interest over the years – and that is at current premium levels. If the premium increases by 10% every five years, which is highly possible, the financial drain could be more than $250,000. In other words, if the family did not need to pay MediShield and CareShield premiums, the parents would have more than $250,000 extra CPF savings for retirement at age 65. So, I repeat my call from the 2021 Budget Debate and urge the Government to fund MediShield Life and CareShield Life premiums for all Singapore Citizens. This will increase the Government's expenditure by about $3 billion a year, but this also means the CPF balances of Singaporeans will increase correspondingly by that amount. This will allow the average Singaporean to have their MediSave balances enjoy the compounding effect of the CPF interest for a longer period and be better prepared for a medical event. Healthier MediSave balances would ultimately strengthen the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, because less CPF savings will need to be transferred to their MediSave Account.”
“I acknowledge that over the past decade, the Government has spent more on healthcare, with the introduction of schemes like the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages as well as CHAS. But the actual spending of these packages is small, relative to the needs of some Singaporeans of the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations who do not have much MediSave savings. The actual spending is also small, relative to the total assets of the Pioneer Generation Fund and the Merdeka Generation Fund. Overall, the Government has not contributed enough to cover healthcare expenditure. According to the WHO, the share of healthcare expenditure covered by our Government has increased from 33% in 2011 to 43% in 2019, but this is still much lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 75%. Singaporeans are experiencing first-world healthcare cost but receiving much less first-world financial support from the Government. Healthcare spending has more than doubled over the past two decades. It is not sustainable for Singaporeans to continue footing much of their healthcare bills as well as those of their parents and children. To reduce social inequality, the Government must do more to help Singaporeans cope with rising healthcare costs and strengthen their financial security. People do not choose to fall ill, whether they are rich or poor. But while a wealthier family can handle a medical catastrophe better, a similar catastrophe can easily wipe out the MediSave and cash savings of a low-income family even after MediShield payouts. As a result, Madam, I would like to make three recommendations to reduce the financial burden of healthcare for Singaporeans. One, the Government should pay for MediShield and CareShield Life premiums for all Singapore Citizens.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the Motion which calls on the House to support healthcare beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and the whole-of-Government effort in consistent and sustainable support of Singapore's healthcare system. PSP, once again, thanks all healthcare workers for their sacrifices and dedication to serving Singaporeans, especially during the past three years of the pandemic. We welcome the Government's move to support healthcare through the Healthier SG initiative, which shifts away from a transactional system that reactively cares for those who are already sick towards an outcome-based system aimed at preventing Singaporeans from falling ill. Hon Members Dr Tan Yia Swam, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Abdul Samad have spoken passionately about ground-up improvements involving the doctors, healthcare workers, patients and society at large. We support those improvements that they had mentioned but we also think that they can be better realised by first looking at how to reform healthcare financing and bringing healthcare costs under control. PSP defines sustainability in healthcare as providing the most effective healthcare to all Singaporeans that is affordable and equitable. The focus should not be on protecting the Government's coffers alone but on how to put in place a healthcare system that has the proper incentives to encourage healthy living and, at the same time, covers Singaporeans for all medical circumstances throughout their lives. Currently, Singaporeans shoulder much of the cost of healthcare through their MediSave savings, their children's MediSave savings, payments from MediShield Life, private insurance and cash outlay.”
