Ong Ye Kung
Singapore
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) recently enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) dental subsidies, which are tiered by income, for common preventive and restorative procedures.”
“Healthier SG GP clinics may also refer their enrolled patients to Active Ageing Centres and Community Health Posts to fulfill their social prescriptions and for subsidised services, such as medication management.”
“Public hospitals, such as the National University Hospital, the Singapore General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, have deployed robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) systems for minimally invasive soft-tissue surgeries.”
“The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) welcomes drug producers to choose Singapore as part of their first-wave filings. As long as a pharmaceutical product is approved by at least one regulatory agency, such as China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), it would also qualify for the abridged route.”
“A decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with diabetes can be due to multiple reasons. Doctors will first investigate the underlying cause before determining whether the patient should be referred to a specialist. Some causes are reversible and cause transient reduction in renal function.”
“Information on the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) cannot be made visible on the National Electronic Health Record system as it is protected under the Mental Capacity Act. Such information may only be disclosed by the Public Guardian to specified persons upon satisfactory submission of evidence(s) required under the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,932 lines we hold for Ong Ye Kung, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 59.
“Following a Singaporean child’s birth, parents also receive up to between $14,000 and $28,000 in Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Government contributions to their Child Development Account savings, depending on their child’s birth order. These are part of the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package which also includes support for other aspects such as housing, preschool and parental leave.”
“Singaporean patients are eligible for Government subsidies of up to 80% for inpatient treatment in B2 or C wards of public hospitals, with no limit on the number of inpatient episodes. However, Government resources are limited, and for more equitable distribution, the subsidies have to be means-tested and hospitalisation stays in A or B1 wards at public hospitals, or private hospitals, are not subsidised. The same principle applies to all healthcare services, including maternity and delivery services. Nevertheless, regardless of the choice of public or private hospitals, as well as private or subsidised wards, all Singaporeans can tap on the MediSave Maternity Package (MMP) to offset hospitalisation costs for deliveries. Under the MMP, patients can claim up to the daily hospital charge limit of $550 for the first two days and $400 for the third and subsequent day of their hospitalisation episode from their MediSave. They can also claim from a separate withdrawal limit for the delivery procedure, which ranges from $750 for a normal vaginal delivery to $2,150 or more for a more complicated delivery such as caesarean birth. For instance, patients can claim up to $3,150 from their MediSave for their pre-delivery expenses and a normal vaginal delivery with a three-day hospitalisation stay. The Government also provides support for children’s healthcare needs. Singaporean newborns receive a $4,000 MediSave Grant, and there are free nationally-recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at all polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioner clinics.”
“MediShield Life extended coverage to inpatient treatment for serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications on 1 April 2019. In the one-year period between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2020, about 3,300 claims were covered by MediShield Life. The median age of these patients was 33 years old.”
“The National Public Health Laboratory (NPHL) performs viral genomic sequencing for all confirmed COVID-19 cases. The average time taken to obtain a virus whole genome sequencing (WGS) result from the time a patient's COVID-19 test is reported as positive is seven days. The turnaround time of seven days is comparable to that of Australia and the United Kingdom. A longer time may be taken for some specimens, such as if re-extraction is needed due to low viral load in the specimen. Available WGS results are routinely used to discover or confirm linkages between cases and clusters, and to investigate possible transmission chains. From 26 October 2020 to 26 June 2021, 111 unlinked cases were subsequently linked after epidemiological investigations with the aid of WGS results. All cluster investigations are supported by evidence from WGS and phylogenetic analysis when available. Singapore is one of the few countries globally, including Australia, which uses WGS to trace and investigate transmission chains. Most countries, especially those with a high number of cases, do not use WGS for contact tracing but instead use it on a subset of cases to track the proportion of genotypes and variants. As such, it is difficult to make valid comparisons with other healthcare systems overseas.”
“To address the risk of COVID-19 transmission in built environments, MOH works NEA, which has capabilities for environmental testing, including waste-water, air and surface testing. NEA has carried out air and surface sampling to detect virus genetic material for epidemiological investigations and research purposes. For enclosed spaces like rooms, viral RNA was detected after it was occupied by infected persons. But for public spaces, there was no such detection, partly due to the transient nature of human traffic. As such, air and surface environmental sampling is not used for routine surveillance. On the other hand, wastewater testing is very useful for surveillance. Wastewater testing picks up COVID-19 viral fragments that are shed in human faeces into the sewer system. It is useful and effective mainly in residential settings, such as dorms and HDB blocks. It has been successfully used for HDB blocks in recent hotspots and positive signals from wastewater testing were followed up with PCR testing for residents in the affected blocks. As Changi Airport is not a residential setting, wastewater testing is less useful. Further, any positive signals at Changi Airport could be due to travellers or visitors to the airport, in addition to staff. We, therefore, rely on Rostered Routine Testing of staff for early detection of asymptomatic cases. NEA, BCA and MOH have also issued guidelines on regular cleaning of high touch points and improved ventilation, which will complement mask wearing and safe distancing in reducing the risk of transmission in public spaces.”
“The expertise and study of airflow, ventilation and movement of droplet or airborne particles in existing buildings resides across several agencies including NEA. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has the domain knowledge on Air Conditioning and Mechanical Ventilation (ACMV) systems to complement the analysis. In new healthcare facilities, airflow simulation is carried out during the design stage. This helps to ascertain the building orientation and design of façade openings needed, including optimising natural ventilation. Compared to usual commercial, office or residential buildings, the ACMV design requirements in a hospital are more stringent in order to mitigate diseases transmission risks. The ACMV provisions depend on the planned uses of the spaces. Spaces that require special air pressure regimes and control such as isolation rooms and operating theatres, are tested on airflow direction and airflow rates as part of the building acceptance tests. Regular air pressure readings and tests are also carried out to ensure that these spaces operate as per their design and meet the required performance standards. MOH will continue to work with the public hospitals and other healthcare facilities to review and implement measures to enhance the ventilation of existing facilities and the design of future facilities.”
