Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 36.
“Obliged, Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I refer to the notice that was released by CDC on 30 April where it said that the mandatory screening exercise would take place over three days, 4 to 7 May. This was the original timeline. The impression that was created, in my view, suggested one of urgency and criticality, but the very act which triggered the exercise, the identification of 13 cases with genetic similarities, occurred over a period of three years from January 2023 to February 2026. So, does the Senior Minister of State not agree that in future, perhaps, a longer timeline for a screening exercise, or a differentiated regime for hawkers on the one hand and residents who may have transited through those areas where there is concern about a TB outbreak, could be considered? Because that would reduce the anxiety faced by some of the hawkers, as the Senior Minister of State is aware. He was on the ground, I think, every day. In that regard, you would also, in my view, have a more accurate reflection of the urgency of the problem and what is being done to resolve it.”
“Mr Speaker, obliged if you can record our dissent, please.”
“Mr Speaker, that does not really answer the question. Was it the AGC's position that the collections hitherto were illegal?”
“Minister, I do not want to belabour the question. Was MND advised, after the review with AGC, was it the AGC's position that collections before the First Reading of the Bill were illegal?”
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions. Hence, those questions were asked not once, but they were asked repeatedly, I believe. They were not answered. Hence, we had to put that question out, even though I accept what the Minister is saying in terms of how far back it goes – like in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, we did not know that these charges went back to Independence. So, this is where we have to ask those questions – or some of them, I beg your pardon. But I note Minister's points. And I hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have also understood the arguments that have been mounted by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament.”
“Minister, do you have the number of people affected and the quantum of monies we are talking about? Does the Government have that information and is it prepared to share that information in Parliament, before we vote on the Bill?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament. Because on the Hansard, we will not have the hon Member's speech. But the Senior Minister of State has referred to her, I believe, at least once at the beginning and once in the course of his speech.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period. But can I ask the Senior of Minister, is the Ministry taking note of how many people are actually walking in vis-a-vis making scheduled appointments? I ask this in the context of a super aged society, because there is also the added problem of difficulty in making appointments for certain individuals, especially those who live alone, for example. So, over the longer term, does the Ministry have a datapoint for us to understand whether there are individuals who are making appointments or is that really going to be an extant problem that the healthcare system has to deal with and has to accept?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams? I believe, earlier, the Minister of State said that the Police does not collect that information, but I am wondering whether that was specific to the different age groups? Does the Police or the Ministry have a global figure of how much actually has been recovered? Because that may help Singaporeans understand that if you are a victim of scams, the prospect of recovering your money is actually very low.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East. I said, and I quote, "Notwithstanding the expiry of liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts with Indonesia in 2028, is the Government in touch with both Indonesia and Malaysia, which supply close to half our piped LNG", unquote. Both references to LNG are incorrect. The correct reference should be piped natural gas (PNG).”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%. So, it is very high degree in terms of hitting the KPI. But at some point we have to ask, is that a meaningful representation of what constitutes a good public health outcome? Is 100 minutes too lax or two permissive a KPI? So, I think if you have a public health dashboard, for example, with a little bit more granularity, I believe the public would have a better sense of the stressors on the healthcare system and where improvements can be made, and where changes also can be advanced in Parliament and out of Parliament to achieve better outcomes for the population at large.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you and I thank the Minister of State for the reply. My question really starts from the debate at the Committee of Supply. The Minister of State referred to the Budget Book. There are two particular key performance indicators (KPIs) there, for example. One is "the percentage of patients who wait less than or 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics". There is another one which says "the percentage of patients who waited more than or equal to 60 days for new subsidised specialist outpatient clinic appointments". My question was framed with regard to our super-aged society. The consideration that I am suggesting that MOH looks into is whether there could be a public health dashboard for Singaporeans that gives us a one-stop identifiable datapoint on what our public healthcare outcomes are looking like on a bi-weekly or monthly basis. So, these two KPIs in the Budget Book, for example, could potentially be on that dashboard. There are other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries which also have public health dashboards. My query ultimately is, how is MOH going to look at improving reporting of these public health outcomes in the context of a super-aged society and not prior to this Rubicon that we have now crossed?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Moving to the second bucket of questions. Sir, in Budget 2021, support was extended to Singaporeans who rely on vehicles for their livelihoods. This extended to taxis, taxi drivers, private hire car drivers and motorcyclists. The support rendered included road tax rebates and petrol duty rebates. Given the elevated prices of fuel, specifically diesel, now by up to 70%, what thresholds will determine the extension of similar measures today, to assist Singaporeans who rely on vehicles for their livelihoods? The second question covers a subject that was discussed in the earlier bucket of questions, and this pertains to electricity prices for the upcoming quarters. Given that it is really certain that these prices would be elevated and perhaps significantly elevated, does the Government intend to extend further support to households and businesses in anticipation of these higher electricity prices? And finally, I would like to make a point with regard to bus drivers and some small operators of transport businesses who are significantly affected by the diesel price hike and who are not included in this tranche of the Government support measures. When can these individuals expect support? Because for some of them, the situation is incredibly dire.”