“The PPC plays an important role in providing a platform for citizens to voice their concerns and grievances to the Government. It is, therefore, crucial that the PPC is seen as objective and non-partisan, and having an Opposition Member as a chairperson can help to ensure this. In the UK, there is no rule that the Petitions Committee must be chaired by an Opposition Member, but this is currently the case. In conclusion, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has, on many occasions, emphasised that the small number of Opposition MPs is far from the one-third necessary to check the PAP's Parliamentary supermajority. What we are asking for is a fair arena for all and access to data and resources. The Opposition lacks access to the resources of our excellent Civil Service. Handicapped by this lack of resources, alternative policies created by the Opposition will not have the same breadth and depth of the Government's. The PSP echoes the views of the Leader of the Opposition. I have made many suggestions that will enable us to better discharge our duties as Opposition MPs and NCMPs to Singaporeans. I urge the Government to seriously consider these suggestions. The Government must pay more attention to discussing serious alternative policies with us and spend less time deflecting and avoiding uncomfortable questions. On our part, we will continue to do our best to discharge our duties as a rational and responsible Opposition party in Parliament. This House comprises both the Government and the Opposition. If this is to be a first-class Parliament that works amicably and constructively for the good of Singapore, it must be a fair arena for all. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.”
“This also provides a platform for the Opposition to hold the Government to account, challenge its policies and decisions and propose alternative policies or solutions to issues facing the country. Two, in principle, the question and answer, and clarification time for all debates, including Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Ministerial Statements, Bills and Motions in this House should not end as long as there are new substantive questions from MPs. This would allow for debates to conclude substantively. The Speaker, obviously, would still have the discretion to end the debate if he is of the view that further questions being asked by MPs are not covering new substantive ground. The third group of recommendations is aimed at strengthening the role of the Opposition in our Parliamentary system. One, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should be chaired by an Opposition Member, with Members from all political parties represented on the Committee. The PAC's role is to scrutinise the Government's financial performance and use of public funds. As such, it is important that the PAC is seen as independent and impartial. Many Westminster parliaments ensure this by having an Opposition MP chairing the PAC. This was also the case in Singapore until 1968 when there were no more Opposition MPs in Parliament. The first PAC Chairman under a People's Action Party (PAP) Government in 1959 was AP Rajah, who was an Independent. The second was Mr Lim Huan Boon, who was from the Barisan Sosialis. As it has been over 40 years since Opposition MPs returned to this House, I believe it is timely to again embrace our Parliamentary convention of having an Opposition Member chairing the PAC. Two, the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) should also be chaired by an Opposition Member.”
“Flowing from my observations above, I have several suggestions for improvement, which fall into three major groups. The first group is aimed at better supporting MPs in carrying out their legislative duties. One, the Parliament Secretariat should be given resources to set up a research department. This department should have a Head and several full-time staffers to provide research support for MPs as they scrutinise Bills and policies. I think an appropriate annual starting budget for such a department is around $1 million. Two, the allowance to hire Legislative Assistants and Secretarial Assistants should be increased and extended to NCMPs and NMPs. It is timely for the Government to review the Legislative Assistant scheme for NCMPs and NMPs, as it had promised to do so in 1997. Three, the Government is to provide all data requested by Members in the requested format unless there are national security or financial market sensitivity considerations. The Government should not use the risk of such data being misinterpreted or being used for other purposes as justification for not releasing it. Once again, a fair arena for all. The second group of suggestions is aimed at providing MPs with more time to question the Government and to discharge their duties as legislators. One, we should introduce an “Opposition hour” during the first day of every Parliamentary Sitting to discuss subjects chosen by the Opposition. These are likely to cover current topics which have the most public interest. This is not new and is done in other Westminster parliaments, such as the UK and Canada. For example, in the UK, the Leader of the Opposition has 17 days where he can select the topics for debate. These debates cover a wide range of issues, from government policy to current events.”