“The Primary Care Networks, or PCNs, launched in January 2018, are self-organised groupings of GPs coming together to share resources such as coordinators and nurse counsellors. By doing so, they provide core ancillary services important for chronic disease management, such as diabetic eye and foot screening and nurse counselling. As of May 2021, 10 primary care networks (PCNs) have been set up, involving over 600 clinics1 and 875 General Practitioners (GPs). This accounts for more than 50% of Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) GP clinics and meets our initial enrolment target. Two years after their establishment, we have observed improvements in adherence rates to recommended chronic disease care components. In 2019, 34% of diabetic patients being cared for at PCNs had completed their annual foot screening and 50% had gone for their annual eye screening2, up from 28% and 47% in 2018, respectively. We also found that existing diabetic patients had a better adherence rate compared to new PCN patients3, suggesting that patients who continue care with their PCN clinics receive more regular recommended screenings. We are encouraged by the early results and will work with PCNs to ensure that their patients’ chronic conditions are well-controlled.”
“This question has been addressed by written answer to Question Nos 26 to 32, taken on 5 July 2021. [Please refer to "Extension of COVID-19 Vaccination to More Groups of Singaporeans", Official Report, 5 July 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 31, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“Of all times, this is the worst time – in the middle of a crippling pandemic – to talk about turning inwards, to reject FTAs and to reject globalisation. I say we should emerge from COVID-19 announcing to the world that Singapore continues to be that shining jewel in Southeast Asia: the largest transshipment port in the world; the special Changi experience; the financial services hub and IT capital; a hub for manufacturing, hospitality, meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions (MICE), and so on. Here, the world converges. You can experience the richness of many cultures and also the uniquely Singapore character. Singaporeans will benefit immensely from this because of the opportunities it brings and of how the international linkages and relationships cement our position in the world. Most importantly, we will be more united. We must be more united than ever. Every one of us know that because we all did our part – whether it is getting vaccinated, undergoing regular testing, observing safe management measures, helping others in need, taking care of patients – all of us did our part. We stayed united. Unity is what helped us conquer and overcome this pandemic. [Applause.]”
“When we explained how an FTA works and how Chapter 9 works, it is a statement of fact. This is how it works. It is not a matter of your opinion or your perspective. The logical thing for PSP to do, I felt, is to withdraw their allegations. Then, we can discuss employment policies, how we can better protect, educate, train our workers. These are very legitimate questions. But PSP did not do the logical thing. I could not hear a definitive position from Mr Leong Mun Wai or Ms Hazel Poa. They waffled a bit and then I think what I heard was they cannot conclude either way now whether CECA is better or worse for our workers. But if you cannot conclude either way, then the honourable thing is to also withdraw the allegations while you figure out which way you want to lean. But I do not think what we saw was logical or honourable. A successful FTA strategy is not just about negotiating skills. Those are important but, fundamentally, it requires us to be broad-minded and able to cast our sights far and wide to the whole world and work with like-minded partners out there. That is why COVID-19 is such an existential crisis for us. It has forced us to close our borders. But I am confident that once we get the great majority of our population vaccinated and control the pandemic, we can re-open the borders progressively again. What I am worried about is, even when our borders are re-opened, what about our hearts and our minds? Will they be re-opened? If, because of COVID-19 or during the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-foreigner sentiments and xenophobia creep into our collective psyche, then even if our borders are open, our hearts and minds are not and will remain closed. Then, we will not recover from COVID-19. Then, we will truly have long COVID-19.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will answer the question from the Leader of the Opposition and then seek to conclude this debate. I take to heart what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that with information, we can quell such falsehoods much earlier. We work in a bureaucracy. Some data is classified secret, confidential and so on. So, we are not at liberty to always disclose them. But what you say is true. Some information, it is better for it to come out early and then we can move on. Especially, as you said, when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia, it is much better to quell it early. I take comfort that based on what you have said, I think you do agree that FTAs and CECA are fundamental to our survival. I hope you heard our explanation and are convinced that CECA's Chapter 9 does not allow an unfettered inflow of Indian professionals. If you disagree and I misrepresented you, please jump up and correct me. I do not think you will. The Deputy Prime Minister and myself are former trade negotiators, fighting in the trenches with our fellow teammates, which is why I think we both felt compelled to say something today. Negotiating an FTA requires a lot of dedication and hard work. It takes a toll on the family because you are out of the country all the time. Our negotiators are up against very formidable partners sometimes. Our job is to advance Singapore's interests while protecting our areas of sensitivities. But we work hard at it, nevertheless, because we know it makes a huge difference to Singapore. It benefits industries and companies, creates jobs for our people, secures our place in the world. This is where we are coming from. So, I felt sad, somewhat, that PSP did not withdraw their allegations.”
“I think Mr Leong is waffling. Yes, no, yes, no; it is quite hard to catch. I take it that you are not withdrawing your allegation and so be it. And I think at least we got you to say FTAs and CECA are fundamental to our survival. But if you continue to allege, notwithstanding all our explanations, I think there is no choice, we have to leave it as such. It is regrettable because generations of FTA negotiators worked very hard to make sure our interests are all protected. This is not a backdoor. This is not an avenue for any professionals from any country to enter Singapore with a free hand and unfettered. But I take it that this is PSP's position, notwithstanding and after hearing all our explanation. This is most regrettable but we will have to accept how they feel.”
“And it will also mean, naturally, that PSP will take back their allegations that CECA has led to an unfettered flow of Indian professionals into Singapore.”
“I thank Mr Leong for that. I will just summarise that yes, PSP now agrees that FTAs are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and that includes CECA. So, at least, that is common ground that we have established. I think that is useful and I thank Mr Leong for that. And, second, the PSP now agrees movement of natural persons, Chapter 9, is not used as a chip and we are not giving away our rights for immigration. There is no free flow of Indian professionals into Singapore. If I hear him right, I think he is confirming that. He is not sure about the overall balance of the Free Trade Agreement. I think we will leave it there for our debate later on. But I think these two, I will say, form quite good common ground, but it will also mean —”
“I think, Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that we really need to move on. And to move on, can I go back to my two questions for the two hon Members from PSP? One, do they not agree FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival? Yes or no? Two, CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore and this is a falsehood and a gross misunderstanding of the agreement. If they agree, I think we can have a meaningful debate when they table the Motion.”
“So, after all the explanation and you still come to that conclusion, then I say this: number one, PSP you are against globalisation, you are against FTAs, even though I have gone to great lengths to explain that this is the bedrock of Singapore's economic survival; number two, you are really not taking back the falsehoods and the allegations. I do not think you are taking it back. You do feel that the FTA, that CECA, despite our explanation, let in Indian professionals freely into Singapore. I think those are your positions. Please prove me wrong, but after hearing you, I am afraid these are your positions.”