“Mr Speaker, for this first part of questions, I have two clarifications, which are directed at Ministers who are dealing with questions pertaining to energy security. In a Facebook post about a week ago, the Minister-in-charge of Energy, Science and Technology warned about the possibility of fuel shortages that could not be ruled out in the medium to long term, and that Singaporeans and businesses should prepare for significant turbulence in the months to come; and the Minister also projected up to a five-year repair time for Qatar's LNG facilities. My first clarification, notwithstanding the expiry of LNG contracts with Indonesia in 2028, is the Government in touch with both Indonesia and Malaysia, which supply close to half of our piped LNG, to potentially increase supplies, and have there been any deliberations in this regard? The second question pertains to energy security more generally. Does the war in the Middle East present an opportunity to potentially bring forward Singapore's plans of acquiring more renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectricity from our neighbours and in larger quantities than had been previously planned?”
“Just two questions from me. One pertains to my cut on healthcare manpower. I also note the comments made by various officeholders about the super-aged society that we are here now. In line with this, is the Ministry looking at new indicators or data points with regard to how the healthcare system is working in this new environment? For example, we have got healthcare institution statistics, which MOH helpfully releases now, attendance at emergency medicine departments, time for admission to wards and bed occupancy rates. I think these are helpful. But could there be other indicators that also would be helpful for the public, for example, waiting times at polyclinics? And would there be other indicators that reflect on how well the healthcare system is doing, looking after, especially given the new environment that we are in? My second clarification deals with the other cut I had about the additional withdrawal limits. I take the Minister's point about MediSave and the karma of MediSave, that there will always be greater demands on it to deal with expenditures. But, of course, with the basic healthcare sum also increasing year-on-year, this would be inevitable to some extent. To that end, can I enquire whether there would be some consideration as to increasing the additional withdrawal limits through MediSave as well?”
“Second, does the Ministry plan to increase the range of publicly reportable statistics from what is currently available to waiting times at hospital emergency departments, polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics, amongst others? We should carefully track the capacity of the system to cope with the significant demands our demographic shift imposes on it. It is useful to remember that healthcare is a very unique public service. The Prime Minister identified healthcare as one of four national AI Missions. AI indeed stands to inject new productivity possibilities into healthcare at the ecosystem level. However, at the level of a Singaporean who needs healthcare, what makes healthcare, healthcare, are the people – the doctors, the nurses, the allied health workers – who look after us when we are at our lowest. In that context, the human touch and the personal connection will never be fully replaced by AI. So, if it means that our healthcare manpower in the years to come would require additional buffers, we should devote more fiscal resources towards it accordingly.”
“The assessment is that this number would be broadly adequate for the population's healthcare demands for the years to come. The intersection of a rapidly ageing population and higher demand for healthcare services will bring the adequacy of the healthcare workforce into distinct focus and any shortages or perceived shortages will be reflected most acutely in service quality, waiting times for specialist care and waiting times to see a healthcare professional, amongst others. 7.15 pm In parallel, there are real concerns and worries about the welfare of our healthcare workers, from allied health professionals to nurses and doctors, in view of heavier patient loads that are anticipated. Separately, the projected increase in healthcare manpower begs the question of how much allowance or buffer is being factored into the healthcare system, including in the event of Disease X type scenarios – a key lesson learned from the COVID-19 experience. Second, there are deep concerns that the addition of 100,000 policyholders converting their insurance coverage from the private to public healthcare sector each year may significantly strain the public healthcare system. This is a number which the Minister has said he expects to increase. First, what is the scope of the surge capacity when our healthcare system reaches the upper end of 156,000 healthcare workers? Does the surge capacity account for an additional buffer of doctors, nurses and allied health workers? If so, how much? Or is the surge capacity a case of restructuring processes to do more with less in times of surge demands? If it is the latter, for how long can the healthcare system operate at an optimum level of performance?”
“The MediSave contribution ceiling in 2015 was $48,500. Today, its equivalent – the Basic Healthcare Sum of the maximum amount in the MediSave account – is $79,000, an increase of about $30,000 in a period of about 10 years. With close to 70% of locals holding an Integrated Shield Plan (IP), there has been no increase for close to 10 years since the introduction of MediShield Life with respect to the maximum amount one could use from MediSave to service IP premiums, or what is referred to as annual withdrawal limits. With out-of-pocket expenses a consistent bugbear for many Singaporeans over the last few years, and the basic healthcare sum rising exponentially year-on-year, there is an expectation that the additional withdrawal limits that allow Central Provident Fund (CPF) members to use more of their MediSave money to service their IP premiums, are in need of a revision. It cannot be reasonably expected that this number or the amount of money that can be used should remain the same after so many years. Does the Ministry plan to review this in the immediate term? And if not, why not? Healthcare Manpower The headline of an opinion piece last month in The Straits Times expressed a major anxiety of the health system succinctly: "Singapore as a super-aged society: can its health system cope?" The author, an academic with a specialty in public health, observed what is commonplace for many Singaporeans when they visit our public hospitals and healthcare institutions – a large number of seniors in wheelchairs, visibly frail, or struggling with mobility. The Ministry has shared that the healthcare workforce is projected to grow by 20% from 129,000 in 2024 to about 156,000 in 2030.”