“I sit on the Public Petitions Committee and the Parliamentary workload has increased across the board, commensurate with the increasing complexity of our Civil Service and our Parliamentary system. The second observation: MPs could contribute more meaningfully to debates if the Government provides Ministerial Statements and other speeches to MPs and MPs provide Ministers with drafts of their speeches beforehand. This would be a win-win situation for all as it enables MPs and Ministers to debate on the substantive issues and further the discussion, instead of having to divine whether the questions have been answered by the Ministerial Statement. The ultimate objective of the debates in this Parliament are to arrive at the best policy for Singaporeans, not to win a Parliamentary debate. In that spirit, I have provided this Adjournment Motion speech to the Speaker and the Leader of the House prior to today’s delivery. I hope this has enabled the Government to prepare a more substantive response to the issues and suggestions that I have raised in this speech. The third observation: MPs could benefit from more flexibility around time-keeping, especially when it comes to Question Time or the Committee of Supply (COS) debates. Time-keeping may be important to keep our processes efficient but I think more Parliamentary time should be provided to ensure that every Member who wants to ask a question can do so. This is especially true during the COS, where many Members have been unable to ask supplementary questions because of the guillotine time and billions of dollars of expenditure are just approved like that. Having more substantive debates on policy would go a long way to enable Singaporeans to become better-informed on public policy and make the Government more accountable.”
“Based on my personal experiences, some parliamentary processes may not be the most conducive to facilitate Members of Parliament (MPs), including those from the ruling party, to do their jobs. Allow me to quote three examples here. Firstly, MPs are supposed to scrutinise the Government and hold it to account to ensure that it is acting in the best interests of Singaporeans, be it legislation, policy or executive action. Many MPs from both sides of the House do not come from a public policy or legal background and may require assistance to do such work. However, while there is a library in the Parliament and the librarians are very helpful, there is no other research support. In place of that, elected MPs are provided a monthly allowance of $1,300 to hire a Legislative Assistant and $500 for a Secretarial Assistant to assist them. I am sure most Members would agree with me that this is meagre and is completely insufficient to hire even one full-time assistant. Obviously, the Government only wants MPs to be supported by volunteers. Furthermore, after 1997, only elected MPs are provided an allowance for the purpose of hiring a Legislative Assistant and Secretarial Assistant to support them. The Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) and Nominated MPs (NMPs) do not receive such an allowance. Then Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng’s justification for the removal of the NCMPs’ support allowances were that the duties of NCMPs were not as heavy and onerous as those of elected MPs, as only elected MPs sit on committees. Today, NCMPs have full voting rights equal to elected MPs and sit on Parliamentary committees.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise today to discuss how we can build Parliament into a fairer arena for all. During the debate on the President’s Address, there was much discussion of how Opposition parliamentarians behaved and performed in Parliament. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong openly called on the Opposition to offer a “serious alternative agenda” and noted that as Singapore develops into a mature democracy, it needs both a serious Government and a serious Opposition. The question then is whether the current Parliamentary structures and processes support the work of a serious Opposition. Since the last General Election, the Government has taken steps to recognise the Opposition in our Parliament with the appointment of Mr Pritam Singh, the hon Member for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Leader of the Workers' Party as Leader of the Opposition and the provision of some resources to assist him to discharge his duties. While the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports these moves, we think that these steps are insufficient to recognise the Opposition’s role in our political system. The Government can definitely do more to encourage a serious Opposition that is an integral part of a mature Parliamentary democracy. Both the Government and the Opposition must play their part. Ministers have discussed at length what the Government wants a serious Opposition to do. Let us also discuss what a serious Government should do to strengthen our Parliamentary system. I entered Parliament in August 2020. Since then, I have learnt a lot more about the processes and procedures of Parliament and participated in many lively and substantive debates.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to respond to the Minister's point about whether I am pinpointing foreigners crowding out the Singaporeans in the market. In this instance, about this COE, no. My question is about the equity amongst Singaporeans. The Minister mentioned that COE prices for the OMV value between Cat A and Cat B, there is a 75% difference. But actually, that may not capture the whole picture. So, anyway, we are just urging the Government to further consider so that under Cat A, the slightly lower-income Singaporeans can still afford the cheaper cars.”
“Deputy Speaker, to answer the Minister, yes, we agree to many of the things that the Minister has said. For example, we have to control car population; as a result, we require the COE system to allocate the COEs, limited supply. However, I think the Government should also be careful when prices go up too fast, there will be problems, problem from the aspect of affordability and also from the aspect of equity. So, as a result, the discussion today is actually about that, that prices have gone up too much. Like the motorcycle COE has gone up multiple times over the last two years. So, we prefer a lower price.”