“You need to adjust your position, hence, you review. And this process will continue and we will debate in this House on the pros and cons of prevailing and new policies. You cannot say because we implemented something new now to respond to the situation, therefore, we have failed. Why did you not do it five years ago? It does not work like that. That is not policy-making. That is not how this House works. If it were so, then, for every Bill that is tabled in this House, we have failed, because we should have tabled this Bill five years ago. It does not make sense. I will go back to the first three questions that the Member posed to me, but actually I posed to him first. [Laughter.] Ms Hazel Poa made a point, if I heard correctly, she said, "We are not against FTAs, we support the FTAs". I thought we started to have some common ground. Then, she asked me about Chapter 9. She is not a trade negotiator, so, I think those are fair questions. I have been a trade negotiator for many years, I explained how the chapter ought to be read. And when she asked that, I hope it is because she might have read the chapter wrongly to think that Singapore shall allow professionals from 127 categories to enter, no questions asked. After my explanation, I was hoping that she would come to the conclusion that they might have interpreted the chapter wrongly but after hearing Mr Leong Mun Wai speak, I think my assumptions are all wrong. I had two questions for the Members and was hoping to hear "yes" to both. But after hearing Mr Leong, although he said he is not against FTAs, but he then went on to say that, "you use movement of natural persons as a bargaining chip and sell away our rights for immigration". I already explained that is untrue.”
“It is a long list of questions which I am not sure would help us bring the discussion forward. Let me take questions four to eight and then one to three. Four to eight is for MOM but I think let us not prolong this because, as Mr Speaker has noticed, many of the questions were actually addressed in our speeches. But if you do not accept what we say, there is very little room for us to further explain. The long and short is, we have been extremely successful, as I have explained in my Ministerial Statement, in growing the Singapore economy, creating this multitude of jobs. I gave examples of our port, airport, financial services, ICT, manufacturing, you name it, we are a hub of all hubs. All these would not have been possible if we have not ridden on the wave of globalisation, welcomed foreign talent and given our own people very good training and education to rise up and take the positions. I mentioned that our only problem is there is not enough of us. Investors come here, they want to hire Singaporeans. They know our education system is solid and we have such a wonderful reputation around the world, something that, as Singaporeans, we should be proud of. The education system is a bit stressful still, but we should be very proud of that. The problem is, there is still not enough of us. There are some questions, and we have given figures, so I do not think I would answer those. He mentioned a whole series of procedural policy, how come the Fair Consideration Framework came in so late, why is the salary bar for entry raised only later. MOM's successive Manpower Ministers have been reviewing policies all the while. Policies are never static. Old policies worked for a period of time. Then, when China and India grew, you get a different influx of workers.”
“Second, Singaporeans want to know that they will be given fair treatment at the workplace. It is entirely justified. We have rules to achieve such fairness and we will continually review these rules and framework, and how they are implemented to ensure that fairness is assured. This is what the Government, on its part, has done in the spirit of trying to achieve some common ground as we go into the debate. So, may I ask PSP, our two hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from PSP, after hearing all the explanations from Dr Tan and I, will you agree to the following? First, the FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and our ability to earn a living and we should not shake this bedrock for political purposes. Second, CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore. This is a gross misunderstanding of the agreement and FTAs in general. Nor is CECA the cause of the challenges faced by our PMEs. We must put a stop to the spreading of the falsehoods. If you agree to this, I think we have a good chance to have some common ground that when we come into the House again for a debate on the Motion, we can have a meaningful and constructive debate. If I may seek the clarifications of our two Members from PSP, please.”
“First of all, common ground must be, let us put aside the falsehoods. Therefore, I clarified which are the falsehoods and let us put them aside. Do not bring them into the Motion. What are the falsehoods? First, CECA does not allow a free flow of intra-corporate transferees to Singapore. Most companies prefer to apply for EPs than to use the intra-corporate transferee route, which is actually more cumbersome. Hence, I mentioned, as of 2020, there were only 500 intra-corporate transferees from India, in Singapore. Second falsehood: CECA also does not give Indian nationals from 127 professions a free hand to come to Singapore to live and work. CECA allows them to apply for EPs. It does not oblige Singapore to approve the applications. Approval is subject to them meeting our criteria. Immigration measures are carved out from the agreement, like for all FTAs. In the spirit of seeking common ground, we come to this House and we recognise that globalisation is a difficult thing. There are lots of pros but there are also cons. In the case of Singapore, globalisation has allowed us to grow and to create a lot of good jobs and has benefited many Singaporeans. If we had not done that, today, we will be having a very different kind of debate, of massive unemployment, of stagnating wages, of graduates not being able to find jobs. But we also recognise there are downsides. There are two social downsides, other than the increased competition. First, while foreign EP holders have come in to help us sustain our growth and though the growth in local PMEs outnumber that of foreign EP holders, the presence of foreign EP holders has nevertheless created more competition, discomfort and social issues. We must manage this.”
“We try to provide as much as we can, but I think there is a limit to what we can do. Ms Hazel Poa also asked about Chapter 9 of CECA. As a trade negotiator, we always look out for the word "shall". When you see "shall", it means you must do something. If you do not do it, you are in breach of the agreement. So, what is the "shall" here? You "shall grant temporary entry and stay up to one year for the duration of the contract." That is what we agreed to. That means if we approve, if you meet our work pass conditions, we shall grant you one year of admission. I think that is very reasonable. Imagine if you apply for something to the government, and then they tell you, "I approve but we do not know for how long"; tomorrow, revoke it. It cannot be. It is not market-friendly at all. Remember, the ordering of the clauses matter as well. I was mentioning page one. I printed a copy and I highlighted the second and third paragraphs, the carve-outs. Carve-outs come at the beginning. You read this Chapter, you know that this Chapter does not apply to immigration measures. Government policies on immigration and on the granting of work passes, permanent residency and citizenship are not covered in this Chapter. Then it goes on to say what the parties must then do. So, later on in the Chapter, it says that you "shall" grant one year of approval should you approve. That is how you read the agreement. I hope I have answered all of Ms Hazel Poa's questions. But I do have some questions too for PSP. If I may ask these. I tried to correct the falsehoods of CECA because the whole purpose of this Statement is that I know PSP is preparing for a Motion debate. But I am also hoping that we all go into the debate with some common ground.”