“Thank you, Chair. Just a few very quick clarifications and questions. First, on the matter of lower eligibility age for singles who want to purchase BTO flats. I believe that is what the Minister shared MND was looking into, but please correct me if I am wrong. At the same time, I heard the Minister mention earlier that the median application rate for singles is still high, but he did not give a number. However, I believe he gave a number – 2.6 times for first- and second-timers. So, I appreciate if the Minister could share what the median application rate currently for singles is. At the same time, in view of the review with regard to the lower eligibility age for singles, because it is a limited window for those individuals vis-à-vis their age, when will MND confirm the new age eligibility criteria for singles? The second point is on my cut on income eligibility thresholds, to remove the ceiling. Just to be clear, it is not a call to remove the ceiling carte blanche; there are encumbrances which I wish to stress. I think those encumbrances can offer another option. It will be as good as another scheme for a certain category of BTO buyers. Finally, I thank Senior Minister of State Sun for looking at the prospects of a portal for publishing the rental of HDB shops. Just a small correction on my part. I said that I called on HDB to make this information in October last year. It should be September.”
“Sir, I filed my cut on 19 February and before the Minister's public comments on 23 February, on how MND intends to manage the crow population. As his comments set out the direction forward, I will make a narrow point about culling. NParks has been helpful to town councils, assisting in the removal of nests and the installation of temporary traps to manage the crow population. Can the Ministry share its protocols with regard to culling, or specifically shooting, as a means of reducing the crow population in Singapore? When and how does it determine that the population in a given area has exceeded acceptable levels or is overpopulated with crows? I understand MND has in recent months been working with the Singapore Police Force with a view to restart the shooting of crows. What has been the result of this collaboration? Can the Minister update when such measures will be implemented across all Town Councils? And with what frequency and what measures will also be imposed to ensure public safety? Keeping Air-conditioner Ledges Free of Droppings”
“Publishing HDB Commercial Rents On 10 January 2026, on the back of public concerns about rising commercial rents, HDB announced, amongst other things, that successful bidders for any HDB shops would have to commit to their tendered rates for over two tenancy terms totalling six years instead of one three-year term to encourage prudent bidding. Taken together, these moves may contribute to more prudent bidding although it remains open to question what impact it would have on shops located in areas of high footfall. The majority of HDB shops are in private hands, 8,500 compared to 7,000 rented out by the HDB. For a subset of the shops, namely coffee shops, HDB acknowledges that some lessees may impose high mark-up rentals on individual stallholders even as the rent paid by these operators to HDB have remained largely unchanged or stable. I called on HDB to make public sublet rental information in October 2025. The HDB's announcement of 10 January 2026 indicates that the HDB has committed to collect data on stall rents charged by operators before it determines how the data can be made available publicly. I would suggest that all HDB commercial rentals, including, if sublet, ought to be made reportable and published on an easily accessible central portal or platform. While the majority of HDB commercial properties are in private hands with the basic details of current rental rates available elsewhere, it would not be difficult for HDB to provide this information on the same centralised portal. This would give market players and new entrants, particularly small businesses an easy reference point and a clear-eyed perspective on their rental-related business decisions in the HDB commercial space, regardless of whether the landlord is HDB or a private owner.”
“To this end, Sir, can the Minister also share how many appeals it has received from first-time applicants who sought to purchase a BTO flat but could not do so because of the income eligibility ceiling for each year from 2020 to 2025? With eight out of 10 Singaporean households covered by the existing income ceiling, the provision of an additional option to buy a new BTO flat with encumbrances to first-time young Singaporeans is unlikely to require the construction of a significantly larger number of BTO flats than it is already planned. However, it can give significant peace of mind to some Singaporeans for whom the jobs environment of the future is less certain that it was for previous generations of Singaporeans. Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme In 2004, the HDB introduced the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme where HDB would fund facade-related repairs and reimburse Town Councils for repair works done to damaged facade of HDB blocks. This was increased to 75% for blocks with brick cladding and some metal fixtures under a special enhancement programme that runs from 2023 to 2028 for blocks with a higher risk of facade failure. However, water seepage that emanates from the block facade into a resident's unit is not covered by any co-funding scheme. As the HDB stock continues to age, the prospect of water seepage, especially from the facade of older blocks, anecdotally appears to be on the rise. Would HDB reach out to assist Town Councils through the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme to allow for the inclusion of claims to be made for water seepage cases that originate from the block facade?”