“Minister, lowering is good. We will prefer to have a lower price.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. One is the whole discussion here actually is about prices going up too fast, too high and also about equity. When prices go up high, many Singaporeans will not be able to afford. So, one of the grievances that I have also heard from some residents is that the Cat A and Cat B, a lot of the expensive cars are now going down to Cat A. So, as a result, in order to ensure more equity amongst Singaporeans – the lower-income can still buy cars, the cheaper cars – will the Minister consider putting OMV as an additional criterion for classifying Cat A? That is one question. The second question is that, for the recent phenomenon we have seen in the motorcycle market, it has indicated that the Government does have some leverage on controlling the prices in the motorcycle COE market. With the recent collapse, I think it is a reflection that not enough has been done in the past. Going forward, will the Minister say that the Government will be more careful because the price of a motorcycle is very important for many of our working Singaporeans; so, to be more careful in maybe controlling the prices of the motorcycle COE?”
“So, never mind, I will rest the case. Thanks.”
“Yes, Speaker, but I would also like to make the point that the unemployment data and the overall employment figures sometimes can hide some of the other relevant information about what are the changes in the job market.”
“In that case, can I clarify that we agree to disagree? The Minister said that we cannot get into the breakdown of those numbers because he does not want to differentiate Singaporeans, naturalised Singaporeans, locals, PRs, all that. And, as a result, we cannot get to the bottom of whether Singaporeans have been displaced or not.”
“But, Speaker, just now I raised a clarification, right? So, the Minister had answered me. So, now, I ask for another clarification, that is okay, right?”
“Speaker, I do not understand what is the meaning of that.”
“In that case, can we sort of agree to disagree here, that the Minister thinks that it is because the data is so sensitive, we cannot get to the bottom —”
“Speaker, however, PSP disagrees. PSP thinks that —”
“Yes, so, the Minister has not provided enough data to prove conclusively that Singaporeans have not been displaced from the market. Can I ask that first question first?”
“Yes, yes. So, on the issue of data, can I ask the Manpower Minister, Dr Tan See Leng, that I was the one who initiated the job debate in 2021, and the purpose of initiating that debate is to really determine whether Singaporeans, overall, have been affected by the foreign talent policy or not. But until today, would the Minister agree that we do not have enough data to conclude, with certainty, that Singaporeans have not been displaced from the job market? In 2021, we raised this point that the Minister has claimed — I raise this point again that the Minister had raised the data that in the 15 years from 2005 to 2020, 380,000 professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) jobs had been created for locals, which also include the PRs. But then we took the data and we looked at it, and then we asked, but this includes all the PRs in the definition of locals, right? So, during the same 15-year period, we have 650,000 new —”
“Speaker, I would like to thank, first of all, the 4G leaders led by the Deputy Prime Minister, to have initiated this very frank discussion as to how our democracy is maturing and also what and how should be the way we work in Parliament. Unfortunately, I had been observing the proceedings at home for the last few days because of my family's medical problems; and I also thank Speaker for being so indulgent in allowing me to have my absence. First of all, I would like to say that the PSP is also very in agreement and supportive of the view that in a maturing democracy, we need both a responsive Government and also an Opposition that can put up alternative policies. However, I think what we have discussed so far in the debate is that there are two areas that we hope the Government would realise. One is, from the point of view of the PSP in the course of all my debates with the Government is: one, data is really not enough; two, which is quite obvious over the last few years from my experience in this Parliament, is the attitude of the Government towards the Opposition. And that point stands out very strongly, especially recently when the Deputy Prime Minister made the point that Opposition parties have not put up serious alternative agenda or policies. So, I would like to —”
“Speaker, can I ask the Minister one supplementary question: will the payout, the claims on the rider, affect the MediShield Life greatly?”