“" As Members of the House and also members of the public, through our handphones, we would also have received many other unattributable divisive messages coming through our feeds and chat messages. And I think these quotes and all these messages you receive, if you are Singaporean, especially one facing challenges at the workplace, feeling insecure, you are bound to feel upset and angry. You are bound to feel, "I do not want to welcome foreign PMEs". You will grow suspicious of them, even reject them. And that will be a natural reaction because the messages feed on our worries and our fears. We have seen how this has turned out in so many other countries, how the extreme right, nativist, populist parties have grown in strength, just by tapping into that fear and insecurity because of globalisation. It is there. But these far-right or nativist parties, they have been growing stronger in many places around the world and created divisions in societies. Sometimes, they have replaced the governments who take a more moderate policy. I really hope that it does not happen here because if it happens in Singapore, as it happened elsewhere, our policies, our politics would have gone disastrously wrong. Ms Hazel Poa said that I promised to give all the data they requested. We tried. We tried our best. But as Dr Tan See Leng explained, no country release data to that level of granularity. But if I may just go back to my speech, what I said is, "Dr Tan will provide more detailed answers to the specific questions, including providing the data which will be useful for our subsequent debate and putting that data in context". I did not promise that all the data will be tabulated and provided, and Dr Tan explained why.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me try to answer the hon Member's four questions. I hope I got them all correct. Proof of the allegations of PSP: On 3 August 2019, Dr Tan Cheng Bock – I think he was then Secretary General of PSP – stated on The Online Citizen Asia Facebook page, I quote, "PSP will call for a review of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, known as CECA. This agreement, you must understand, was negotiated by our current Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and signed in 2005. Amongst the terms of CECA, it allowed the free movement of professionals in 127 sectors to enter and work in Singapore." On 7 July 2020, Dr Tan, in an interview with Mothership said, I quote, "CECA is an agreement between Singapore and India to bring in, to allow, I think, 127 categories of professionals to come to Singapore and be given that free hand actually, practically free hand, to come and work here." On 31 August 2020, Mr Francis Yuen, on the PSP Facebook page and website, he urged the Government to release more data on the matter, which is fair enough. But then went on to state that the Government, I quote, "could not share the next level of details, including the number of Indian nationals converted to PR and those who subsequently gotten citizenships within the eight years under the intra-corporate transferee provision of the agreement." And then that starts to suggest that they come in and then become PRs and citizens as well. Most recently, on 22 June 2021, in a Facebook post, Mr Leong Mun Wai said, "the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign PMEs and Free Trade Agreements, in particular, the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India.”
“Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No 44, I beg to move, "That the two Ministerial Statements made by me and the Minister for Manpower on Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower be considered by Parliament." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“When they are here, we invite them to fit into our society, respect our social habits and norms, and appreciate our multi-cultural society, join us at the hawker centres, try durians, try some sambal belacan, speak a few phrases of Singlish. When Singaporeans go overseas to live and work – and about 200,000 of us do – we expect the same of ourselves and hope that we also receive hospitable welcomes from our foreign hosts. I decided to make this Statement today, so that we can approach the debate on PSP's subsequent Motion with the right perspective and motivation. This House should continue to debate robustly the pros and cons of various policies to help Singapore navigate the balance between global and local. But we must not inadvertently shake the bedrock that has enabled Singapore to succeed. We cannot survive, we cannot earn a living without being connected to the world, without being welcoming to the world, without the House unanimously supporting our FTA strategy. And we must always be a big-hearted people, even while we grapple with the significant challenges of globalisation to forge the best path forward for Singapore. [Applause.]”
“But we need to be careful that these valid concerns are not exploited by political groups and, intentionally or not, end up sowing division, stoking fear and fanning hatred. As representatives of the people, we all have a responsibility to realise that our words and deeds can shape public opinion and the direction of our political discourse. That is why when Mr Leong Mun Wai said in this House, some months ago, that the naturalised Singaporean CEO of DBS was not "homegrown" and deemed this a failure, Minister Iswaran responded with a word of caution. I agree with Minister Iswaran and feel that Members of the House should be very careful about what we say on such matters, if we are not to give credence to very negative, even ugly, minority views. That is also why we appreciate the Leader of the Opposition standing up to say that when it comes to racism and xenophobia, we have to all reject them and there can be no "ifs and buts" about it. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, let me remind Members that the House has invoked Standing Order No 44, so that the Members from PSP can give a full response after Dr Tan See Leng's speech. But even if Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa choose not to, I will be happy to clarify questions from Members. The People's Action Party (PAP) will always fight for the welfare of Singaporeans. We have done so for more than 60 years now: kept our country safe, brought jobs to Singaporeans, built up our infrastructure and taken care of the welfare of all. As a city state connected to the world, we want to welcome diverse talent from all over the world.”
“(In English): I will switch back to English to conclude my speech. As I explained earlier, our FTA strategy has benefited Singaporeans and Singapore. So, it is disappointing that FTAs are now a target of political attacks. But, perhaps, I should not be surprised, as this has happened in many countries. Such debate goes beyond FTAs. The question of global versus local has emerged as the new dominant political divide in democracies around the world. In the US, labour unions and various industry lobbies are against free trade. The Trump Administration pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) within a week of taking office, even though the US was the architect of the TPP agreement. In the UK, Brexit was the culmination of a bitter political contest between those who wanted to be part of the European Union and those who wanted out. In France, the next Presidential election is likely to be a face-off between the incumbent President Macron and the far-right nationalist candidate. These political divides arose because of globalisation. While globalisation presents opportunities and creates jobs, it also brings about greater competition, the displacement of industries and jobs, and inflow of immigrants. These consequences go beyond the economic sphere and often strike at the heart of a nation and a community's sense of identity and security. This is the most unsettling change, causing people to become unsure if they are on the whole better off with globalisation. Such concerns are genuine and deserve serious and proper attention. We are a small country and an unrestricted flow of workers from a large country can change the lived experience of Singaporeans, alter the character of our society and even overwhelm us.”