“A couple's combined income may be on the higher end or even surpassed the income ceiling threshold to varying degrees today, but that may not be so tomorrow. This is especially so if a spouse loses their job or decides to dedicate his or her life to raising children or looking after aged parents. In the last few years, HDB has introduced a number of policy levers to make BTO flats more affordable, partly arising from galloping resale prices. One example is the subsidy clawback regime which started at around 6% and is now at 14% for some BTO developments. The other is the extension of the MOP. There is at least one HDB scheme that imposes an MOP of 20 years although this scheme is one that transits rental home dwellers to a HDB flat on a longer lease. In view of these levers, would HDB consider allowing a first-timer couple who exceed the income eligibility threshold to, nonetheless, be given the option of purchasing a BTO flat? Even as the income eligibility criteria would be adjusted regularly for the majority of buyers, this would effectively remove the income eligibility ceiling for a small category of buyers. To ensure fairness, should this first-timer couple seek to purchase such a BTO flat, these flats can be encumbered with one or more additional requirements, such as: the purchase ought to be restricted to the first matrimonial home, requiring an age cap of either spouse to be 35 years and below; including a longer MOP than that set out for that particular category of BTO flats be they Plus, Prime or Standard; and/or include an additional subsidy clawback mechanism.”
“Members of the House would have come across many young Singaporean couples looking forward to starting a family and buying their first HDB BTO flat, but for one reason or another are unable to do so or unable to secure a flat of their choice. For some, they are unable to do so arising from the income ceiling imposed by HDB, currently set at $14,000 for a couple looking for a BTO flat, with $16,000 set as the ceiling for ECs. 11.45 am While the HDB resale market does not impose any income ceiling, Singaporeans, in general, and young families in particular, remain concerned about lease decay, retirement adequacy and, in many cases, missing out on the taxpayer subsidies that come with BTO flat purchases. At the same time, for the new generation of Singaporeans, the property escalator of their parents' generation has become a Singapore story of the past. Many wage earners cannot aspire like their parents did in the context of moving from a HDB flat to a condominium and to a landed property. HDB flats will continue to house the majority of Singaporeans, with the financial commitment of new private homes, in particular, including ECs, representing a more significant financial outlay than ever before. Significantly though, a new reality is setting in for newer generations of Singaporeans. The jobs environment for young people and middle-aged workers is increasingly unpredictable and uncertain. Today, younger and middle-aged, Singaporeans are concerned about being made redundant by the rapid advance of technology and job redesign. For those who seek to purchase HDB BTO flats, these realities factor into their thinking when they consider property purchases, which have to be financed for the long term.”
“Much obliged, Chairman. It is a quick one. In my cut, I asked about the metrics NEA uses to determine whether appointed public waste collectors should increase the frequency of collection from the larger recycling bins. I do not believe I heard a reply from Senior Minister of State Janil on that. In concert with that, there was a trial that was announced in Parliament which NEA was undertaking with a public waste collector to evaluate the setting up of a recycling bin sensor system that would trigger when there is bin overflow. I understand that was delayed arising from COVID-19. I would be obliged if the Senior Minister of State could share what has been the result of that pilot.”
“After years of public education on the importance of recycling, more Singaporean families now make it a point to decontaminate and sort their recyclables before depositing them at the blue recycling bins located near their HDB blocks. However, some practical problems persist for housing estates where the smaller 660-litre recycling bins on wheels are deployed. Appointed waste collectors already undertake collections three times a week. For the estates where the larger side loading recycling bins are located, collection is scheduled for twice a week. These larger bins fill up quickly, even outside the festive season. This is partly driven by the growth of online shopping and the increased disposal of packaging material from online purchases. When bins overflow and recyclables are left exposed for longer, the prospects for recyclable contamination increases. What were perfectly recyclable items in and around the bin at the point of disposal, can be rendered unrecyclable. As an ecosystem, such developments can undermine the very recycling behaviour we have worked hard to cultivate. What metrics does NEA use to determine whether appointed public waste collectors should increase collection frequency for the larger bins? While I understand that NEA can mandate additional collections on an ad hoc basis, does the Ministry not agree that more frequent collection must keep pace with improved and more widespread recycling habits among residents? Moving the Needle for Our Greener Future”
“Productivity improvements in this sector are marginal, and robotics has not advanced to a point where machines can sweep common corridors across different floors and independently negotiate staircases at a commercially viable price point. With assistance through the PWCS scheme running into the billions of dollars, Parliament must be expected to track the policy impact of this initiative and to determine whether further extensions are warranted. And if so, whether expected business outcomes should be imposed to ensure that taxpayers' subsidies deliver for both businesses and workers. In the alternative, if the intention is simply to support businesses without strings attached, so as to force wages up at the lower end, then that should be communicated as such rather than to seek outcomes which for some employers may simply not be realistic. Supporting Caregivers”
“An important policy intent behind the PWCS, introduced in 2022, was to serve as transitional support to help businesses defray their costs of raising the incomes of lower-wage workers. In its initial two years, it was reported that the PWCS helped over 90,000 employers and supported wage increases for more than half a million lower-wage workers with payouts totalling approximately $2.7 billion by early 2025. Critically and for the purposes of my cut, the scheme was not conceived merely as wage support. MOM expected employers to use the transitional period to upskill their employees, transform their businesses and improve productivity so that wage increases for workers will be sustainable over the longer term. The PWCS scheme has since been extended to 2028 by this year's Budget. Given this, what has been the report card on qualifying employers insofar as their upscaling initiatives, business transformation and productivity improvements are concerned? Has the MOM followed up with employers to assess whether the PWCS has meaningfully shifted the needle on these three areas that were tied to the PWCS? It cannot be the case that there is no report back to Parliament on the outcomes these subsidies have achieved. A policy review could also reveal the important gaps to assist future policy-making with regard to manpower levies and quotas and whether they should be adjusted, for instance, identifying sectors where upscaling of business transformation has reached a practical limit given current technology. Conservancy cleaning in the HDB setting is a case in point.”