“PSP believes that we need to have a new set of alternative policies that will serve us better going forward. In the last Session of this Parliament, we have proposed some of those alternative policies for providing good jobs and affordable public housing to Singaporeans. As members of a responsible Opposition party, Ms Hazel Poa and I will continue to propose more alternative policies for the rest of our term as NCMPs. We hope the Government will notice our serious alternative proposals this time. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.”
“During my walkabouts, many Singaporeans have expressed to me that they are aggrieved that many naturalised Singaporean Citizens, who have arrived in Singapore comparatively recently, enjoy most of the benefits of citizenship and can gain from the resources that past generations of Singaporeans have accumulated, without having to serve National Service or even volunteer service in the SAF Volunteer Corps. Eighteen-year-old Singaporeans make immense contributions to us being masters of our own land, by serving National Service. To recognise this, the Progress Singapore Party has supported lowering the voting age to 18, since our party was founded; and I repeat this call today. This is also the stance of the Workers' Party and Ms Sylvia Lim had just reiterated that in her speech today. In addition, we must do more to prioritise Singaporeans and redistribute economic gains, so that these perceptions can be corrected and we can empower those Singaporeans who feel like second-class citizens today. While we support an open economy, with the free movement of labour and capital, such movements must be carefully controlled and calibrated. In the labour market, the interests of Singaporeans must be prioritised. In the housing market, we must ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible and that rising land prices, due to an influx of wealthy foreigners who are allowed to purchase private property, do not cascade down into the HDB resale market. PSP will continue to fight for all these during this session of Parliament. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the urgent need for a refresh of our social compact means that we must rethink and may even have to discard many of the old policies, in order to bring Singapore to greater heights.”
“As always, we expect that these policies will be robustly challenged by the Government, but, we hope that these policies will not simply be brushed off as raiding the Reserves or crashing the housing market just because they do not fit into the Government's framework for the reserves of finances or challenge the Government's "sacred cow" policies, like homeownership. I hope that the Government can refrain from such posturing, so that we can have a more productive debate in this House. Like I mentioned earlier, a fair arena for one and all. During her Address in 2020, the President said, as masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in their rights and privileges of citizenship. Last week, the President spoke about deepening Singaporeans' sense of shared identity. These two issues are interlinked. All Singaporeans should identify with the notion that we are masters of our own land and our shared identity should be grounded in the rights and privileges of citizenship. PSP welcomes foreigners to complement the Singaporean Core. But first and foremost, the PSP will do all it can to protect the position of Singaporeans, as masters of our own land. PSP understands and empathises with many Singaporeans, who feel like they are second-class citizens in Singapore today. Life is tough for many. Singaporeans feel like they are draining their resources just to stay afloat, instead of being empowered to swim towards a better life. Naturally, they feel resentment when they see an influx of wealthy new immigrants setting up family offices and driving up property and Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices.”
“Despite our very limited resources, the PSP has put up two key policy proposals to reset our housing policy – the Affordable Home Scheme and the Millennial Apartment Scheme. We have researched and thought through these policies before raising them in this House. They are rational alternatives that we believe will better achieve our desired outcomes of affordable housing and family formation, while delinking retirement adequacy from housing prices. I welcome the Government to provide statistics to substantiate their rhetoric that our alternative policies will cause a crash in the housing market. During this Session of the 14th Parliament, we will continue to scrutinise the Government's housing policies and keep a check on the Government's move to stabilise prices in the housing market. In particular, Singaporeans are anxious to know what solutions the Government has, to resolve the lease-decay problem. For a government which prides itself on efficiency and not shying away from politically difficult decisions, it is hard to understand why the Government has not announced further details for the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) or other solutions for the lease-decay problem in the past five years. We will continue to ask the questions that Singaporeans want to ask, but may not be asked by Members of the ruling party. That is our duty as a responsible and rational Opposition party. We will also continue to put up alternative housing policies that we believe will be in the interest of all Singaporeans.”