“Option A, strong competition but many jobs; or option B, less competition but few jobs. We want to avoid both extremes. What we need is to strike a balance. We cannot over-compensate in any direction. To ensure that our people continue to have enough good jobs, some competition is unavoidable. If someone claims that he can give you an economic model that creates many jobs but no competition, he is definitely bragging and selling you snake oil. Another challenge that we face is that we are now growing our digital economy and our need for tech talent has grown. Today, China and India are two of the largest global suppliers of tech talent. Many Chinese talent tend to work in China because they have many unicorn enterprises and significant domestic demand. India’s talent have continued to look outwards. Therefore, there are relatively more Indian digital and tech talent in Singapore. This is a phenomenon that we have to face. The Government is working together with industry players to explore adopting offshore outsourcing solutions. However, this must be done carefully to avoid losing important foreign investments altogether. We must continue to discuss how to solve the problem, safeguard job opportunities and provide a level playing field for Singaporeans. Please do not listen to misinformation and reject FTAs and CECA. These will erode the foundation of Singapore’s open economy. We note that many countries in the world are now facing the issue of xenophobia. We must not let this take root in Singapore. We have to try our best to address the concerns of our people and resolve these problems for Singaporeans. The Government is determined to do that. However, we need the cooperation of Singaporeans to defend the foundation of our prosperity together.”
“Also, under the FTA provisions, the Singapore Government has obligations to provide some protection to their investments. Third, why is PSP’s claim incorrect? That is because they have distorted the intent of the FTAs and our FTA negotiation team. They have wronged us. They said that CECA has allowed 127 categories of professionals from India to enter, live and work in Singapore freely. This claim is ridiculous. The listing of 127 professions serves as a point of reference for relevant parties. Professionals working in these categories can apply to work in Singapore but it does not mean that the applications will be automatically approved. These are two different things. Ultimately, the applicant must still meet the qualifying criteria for work passes in Singapore; only then can they get an Employment Pass to work here. In all our FTAs, our immigration and foreign talent policies remain unchanged. We retain full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens. Fourth, where do the pressures that Singaporean PMEs face come from? Simply put, globalisation brings about greater competition. On one hand, we must remain open to create opportunities for our people. On the other hand, we must manage the competition it brings for our industries and people. However, competition between foreign and local PMEs is not a zero-sum game. A reduction in the number of foreign PMEs in Singapore does not necessarily translate into more jobs for our local people. Instead, only by combining local and foreign expertise, can we attract more foreign investments and create more good job opportunities. As a small country that relies on the global economy, we face the following choices.”
“Their claims are incorrect and have distorted the facts. If anti-foreigner sentiments creep into Singaporeans’ psyche, the livelihoods of Singaporeans, the prosperity of the nation and the happiness of our next generation will be at risk. Before joining politics, I was a civil servant and participated in negotiating FTAs. Therefore, I have the responsibility to correct all these baseless allegations. I would like to clarify four points. First, what is the pillar of Singapore's economy? We are a small country lacking in natural resources. The key to our economic success lies in whether we have a global view and whether we can leverage globalisation to attract foreign investments and expand into international markets to make up for our lack of natural resources and our small size. Only by doing so can our people live in peace and happiness, and can young Singaporeans pursue their dreams. Second, what is the intent of signing FTAs with various countries? Through negotiations, we are able to get tariff exemptions from our partner countries. This will help promote our exports and is especially important to our SMEs because the domestic market is too small. FTAs will help our SMEs venture into international markets and grow stronger. We have signed 26 FTAs with various countries in the world. These include ASEAN, China, the US, the European Union, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. These are our major markets and also our important free trade partners. FTAs also help us to attract businesses and investors. EDB often says that our FTA network is a major selling point to persuade MNCs when they decide whether to invest in Singapore. When investors come to Singapore, our FTAs can help them enter various major markets in the world.”
“I have explained the underlying reasons for the difficulties faced by our PMEs, so that we know what it means for us in terms of public policy choices and how we can most effectively address the challenges. If we mistakenly blame FTAs and CECA for these problems, our responses would be disastrously wrong and would make our problems worse. Mr Speaker, let me say something in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government deeply understands the pressures faced by local PMEs in the workplace. These include concerns about being displaced by foreign PMEs. Some companies have employed more foreigners and this has made Singaporean employees uncomfortable. The Government has received feedback from many members of the public and Members of Parliament on these issues. We take these concerns seriously and have already taken action to address them. For example, we have raised the salary bar for foreign PMEs to tighten the inflow of foreigners. We have also stepped up enforcement, investigation and punishment against employers who discriminate against locals. In order to prescribe the right solution, we have to first identify the root cause of the problem. However, over the past year, before identifying the truth of the matter, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has laid the blame squarely on the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) as the main culprit for the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, displacing Singaporeans from their jobs. PSP also claimed that all the FTAs that we have signed have harmed Singapore's economy and the interests of Singaporeans. They have unfortunately turned FTAs into political scapegoats to discredit the policies of the Government.”
“So, when Mr Leong Mun Wai said in his Facebook post that we need to recoup a few tens of thousands of jobs from foreign work pass holders, he may not know that we have already done so. This always happens in a downturn. The second challenge is the profile of foreign PMEs. They are concentrated in certain sectors and from certain countries of origin. Indeed, as our digital economy and our needs for tech talent grew, more PMEs from India came into Singapore through our EP framework. And when that concentration happens in areas, such as Changi Business Park, some may feel that we have lost a part of Singapore. Members of the House have raised this concern. We are taking this seriously and studying what we can do to lessen the problem. I hasten to add that dealing with excessive concentration is not a straightforward matter of chopping up the operations of a company here. We do not want to unintentionally cause the whole investment to move elsewhere. This will hurt even more Singaporeans. And this is part of the careful balancing that I talked about earlier. Third, at the company level, there may be unfair hiring practices, with department heads preferring to hire foreign PMEs, or even foreign PMEs from certain countries. This is not right. Whatever system we set up, there will always be some abuses. We must tackle the abuses when they occur as swiftly as possible, while continuing to adopt sensible economic policies that are good for Singapore and Singaporeans. MOM takes a strong stance against such discriminatory practices and, together with our tripartite partners, has been actively enforcing against errant employers. The Minister for Manpower will speak on this further.”