“Can MOM confirm if retrenchment benefits are a subject under discussion as part of the current review under the Act?”
“Will the Ministry consider a public consultation in parallel with tripartite negotiations, given the significantly larger number of workers covered by the Employment Act today? Moving forward, the Government should review its tripartite posture to lean on the side of workers more, particularly in today's employment landscape. As the Prime Minister observed in this year's Budget speech, we must always take care of our own. One long-standing anomaly in the Act is the distinction between workmen and non-workmen, a distinction that has arguably blurred in today's environment of AI skills upgrading and job convergence. Are there plans to achieve parity with regard to salary thresholds for workmen and non-workmen alike? In addition, both the Act and the tripartite guidelines envisage the payment of retrenchment benefits. Previous MOM surveys indicate that in general, a very large number of companies, around 90%, are already able to pay retrenchment benefits to the level of the tripartite guidelines. The time has come for these guidelines to be legislated as a norm in an advanced economy like Singapore, as a manifestation of a basic Singapore standard for all workers. Larger companies, those with more than 25 workers, should be expected to pay more at minimum, one month for every year of service, which is the norm for unionised companies. Based on MOM's own data on retrenchments, legislating for a reasonable quantum of retrenchment benefits that are already the overwhelming norm in Singapore would not be an earth-shattering legislative development. However, doing so would be consistent with the objective of commitments like #Every Worker Matters and a "we first" society.”
“The Employment Act was last reviewed in 2018. That review coincided with the act's 50th anniversary. One of its more far-reaching amendments was to extend the Act's protections to 430,000 more workers, comprising managers and executives. It follows that the broadening of coverage makes the current review of the Employment Act more significant than previous iterations. It was first announced at the Committee of Supply (COS) last year when MOM announced its plans to review the act. Almost immediately, the Singapore National Employers Federation moved quickly to caveat that the review should not, and I quote, "inadvertently mandate progressive employment practices that may reduce flexibilities for employers and undermine business competitiveness". There have been little further announcements on the areas under review beyond the broad objectives which were announced when the Tripartite Workgroup first met in August last year. There has been some speculation of specific enhancements, including raising the minimum statutory annual leave entitlement. According to MOM, 2022, more than 90% of full-time resident employees between the age of 25 and 64 already received more than the statutory minimum seven days leave. Any increase through proposed amendments to the act here would be akin to pushing against an open door if proposed amendments substantively amount to what is a common market practice. Can the Minister share what deliberations have taken place thus far, and if there has been a significant gap in positions between the Ministry, the unions and employer organisations like the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF)? What areas of amendment have been scuttled or deferred to date in view of divergences in position?”
“Just on the ethnic compositions, to the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean, is there a deviation that the Government is prepared to look at in view of the nature of the problem?”
“Deputy Prime Minister Gan was just referring to the higher number of new citizens that the Government is looking to bring on board for at least the next five years. Is the Government keen on looking at Employment Pass holders, for example, or individuals or PRs who have been applying many, many years for citizenship, but have not succeeded at the first instance, second instance and third. We see them all at our Meet-the-People Sessions. Is that a strategy – specifically to relook at some of these applicants? Because they may have actually assimilated into Singapore society quite well by now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I did not file a cut under PMO, so I thank you for the indulgence.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. I actually did not have any clarification questions until Prime Minister reached the end of his speech, where he spoke of more information, more accountability, more sharing from the Government. This is, of course, warmly welcomed. I made some points in my speech about RIE. Just to make the point very clearly, the previous RIE plan had a simple pie chart, with a diagram telling people who are interested what $25 billion would be used for. The latest one does not have anything of that sort. It just dives straight into the RIE domains. And this is an example of, I think, the sort of accountability people are actually interested in looking at – how or where the $37 billion, which was committed to RIE 2030, how it will be expended, how Singaporean jobs will be enhanced and what opportunities there would be for Singaporean, to say nothing of the budgetary issues. I believe there was a Member yesterday, also, who commented that he filed some Parliamentary Questions to MOE and he did not get the answers that he asked for. I think there is quite a lot of work to be done there, and I hope in this term of Government, we see a new approach from the PAP Government.”