“At the end of the day, we are all doing our best for Singaporeans. And a Parliament that is a fair arena for all parties is one that will earn further respect from its people. In the last session of Parliament, the MOM has introduced many policy initiatives under the leadership of Minister Tan See Leng, such as the new workplace fairness legislation, the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) and an increase in minimum EP qualifying salaries. However, the many exemptions granted undermine the effectiveness of these policies, as the MOM is given a large discretion on how to enforce these policies. To be effective in restoring the balance in our local job market and levelling the playing field for Singaporeans, the PSP thinks that we need policies with hard targets – like the ones PSP has proposed. We hope that the Government will continue to strengthen support for the unemployed and underemployed workers and raise the wages of low-income Singaporeans at a faster rate. The PSP has proposed a minimum living wage to do this. We also look forward to contributing to the debate on the new workplace fairness law next year. We have also pushed for improvement of the financial security of Singaporeans, which is most affected by the affordability and accessibility of public housing. We had a substantive debate on this issue for some 12 hours in February, initiated by Ms Hazel Poa and me. The public housing debate is yet another example that shows the value of having Opposition Members in this House. We have reflected an issue that many Singaporeans are deeply concerned about, advanced Singaporeans' interest and aired their doubts on the Government's narrative about affordable housing in Singapore.”
“Unlike the Americans in New York or the Chinese in Shanghai, our countrymen have nowhere else to go if they cannot afford the cost of living or are displaced from their professionals, managers, executives and technician jobs. There is no hinterland for these Singaporeans to retreat to. They will have to leave Singapore and go to another country. We must treasure our citizens and cannot let this happen. That is why, over the last three years, I have continued to ask so many questions and focused so many of my speeches on our foreign manpower policy, the wage and employment situation of Singaporeans and workplace discrimination. Some of the specific policies that we have proposed in the last session of this Parliament include, an Employment Pass (EP) levy of $1,200 per month, increasing the qualifying salaries for EP and Special Pass (SP) holders in stages over three years to $10,000 and $4,500 respectively; and to implement diversity quotas that limit the total percentage of a company's workforce from any given nationality. These are rational and constructive policy alternatives to level the playing field for Singaporeans. They are not meant to close our doors to foreign talents or target any nationality or race. We have merely sought to advance the interest of our Singaporean workers and to give voice to their persistent anxieties and concerns over our immigration policy and their livelihoods. It is dangerous for the Government to misconstrue our concerns as being motivated by nativism, xenophobia and racism. In this session of Parliament, let us live up to the President's exhortation last week – for us to have constructive, respectful and responsible political debates that are based on facts and sound analysis.”
“For example, the job security of Singaporeans and the surging HDB prices. Notwithstanding that, PSP is committed to work with the Government and all political parties as one Singapore team to empower our people, renew our social compact and secure a brighter future for ourselves and our children. From my very first speech as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in this Parliament, I have raised the concerns of Singaporeans who believe that the current socioeconomic policies are not working for them. Many Singaporeans are very concerned that the benefits of job growth and economic growth are mainly accruing to the foreign workforce in Singapore rather than Singaporean workers, even though our workers are well-educated, well-skilled and hardworking. We raised the widespread anxiety experienced by Singaporeans, regarding their jobs and livelihoods, during the debate on our foreign talent policy in September 2021. Regrettably, during that debate, instead of answering our questions directly and allowing the debate to focus on the more substantial issues, the Government tried to paint the PSP as a xenophobic, nativist and even racist political party. We categorically reject such allegations. The PSP has always maintained that for Singapore to achieve greater economic success, we will always need the right foreign talent to complement a Singaporean core. We welcome the right foreign talent. However, when the quality, number and concentration of Work Pass holders affect the job security of Singaporeans, we must speak out. Singapore is a global city state.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion thanking the President for her Address. The President's Address points to the urgent need to refresh our social compact. This includes, helping Singaporeans with more job support, strengthening the social safety nets, broadening the definition of meritocracy and promoting a strong sense of shared identity, where every Singaporean feels that they have a stake in our country. These are noble aspirations which the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) strongly supports. However, to refresh or to redefine our social compact, PSP thinks that we need to, first, rethink fundamentally, some of the more important policies on jobs, public housing, education and work; and ultimately, what it means to be Singaporean. PSP has vigorously debated the Government on some of these issues, especially jobs and public housing, in the past three years. Ms Hazel Poa and I had demonstrated what PSP, as a responsible Opposition party, will do to allow the voices of Singaporeans be heard. Among many other actions, we have asked more than 300 Parliamentary Questions; tabled two full Motions on jobs and public housing; and three Adjournment Motions, questioning vaccination-differentiated measures, public expenditures on the Sports Hub and SPH Media Trust and the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. We have proposed serious alternative policies, as a responsible Opposition party does. But regrettably, the Government does not generally seem to be prepared to consider our proposals seriously. The Deputy Prime Minister's message yesterday confirms that one more time. Based on our debates with the Ministers, we believe that the policy changes advanced by the Government are inadequate to address the problems on hand.”