“That is the way to advance the interest of Singaporeans; not swing to any extreme position, but strike that careful balance and then adjust if we find that that balance is off. But if someone promises you many more jobs with no competition from foreigners, he is selling you snake oil. It is not possible. It cannot be on any government’s policy menu. I should point out that besides complementing our local workforce to create more opportunities, foreign PMEs also help cushion the impact on the local workforce when times are bad. Because during a downturn, foreigners bear the brunt of job losses. During COVID-19, for the 12 months to April 2021, the number of Employment Pass holders dropped by about 21,600, and S Pass holders fell by about 26,800. Altogether, about 50,000 over the 12 months. On the other hand, local employment has been stable. The unemployment rate for local PMEs in June 2020 was at 2.9%. This is from the labour market survey, so, it comes out only once a year during June and this is immediately after the circuit breaker. Resident unemployment rate in September 2020 was 4.8%; in May 2021, 3.8%. It came down by one percentage point. Without the foreign buffer, when our economy ran into trouble, the situation would have been much worse. Singaporeans would have lost many more jobs. So, while the stock of EP and S Pass holders can fluctuate, Singaporeans enjoy greater security of employment, with help from various Government measures. The Jobs Support Scheme helped firms, helped enterprises keep their workers. We have a multi-Ministry National Jobs Council which came up with many initiatives to help place displaced Singaporeans into jobs, including the Jobs Growth Incentive, to encourage companies to hire local workers.”
“In any case, the total number of intra-corporate transferees from all over the world, and not just India, that have come to Singapore to work is very small. In 2020, there were only about 500 intra-corporate transferees from India in Singapore – less than 0.3% of all Employment Pass (EP) holders. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we can put a stop to all this misinformation about our FTAs in general, and CECA, in particular. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that PMEs in Singapore do face challenges. And I see at least three challenges that they are facing. First, there is more competition from foreign PMEs. Indeed, the number of EP holders has increased, from 65,000 in 2005 to 177,000 in 2020, an increase over 15 years of 112,000, or an annual growth rate of just under 7%. Over this period, however, the increase in the number of local PMEs is much higher, by over 380,000. So, 380,000 for local PMEs and 112,000 for EP holders. These numbers underline an important point: that competition between foreign and local PMEs is not a zero-sum game. In fact, the converse is often true. By combining and complementing local and foreign expertise, we can attract more investments and create many more good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans. The downside is that, with more foreign PMEs in Singapore, they can compete for jobs with locals at the company level and, at that level, there can be a zero-sum situation. So, there is a trade-off at play here. If I can put it simply: (a) many jobs, strong competition; (b) few jobs, no competition. And we need to find the right balance where there are more jobs, some competition.”
“Let me also specifically address two aspects of the Chapter on Movement of Natural Persons in CECA that has been singled out for criticism. First, the PSP pointed out that CECA listed 127 categories of professionals, hence claimed that Indian nationals in these professions can all freely come here to work for a year. This is false because, as I explained earlier, all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here. What does the listing then show? The listing shows the types of Indian professionals who may apply to work in Singapore. It does not mean that we must approve their application. It is just that you can apply. India, for its own reasons, requested for such a list, similar to what they have in their FTAs with Korea and Japan. In fact, even if they had not listed the professions, their PMEs could still submit work pass applications to work here. The list probably meant something to India because there may be countries that would not even let you apply. That is how protectionist some countries may become and India is trying to secure their interests there. This is, in fact, how other FTAs work: with or without listing of professions, nationals from our FTA partners are not precluded from submitting work pass applications, which will be evaluated based on our prevailing criteria and work pass conditions. Thus, the point being made by PSP on the list of the 127 professions is a red herring. The list does not confer any free pass to any Indian national. The second common criticism is that intra-corporate transferees from India can also freely enter Singapore to work. Based on my explanation on how the Chapter works, this is again not true. Intra-corporate transferees also have to meet our work pass qualifying criteria.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I emphasise and underline and highlight and bold, with bigger fonts, colour red, that nothing in this agreement implies Singapore must unconditionally let in PMEs from India. Contrary to PSP’s claim, our ability to impose requirements for immigration and work pass has never been in question in CECA or any other FTAs that we have signed. Instead, what then are the obligations of Chapter 9 of CECA? They are highly specific such as require "the Parties to process applications for temporary entry with some expedition, and with certain transparency", such as informing the applicants of the outcomes of their applications and not leaving them in suspense, a very reasonable thing to do and to agree to adhere to. We also have to accord a certain duration for the validity of the permits should we approve and approval must be based on them meeting our prevailing work pass conditions; also very reasonable. Such a commitment on duration is also not something unique to CECA, because similar commitments exist in other FTAs and are also found in World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, signed by 164 Members, including Singapore. Many Parties to FTAs also commit not to impose labour market tests. This is a common clause in our FTAs, including with India, Australia, China and the United States (US). It means we do not insist that companies go through onerous processes and documentation to prove that no suitable locals will take a job, before they can hire a foreigner. Companies in Singapore or any other places do not hire in this way. What they do, the common and best practice, is to interview the suitable candidates, consider them all fairly and then make a judgement on the best person. These are all market-friendly, widely adopted, reasonable obligations.”
“2: "This Chapter shall not apply to measures pertaining to citizenship, permanent residence or employment on a permanent basis." Clause 9.1.3: "Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry or temporary stay of natural persons of the other Party in its territory, including measures necessary to protect the integrity of its territory and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across its borders…" That is the first point. The second point: the obligations relating to the Movement of Natural Persons in CECA, as in all FTAs, are not broad principles with wide applications, but actually highly specific. What are these broad principles that you can find in FTAs? One broad principle is that of National Treatment. It is found in some chapters of the FTAs, such as Trade in Services or Investments. This means, I mentioned this just now, you cannot discriminate against foreign service providers and investors. Whether they are local investors or foreign investors, you treat them the same. Regulations and benefits that apply to local firms must apply evenly to foreign-owned ones. So, if immigration had not been carved out and the National Treatment principle had been incorporated into Chapter 9 of CECA, then indeed, Indian workers would have to be treated like Singaporeans, and would have had free rein to come to live and work in Singapore. That is what the PSP claims. Except that there is a strong immigration carve-out and National Treatment is not found in Chapter 9 of CECA, nor any other corresponding Chapter in the FTAs that Singapore has entered into.”
“When we have a big carve-out, with strong protection in our sensitive areas, we will say "this carve-out is strong and big enough for a jumbo jet to fly through!" In some sensitive areas, it is easy to negotiate "exceptions" or "carve-outs", because everyone agrees. One example is right of taxation by governments; another one is national security; a third one is immigration. Every country holds the view that there cannot be unfettered movement of people across borders. Every FTA partner believes that. That would create social unrest and a big public uproar. Governments must retain the ability to impose immigration and border controls, and FTAs cannot undermine that. Hence, in all FTAs and also WTO Agreement, you will find that immigration powers are strongly and prominently preserved and protected. You can find such standard clauses in the WTO Agreement, as well as in all our FTAs, including CECA. As so many falsehoods have been said about the immigration-related parts of CECA, let me set out in some detail what is really in the agreement. Immigration matters are set out in Chapter 9 of CECA, "Movement of Natural Persons". The legal text is available online, so I will only detail the salient points. One, the chapter makes it clear that Government’s ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower is not affected by the agreement. The Government retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens. This is clearly set out in two clauses. They are standard clauses commonly found in all FTAs. And they are also the second and third paragraphs of Chapter 9 of CECA, so it is hard to miss them, as you can see them on the first page. I will just read them out. Clause 9.1.”