“Mr Speaker, I refer to the point made by the hon Member on advanced retrenchment notifications. The intention to pursue this point was made by NTUC before the Budget debate. Shortly thereafter, the chief executive officer (CEO) of SNEF wrote to The Straits Times to share that, I think the words were: "they have strong reservations about this call." Can I ask the Member, in view of the tripartite framework, has there been agreement with SNEF on this particular point?”
“Mr Speaker, the WP supports Budget 2026.”
“I welcome the expansion in reach, but I ask the Government to also review the subsidy calculation framework in favour of greater subsidies as it reviews this sector. Before the Budget announcement, there were 11 subsidy tiers for households earning between $1,500 and less, and $4,500. The top tier provides a 98% subsidy up to $295 per month. The lowest provides just 20%, or $59. This can be simplified further, starting at the new Local Qualifying Salary figure of $1,800 and below, with perhaps two to three additional tiers to better support parents with school-going children, with the lowest tier receiving at least a 50% subsidy. Alternatively, the preschool subsidy framework provides all qualifying families with a meaningful base subsidy regardless of income, with additional support determined by income. That design is both simpler and more reassuring to families navigating the system. I ask the Government to consider a similar approach for student care subsidies. The redistributive cost is relatively modest, especially when we consider our chronically low total fertility rate (TFR), but the impact on families and their confidence that the system is always working for them would give the reassurance of a more generous helping hand. In conclusion, this Budget was delivered against a backdrop of genuine uncertainty, a shifting global order, the disruption of AI and the anxieties of working Singaporeans who worry about whether their wages, their savings and their children's future will keep up, to say nothing of the continued relevance of some jobs, particularly entry-level ones. In this context, taking care of our own represents one standard by which all Government policies will be unpacked, measured and scrutinised by the WP in this term of government.”
“The findings are instructive. The top concern cited by 37% of workers was wages not keeping up with the cost of living. The second was having enough savings for retirement, at 28%. Job security came in third at 19%, followed by caregiving demands at 9%, and concerns about AI disruption at 6%. These are not abstract anxieties. They are the lived concerns of working Singaporeans and they should shape how we evaluate what this Budget delivers. I believe more should be done to assuage cost-of-living concerns of Singaporean workers and families. On cost of living, this Budget introduces yet another tranche of CDC vouchers. Singaporeans can be forgiven for treating the scheme as a permanent one. It was not originally conceived as such when CDC vouchers were set at $100 per household. With another $500 tranche to be dispersed in 2027, the time has come to refine the CDC Vouchers Scheme to better help Singaporean families. Currently, the vouchers are distributed on a per household basis, regardless of household size. That is not equitable. A household of two individuals receives the same as a household of five. I propose a simple and targeted adjustment. Retain the $500 base for all households of three members or fewer. For owner-occupied households with more than three members, provide an additional $150 per person. Based on the average Singapore household size of 3.06 persons in 2025, this is a modest and practical refinement, one that better reflects the actual cost-of-living burden larger families carry. On families with children, this Budget raises the monthly household income threshold for student care fee assistance to $6,500.”
“It gives our people, and our youth in particular, a clearer picture of the opportunities ahead and helps attract the best minds to Singapore. There is much work still to be done in demonstrating how efficaciously taxpayer dollars have been spent. Across most Budgets, there is a lack of easy-to-rack outcomes on the headlines that have been announced. The Government should be conscious of the public cynicism and detachment that grows when Singaporeans cannot see a clear accounting of how public funds are being used and communicated for ease of understanding and what results have been achieved. That is not good for Singapore and it sits in contradiction with the participatory spirit that Forward Singapore was meant to embody. I will speak further on this sub-point during the MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) debate, with specific reference to the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS), a scheme that was due to end, but has since been extended in this year's Budget. On the fiscal position, the Government begins this term on a firm footing, with a surplus of $15 billion for FY2025, an $8 billion surplus expected for FY2026, with potentially more anticipated as corporate tax collections are expected to rise from FY2027. These surpluses already far exceed the $2 billion to $3 billion or thereabouts, in additional revenue that the GST hikes of 2023 and 2024 were supposed to generate. There will be significant public interest in how these surpluses are ultimately deployed, especially given the pressures of an ageing population and the persistent concern over inequality. Before I turn to address some specific measures in the Budget, it is worth noting the results of the National Trades Union Congress' 2026 Survey of Economic Sentiments released last month.”