“No? Oh, sorry about that. I apologise to you for what I have said just now, that regarding, if the Minister did not ask the question, please do not ask the question.”
“Did you say I am trying to say something silly?”
“But just before that, you said I was "silly" just now?”
“I actually want to extend an apology to you.”
“Speaker, actually, I want to extend an apology to you.”
“Yes, just one last statement. I agree with the Minister that we should not release the names, if the case is really closed. But we should also apply the same principle – that individuals who have not even been subject to Court proceedings, why are you releasing their names? So, I want that principle to be upheld as well. Sir, that is what I am trying to say.”
“But I am saying that if these people in the KOM case have been widely publicised —”
“Speaker, that is not the principle I am asking.”
“Speaker, I think I am not going to answer that question. Because to and fro, we know what the Minister's stance is and the Government's stance is, that they are not going to release the names of the individuals. And we have talked about this —”
“Speaker, I think it is very difficult for public perception or for the public to understand; because I do not understand fully what the Minister had tried to explain about the differences between the two cases. I think he raised, basically, three areas: public interest, prejudice and having absconded. Sir, having absconded, that one we already dealt with in quite detail. On public interest, I would think that the KOM case is just as significant in terms of public interest. If not, even more than the Lee Hsien Yang case. So, is that not a condition that the KOM individuals should be disclosed? Secondly, about prejudice, the Minister also went to great length to show that there is no prejudice in the Lee Hsien Yang case. But many of us would think that there is even less likelihood of prejudice in the case of the KOM case, when the individuals have already been widely reported overseas. So, that is the doubt that every Singaporean and the public of Singapore would have, although you may, technically explain some of the legal details here and there, but the public perception is something that we have to deal with in this House. That is why I disagree with what the Minister had explained between the KOM case and the Lee Hsien Yang case.”
“Speaker, if Minister did not ask me, I suggest you do not ask me.”
“Speaker, I thought I have always been backing up what I have said so far. I explained to you what I mean by "muddying the water". I explained to you why I disagree with the inclusion of Karl Liew's example. That when Karl Liew's case came up, we have not gotten the KOM case. And by the way, I want to make one clarification. In my post, I did not mention that the six individuals are guilty, but it is from my Parliamentary statement. So, they are two different things.”
“Speaker, yes, I hope this is the last question. So, I have actually said in my post, I would not have taken issue with the disclosure of names in the Lee Hsien Yang case if names of the individuals involved in the KOM case were also disclosed. So, that is the crux of the matter that I wanted to debate in this Parliament. As a result, with regard to the Karl Liew case, I take it as normal to disclose in this case, especially when the case became so big and all that. But at that time, I did not know that the Government actually have two mouths. When it comes to the KOM case, it says "Oh no, we don't need to release the names". So, that gets me, and I wanted to clarify that in this Parliament.”