“CECA reduces tariff barriers, which made Singapore goods more competitive in the Indian market. Partly because of that, bilateral trade between Singapore and India has grown by over 80%, from S$20 billion when CECA came into force in 2005, to S$38 billion in 2019. Similarly, Singapore’s direct investment abroad in India grew by nearly 50 times, from S$1.3 billion to S$61 billion during the same period. In 2019, 660 companies from Singapore have investments in India, almost double the number a decade ago. As these companies grow regionally, they hire more people back home. In 2019, they employed 97,000 locals. Despite these significant benefits, FTAs are controversial in many countries. As a trade negotiator, I have listened to the problems and sensitivities of many of our FTA partners. What are these sensitivities? Some countries wish to protect certain sectors, such as agriculture, that is a very common one, which Singapore does not do. We have some eggs, we have some fish but more for a bit of source diversification. We never seek to conquer the world with our eggs and our seabass. Others could not live up to, say, the transparency standards of government procurement or intellectual property disciplines. Still, others are concerned about the influences of foreign culture through industries, such as arts and entertainment. Canada, for example, is very sensitive about this area. The toughest job and the most time-consuming job of a negotiator is to identify and understand the sensitive sectors, the sensitivities of your country and then find ways to protect or address them. How do we do so? We find words that give you comfort that address these sensitivities and we call these words in our jargon "exceptions" or "carve-outs".”
“Because other countries customarily impose tariffs on thousands of items. We are already very open. We impose duties on only three alcoholic products: beer, stout and samsu. In all my years of negotiating FTAs, I do not know what samsu is, neither have I drunk it before. But these are our three tariff items. Hence, any FTA that substantially removes tariffs imposed by both parties is inherently beneficial to Singapore. FTAs also require governments to accord protection to foreign investments and ensure that regulations are imposed fairly and equally on both local and foreign firms. They also set standards on protection of intellectual property. In Singapore, we always protect foreign investments and apply our regulations fairly. This makes us attractive to foreign investors. So, it has always been in our interest to do that. Abiding to these principles and disciplines is not a problem for us at all. In fact, as more of our companies expand overseas and they create their own products, they too hope that Singapore can negotiate similar protection for them when they go overseas. The investment and intellectual property protection disciplines in FTAs are, therefore, important assurances for our companies. Newer FTAs also set certain environmental and labour standards. Not every country supports them, but Singapore believes that they reflect contemporary concerns relating to free trade and investments. Specifically, on CECA, this FTA with India benefits Singapore in many ways. Signed in 2005, it was India’s first comprehensive bilateral FTA with any country. CECA gave Singapore a strategic first-mover advantage in India, just when the continental country was taking off to be an economic powerhouse.”
“When our companies grow overseas, they become stronger. They also employ more Singaporeans here. If we accept this basic reality that Singapore needs the world to earn a living, then we would realise the fundamental importance of all our FTAs. They are a keystone of the economic super-structure that we have built. We could not have advanced the welfare of Singaporeans to the degree that we have without FTAs. We cannot take all this for granted. Recently, we fell in the 2021 IMD World Competitiveness ranking from first place to fifth place. Amongst the components evaluated, we continue to do very well in terms of Government efficiency and economic competitiveness. However, we lost ground in terms of openness towards global talent and trade. But I hope this is temporary and due to the effects of COVID-19. Overall, we are still holding our own in terms of foreign investments. In 2020, even as 45 companies ceased operating their regional or global headquarters in Singapore, over 130 companies set up such headquarters here. So, when you attack FTAs and, worse, if your attack succeeds, you are undermining the fundamentals of our existence, of the way we earn a living, of all the sectors FTAs support, and the hundreds of thousands of Singaporean jobs created in these sectors. As the attacks on FTAs, especially CECA, have been very specific, let me now spend some time to explain how FTAs work. And to prepare for this statement, I had to dig up my old negotiating notes and do quite a bit of revision and homework! Here it goes. The key disciplines of an FTA are as follows. It requires a country to remove or lower tariffs on substantially all trade between the FTA partners. This is of tremendous benefit to Singapore. Very good deal. Why?”
“I should emphasise that another big plus point for us is the quality of the Singaporean workforce. Our people are well known to be well educated, diligent, responsible, trustworthy and we get things done. We have one problem, which is that there are too few of us Singaporeans, a point which I will come back to later. On top of all these plus points, we have built a network of 26 FTAs, including with US, China, EU, ASEAN, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand; all our major markets and they are all our FTA partners. This brings me to the next topic: why FTAs, including CECA, are important to Singapore. We started our FTA strategy in the late 1990s. We thought through it carefully and executed before other countries did. It gave us a very precious early mover advantage and greatly boosted our efforts to export, attract investments and venture overseas, and created good jobs for Singaporeans. Our total trade is three times our gross domestic product (GDP). Since 2005, our total trade has nearly doubled from around S$890 billion to S$1.5 trillion. Today, when the Economic Development Board (EDB) goes out and persuades investors to come to Singapore, our network of FTAs is always a major selling point. FTAs are especially important to our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). They free them from being constrained by our small domestic market and give them access to global markets. Our SMEs are sending all kinds of Singapore-made products overseas: from canned food, barbecued pork, frozen roti prata – I heard some are exported to India – to medical devices, machines, components and chemicals. FTAs are also spurring our companies to venture abroad. Our investments overseas increased nearly five times from S$200 billion in 2005 to over S$930 billion in 2019.”