“To my knowledge, Parliament has not received a full account of how many workers have benefited, what the shortcomings have been or how this initiative will evolve. That account is overdue. To round-up this section, I wish the Government, our businesses and our union leaders and workers every success in the undertaking of making AI work for Singapore and to create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, no Opposition response to the Budget is complete without an assessment of past announcements and a call for a report card on their success or shortcomings. Singapore's Budgets are rarely standalone exercises. Take the Forward Singapore exercise. At Budget 2024, the Government announced plans to spend $40 billion on Forward Singapore initiatives through 2030, with $5 billion committed at that inaugural Budget. To my knowledge, there has been no well-publicised tracking of cumulative spending since then. On that same note, this year's Budget revealed that the next cycle of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2030 plan stands to be funded to the tune of $37 billion, up from $25 billion in the previous cycle from 2021 to 2025. Yet, there was no comprehensive report on how the previous $25 billion was used, how many jobs were created for Singaporeans, where outcomes met their objectives, where they fell short or even whether it is simply too early to tell. There is real value in reporting such outcomes publicly, at minimum, through an occasional paper at the close of each RIE cycle. Such transparency allows MPs on both sides of this House to fulfil their duty in scrutinising public expenditure as part of their responsibilities as MPs.”
“Last week, both CNA and The Straits Times ran a Financial Times opinion piece by Sarah O'Connor in the online and print mediums, respectively, titled "We have to stop calling some jobs 'low-skilled'". She wrote that, nobody – not your teachers, not your parents, not even the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD's) head of skills analysis – knows which skills will be most valuable tomorrow. If that is daunting for our students and parents, one can imagine how it feels for a mid-career worker worrying about the next mortgage payment and their family while trying to retrain for a world that appears to constantly shift beneath their feet. There is an age-old problem that manifests itself – workers take up courses, earn new certificates and qualifications, but still find jobs hard to come by. Compounded with that now, is the requirement to master AI. With the merger of Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) into one agency, there is an opportunity to improve one-stop support for our workers, especially for those who have been retrenched or displaced, steering them towards areas of real opportunity, not just available courses. I note the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) Minister's comments about greater public sector involvement in supporting job placement for workers at a media interview on the mid-term update of the Economic Strategy Review some weeks back. I welcome that and look forward to seeing developments in this area. On that note, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) should present a report card on the Jobs-Skills Integrator initiative announced at Budget 2023. These integrators were supposed to bridge the gap between industry needs, training providers and workers.”
“I look forward to the actionable strategies from the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on the Champions of AI programme and specifically, how SMEs will benefit from it. On AI-related subsidies through the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and other initiatives, such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, clear standards and requirements must be established before grants and subsidies are paid out. AI-related grants and subsidies must be ringfenced for truly transformative productivity gains, so that these taxpayers' subsidies are not gamed or abused. Singaporeans would remember the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme of yesteryear and how some individuals and businesses exploited it. Promoters helped to set up shell or dormant companies solely to claim PIC benefits with false documentation or listing phantom employees to meet qualifying conditions. Other reports questioned how many genuine research and development (R&D) breakthroughs were operationalised for businesses through the PIC scheme and whether they moved the productivity needle in proportion to the subsidies that were paid out. We cannot repeat that mistake with taxpayers money with this latest productivity push through AI-related subsidies. For workers, the redesign of the SkillsFuture website to make AI learning pathways clearer is a welcome step. At an overarching and strategic level, the AI Council must take a special interest in ensuring that AI-related outcomes are scoped properly. Because done right, this raises Singaporean businesses and workers to higher productivity. My second point covers the phrase used by the Prime Minister, "Because we take care of our own." That was arguably to me the most significant line in the entire Budget speech when it came to AI's impact on workers.”
“For each more so than before, Singaporeans deserve a well-publicised and detailed report card, one that distinguishes rhetoric about promises kept with measurable outcomes subject to Parliamentary and public scrutiny. The Deputy Prime Minister Gan's remarks on GDP growth also call into question whether three of the four national bonus components, partly used to determine total Ministerial salaries, remain fit-for-purpose. If the Progressive Wage Model is driving income gains for the lowest 20th percentile rather than productivity, how far should it constitute a criterion of the national bonus for the Ministers? Is the unemployment rate among Singaporeans still the right measure or has under-employment among Singaporeans become a more telling and fairer gauge to assess how much bonus Ministers ought to receive? And if GDP growth will no longer reliably create good jobs for Singaporeans, should it remain in the Ministerial bonus formula at all? Arising from this year's Budget initiatives, I would argue that the national bonus should be anchored to one objective outcome: good jobs for Singaporeans in the age of AI. AI dominated this year's Budget, the first of this term of Government. Yet more than three years after ChatGPT changed the world, AI remains an enigma for much of our workforce and many of our businesses. I will make two sub-points. First, the Budget speaks of employing AI to facilitate end-to-end business transformation. This is an ambitious ask. Multinational companies (MNCs) and companies, like DBS and Grab, have the resources to experiment, to sandbox ideas and even to absorb failure. SMEs are not necessarily in the same position. For some of them, navigating AI to improve productivity is not just challenging; it can feel impossible.”