“Before COVID-19 hit us, Changi Airport was one of the busiest airports in the world – and it shall be so again – though in aviation terms, our geographical location is not quite ideal. We made it happen with a renowned Changi and SIA experience. Before COVID-19 struck, the aviation-related industry was supporting 190,000 jobs. With these good global connections to the world, we built up the manufacturing sector, about one-fifth of our GDP today. We obviously do not manufacture just for Singapore, we are too small. But we manufacture for the world. Manufacturing supports another 440,000 jobs today. Our exports also include trade in services and one growing services sector is financial services. Today, almost every major global financial services institution is in Singapore, carrying out a range of activities including new ones such as fintech and green finance. The financial services sector employs over 170,000 people. We are also becoming a centre for technology, research and development. Many global technology firms – from FAANG to BAT and many more – are in Singapore and they make Singapore their regional or global innovation centres or engineering hubs. Today, around 50,000 international companies operate out of Singapore. Seven hundred and fifty of them have made Singapore their regional headquarters. None of this would have happened without a clear strategy, implemented well. It was a long and painstaking process, part of the story of our island-nation. Clean government, rule of law, safety, you can walk on the street any time of the day, political stability, good infrastructure, high standards of education, openness to the world. All this and more come together and made us a good place to invest in and created many jobs.”
“The PSP has since made a public statement on the matter, standing by its view on FTAs and CECA. It filed various Parliamentary Questions requesting for more data and information. Today, I will talk about the following: one, what is fundamental to Singapore's ability to earn a living and survive; two, why FTAs, including CECA, advance our interest and are not the cause of the challenges faced by our workers; and three, what then are the causes of Singaporeans' concerns and how do we address them? Dr Tan will provide detailed answers to the specific questions, including providing the data which will be useful for our subsequent debate and putting that data in context. Let me start with the first question: what is fundamental to our economic survival? Simply put, we are too small to survive on our own and we need to tap into the global markets to earn a living and be self-reliant. What do we have to start with? We have no natural resources but we have one precious natural endowment and that is our geographical location. It is a lasting advantage but one which requires us to work very hard to realise and to sustain. If we succeed, it helps compensate for our lack of size. That is what we have done. By capturing the trade flows through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, PSA became the largest container transshipment port in the world. It is a unique interchange in the world, connecting East and West, Europe, Middle East, India and China. The port is central to the growth of the maritime industry, responsible for 160,000 jobs in Singapore today. In addition to our seaport, we have also grown into an aviation node.”
“The second reason to deliver this Ministerial Statement is to put in context, on behalf of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MTI, the Parliamentary Questions that have been posed to the Ministries concerning foreign PMEs, FTAs and CECA. Dr Tan See Leng will further elaborate on the answers. Taken together, Dr Tan and I will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 3 and Written Question Nos 19 to 24 from yesterday's Order Paper; and Oral Question Nos 1 to 6 and Written Question Nos 40 to 42 from today's Order Paper. A total of 18 questions. Several of the questions were filed by the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament to gather data for a subsequent debate on a Motion they intend to file. So, where we can, we will provide relevant data to equip all parties for that subsequent debate. Let me first recapitulate how we got here. As I mentioned, for months now, the PSP has alleged that FTAs and CECA have led to the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, displacing Singaporeans from their jobs and bringing about all kinds of social ills. This is a seductively simplistic argument that workers facing challenges at their workplaces can identify with and has stirred up a lot of emotions. CECA-themed websites have sprouted, filled with quite disturbing xenophobic views about Indian immigrants. Words gradually became deeds. Toxic views turned into verbal and physical assaults on Indians, including our citizens. It is sad that serious issues concerning the economic well-being of our country and workers have descended to this. That is why the Minister for Law called out such xenophobic behaviour during the May Sitting of this House and challenged the PSP to table a Motion on CECA so that the matter could receive a proper public airing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health usually does not get involved in the debate on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). But I am delivering this Ministerial Statement for two purposes. First, even before the General Election last July, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has repeatedly alleged that the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) between Singapore and India allows professionals from India "a free hand" to come and work in Singapore. In his social media post on 22 June this year, Mr Leong Mun Wai again said, "the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and free trade agreements, in particular CECA." Mr Speaker, these statements are false. They have been repeated for too long. I am a former trade negotiator at the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) when I was a civil servant. We worked closely on several FTAs. I worked with a very dedicated team, who has over two decades fought hard for the interest of Singapore, to expand the economic and political space for our small island state. And I feel I owe a duty to correct the falsehoods. Indeed, Singaporean PMEs, like PMEs in other advanced economies, are facing challenges. Many have given us their feedback and the Government has been taking steps to address their concerns. But our FTAs in general, and CECA in particular, are not the cause of the challenges our PMEs face. If anything, they are part of the solution. FTAs and CECA have been made political scapegoats to discredit the policy of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government.”
“We have increased our PCR lab test capacity from 2,900 daily tests in April 2020 to 80,000 daily tests today. On average, about 36,000 daily PCR tests are conducted in the past two months. Our reserve lab capacity enables us to mount additional tests when needed to detect and prevent spread. Around 4,000 to 5,000 Antigen Rapid Tests (ARTs) are administered daily over the past two months. We have established supply chains with major ART manufacturers to ensure quick replenishment of ART if required. Wastewater testing is another critical component of our testing strategy and has been deployed at worker dormitories, welfare and nursing homes, and HDB blocks where there have been multiple cases. Today, NEA has deployed wastewater testing at over 200 sites and can test 2,500 samples weekly.”
“Over the last six months, almost 44,000 individuals under quarantine were conveyed to a Government Quarantine Facility. Of this, close to 95% or over 41,500 individuals had been transported to the facility within 48 hours from when a Quarantine Order was served. The remaining were conveyed later due to appeals to serve their quarantine at home.”
“The MOH provides vaccination status breakdown by selected categories in our nightly press releases. As of 30 June, the total number of doses administered is 5,470,505, covering 3,365,674 individuals. And 2,104,831 individuals have received their second dose and completed the full vaccination regimen.”
“Under the MediSave500/700 scheme, the $500 and $700 MediSave withdrawal limits are sized to be sufficient for the annual bills of the majority of subsidised patients with simple and complex chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme respectively. Seniors aged 60 years old and above can withdraw up to an additional $300 yearly under Flexi-MediSave to offset their bills in the outpatient setting, including for the treatment of their chronic conditions. The withdrawal limits were recently revised for MediSave500/700 on 1 January 2021, and Flexi-MediSave on 1 June 2021. MediSave use beyond the withdrawal limits are considered on appeal, but are reserved for very exceptional grounds such as unique circumstances with the family’s financial and/or social situation. Patients who face difficulties with their bills after subsidies and MediSave may approach the medical social workers at public healthcare institutions for assistance.”