“This points to something we must address directly – more needs to be done to engage Singaporeans, new immigrants and citizens of all races alike in an interactive and open conversation about our national interests. Without that, the phrase "national interest" risks becoming a shorthand to shut down a conversation rather than to start one. We are a multiracial, multicultural society, not proportioned equally with a growing stock of new immigrants, whose loyalties understandably will take time to root. In this context, building resilience in our psychological defence is more urgent than ever. The Workers' Party (WP) in Parliament, reflecting the political diversity of our people, looks forward to playing a positive role in strengthening that sense of home and our unity as one people. I have ended my last two Budget speeches with a call to support our men and women in uniform. It appears that our cyber defence agencies have already tasted combat in their virtual trenches, even if that domain remains shrouded in operational secrecy. As in previous Budgets, Singaporeans will know there is non-partisan support for the defence-related priorities in this Budget. That consensus remains clear and it holds. Uncharacteristically, one of the most politically significant statements this year to date did not come from the Budget, but from the Deputy Prime Minister Gan at his January media interview on the mid-term update of the Economic Strategy Review. The Deputy Prime Minister observed that GDP growth may no longer translate into jobs for Singapore. What this does is to put every job-related policy, initiative and scheme announced by this Government into sharper perspective than ever before.”
“Trump or no Trump, these links will continue to take significant priority and shape the strategic calculations of countries across the region. And as the US moves towards a more confrontational posture with China, temperatures in the Asia Pacific have risen and they look set to continue rising. The comprehensive electoral victory of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and the growing domestic political appetite for a more normalised diplomatic and military posture suggest that Japan's pacifist constitution, held for around 80 years, will finally be set aside. The prospect of Japan or even South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons to counterbalance China and North Korea, is now closer to a probability and not merely a possibility. The increased militaristic signature reflects a regional circumstance unfamiliar to many middle-aged Singaporeans and it remains a source of concern for them. Closer to home, recent hostilities between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbours – Thailand and Cambodia – remind us that regional fraternity and camaraderie do not guarantee peace dividends. The heightened security environment will keep the Government fully occupied. But for Singapore, the challenge is not just about managing foreign policy. It is what these developments mean at home for our society and our cohesion. Prime Minister Wong's remarks on the back of Prime Minister Takaichi's comments about Japan's interest in Taiwan's security in November 2025 are a case in point. A notable number of online voices in Hong Kong and China, including some Singaporeans, raised concern that the Prime Minister's comments were insensitive towards Chinese sentiments.”
“Mr Speaker, my speech titled, "Taking Care of Our Own," will cover three issues. First, I will speak on the broader geostrategic environment and its implications for Singapore. Secondly, I will discuss the point made by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong over the Economic Strategy Review's mid-term update that GDP growth may not translate into jobs for Singaporeans, before discussing the Budget announcements pertaining to AI skills upgrading and opportunities for our workers. Finally, I will speak about the fiscal position and call for more cost of living support measures for low- and middle-income Singaporeans and for families with children. The spectre of the Liberation Day tariffs loomed large over Singapore in April last year. The PAP Government dissolved Parliament just days after the Trump administration's announcement. The political timing of the general elections was calculated to put the PAP in the most advantageous position, with tariff uncertainty serving as a rallying call for voters to back the tried-and-tested. Since then, however, there has been remarkably little information of the sectoral tariffs and their actual impact on Singapore. Despite the doom and gloom surrounding the Liberation Day tariffs, this PAP Government begins its new term with what may be the greatest fiscal surplus any PAP Government has seen in decades. The Trump administration has determined that the US must re-jig, reset and in some cases, dismantled key pillars of the international system that delivered decades of peace and relative stability in the Asia Pacific. But the US, nonetheless, retains deep influence in the region through its military and economic ties with friends and allies – Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, India, Japan and others.”
“It is not a supplementary question. It is the question that I asked prior, with regard to when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two quick questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first one is, when was the last time the tripartite partners deliberated on retrenchment benefits and the legislation of retrenchment benefits, or the appropriate amount that ought to be set for these benefits? The second question, I may have not heard the Senior Minister of State accurately at the beginning. My question pertains to companies that pay out retrenchment benefits at the prevailing guidelines and those above the prevailing guidelines. Because that will give us a sense of whether there could be some adverse selection arising from setting one fixed guideline, which then forces companies instead of paying more, they just pay the lowest amount. So, the question is, do we have data on how many companies pay above that guideline and how many companies pay at the prevailing guideline, which was the Parliamentary Question that was asked?”
“In view of the reply given by the Senior Minister of State, would the Government similarly consider a differentiated guideline on retrenchment benefits, requiring an increase in benefits for companies with more than 25 workers, above the Government's prevailing retrenchment guidelines, rather than having a one-size-fits-all guideline that extends the same recommended retrenchment benefits to companies, both big and small, so that our workers receive equitable retrenchment benefits?”