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 10 of 36.
“If these proposals that I have highlighted earlier were not serious, why did the PAP take them on board and devote fiscal resources to fund them and policy resources to implement them? At its core, Mr Speaker, respectfully, what the Deputy Prime Minister has to appreciate is that the public expectations of the WP in Parliament as elected MPs differ from the PAP's expectations from the WP – and rightly so. For many Singaporeans, the key operative consideration in making their vote count goes far beyond and transcends just a change of government. There are real political questions the voters have to consider, which they are acutely aware of. Firstly, Singaporeans want an Opposition to check the PAP because in their heart of hearts, we all know that "ownself check ownself" is not realistic. The inherent nature of power makes this unrealistic. Secondly, it is in our collective self-interest that no one party can amend the Constitution – the highest law of our land – at will. So, it is wise to have at least one-third of this House in a Party or Parties other than the PAP. Thirdly, in the same vein as the Prime Minister alluded to in his speech in this debate, Singapore's future is not a given. It follows that no one can ignore the possibility of a rogue government springing from the bosom of the PAP. Our people should have real political options if or when that happens. These are the reasons why there should be a strong Opposition presence in this House even before we talk of a change of government, alternative agendas and alternative budgets. In fact, PAP MP Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim has said in the course of this debate, "Iron sharpens iron.”
“Sir, the WP seeks an evolution of Singapore's politics towards a permanent presence of elected Opposition MPs so as to ensure sufficient balance in our political system against an extraordinarily dominant PAP. We do not seek a revolution that includes a change of government at this stage of Singapore's political development. Based on my reading, this view is consistent with the general public's sentiment. But the PAP should not rest on its laurels because this can change, and it is because of that question that has been asked before – what if a rogue government sprang from the bosom of the PAP? The PAP knows that as long as the WP is not in government, it will never have the full breadth of considerations and access to detail the PAP is privy to – Cabinet briefings and papers, access to hundreds of classified public surveys and, of course, the intellectual and operational engine of the Civil Service. So, the Deputy Prime Minister demands that we come up with a serious alternative agenda and an alternative budget at this stage, knowing that there is a more than likely chance that we will inevitably fall short on details, owing to obvious information asymmetries. And come election time, the PAP can tell the public that no serious alternatives have been presented. But where we have alternative ideas, we have advanced them. We will continue to do so, in spite of the political realities. We have been open with Singaporeans and nailed our flag to the mast in the course of campaigning for the people's votes to put us in Parliament. Our manifestos have not been an amalgamation of broad statements of purpose and glossy pictures, but specific proposals with a view to better the lives of Singaporeans.”
“On 21 March this year, just last month – in fact, exactly one month ago – the Parliament passed amendments to the Constitution. Some of the changes included amendments to Article 9, that sought to ensure that laws relating to the misuse of drugs that authorise the arrest and detention of any person for treatment and rehabilitation, remain valid under the Constitution. A separate change involved the introduction of a legal mechanism to reduce the balance of the Contingencies Fund so as to maintain discipline in how the Government manages its finances. Unbeknownst to many members of the public and voters, there were only 67 MPs in the House present when that constitutional amendment was passed on 21 March last month. These 67 MPs included seven WP MPs. If all the WP MPs had not been present in the House at the time of the vote, the Constitution could not have been amended as sought by the PAP as only 60 PAP MPs were present. I want to emphasise that the WP's intention is not to block all the changes to the Constitution proposed by a PAP Government. Far from it. If constitutional amendments are in the interest of our people. we will support them. But if we assessed that the proposed changes to the Constitution are detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans, we will speak against them and vote against them. Voting against Constitutional amendments is not something that PAP MPs will be able to do if their party whip is not lifted. They can talk all they like in this House and go to the ends of the earth claiming to make a principled stand, but they cannot vote other than how the PAP leadership dictates.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister has asked us to be honest about our plans, policies and intentions. On the heady dreams of displacing the PAP and forming the Government, the reality is the WP is a small party and we have a long way to go. Our medium-term objective is to ensure that one-third of the seats in this House are not in the PAP's hands. I said this in 2018 in a speech to WP's members, which is publicly available under the "Key Speeches" section of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition website and this was reported by the mainstream media. Why the significance of this figure of one-third and why is it important? The Constitution – the highest law of our land – which all other laws must take reference from, can only be changed if two-thirds of the MPs in this House agree. Should any political party with more than two-thirds of the seats in this House decide to change the Constitution arbitrarily, there is nothing that can be done to stop them. Today, the PAP does not just have a two-third majority, it has a supermajority of more than 75% of the seats. If we exclude Nominated MPs who cannot vote on constitutional changes, the total denominator is 93 elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs. That brings the PAP's supermajority at close to 90% today. We are not playing "masak masak" when we make changes to the Constitution. These are serious matters that involve the lives of Singaporeans to a very acute degree. In order to pass a constitutional amendment with a two-third majority, the PAP needs 63 votes in this House. The PAP has 83 MPs today. The PAP can even change the entire Constitution at one go, with 20 MPs to spare. Let me give an illustration of how and why these numbers are important.”
“Should the corporate tax revenues look respectable and sustainable for the short to medium term without any real compromise in our attractiveness to foreign investors, it may not be necessary to introduce another hike to the GST from 8% to 9% for 2024 if corporate tax revenue, which contribute 25% of our tax revenues today, goes up further. Sir, the WP's interventions, including our proposals of alternatives to the GST hike, seek better outcomes for Singaporeans. If our agenda was rank opportunism or populism, as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister, the people will reject our brand of politics. But many Singaporeans do not want the cause of the Opposition in Singapore to fail and instinctively recognise the importance of a rational, responsible and respectable political Opposition in this House. For that reason, the public expectations of the outcomes in General Elections are not necessarily in synchrony with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's point that every election from now will be about who forms the Government. What the Deputy Prime Minister is true in a theoretical sense. The elections are about who forms the Government. But as the PAP itself likes to tout, Singapore is unique. The political reality in the Singaporean context – a combination of the first-past-the-post system, the size and footprint of Opposition parties, certain grassroots organisations' manned by PAP apparatchiks and an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee that comes under the Prime Minister's Office, amongst other factors – all these reveal that the real prospect for a change of government during General Elections today, conceals the advantage of the PAP's incumbency far more than the Deputy Prime Minister cares to let Singaporeans in on.”
“Sir, the WP's view is that if there are options to stave off this 1% or 2% rise in GST to fend off concomitant price rises in basic things, like food at the coffee shop or hawker centre for the men and women on the street, as a responsible Opposition that has the welfare of Singaporeans at heart, the WP has to ask – why not consider them? And debate them? That is what we must be expected to do in this House, rather than just accept whatever the PAP says. The Deputy Prime Minister does not want the WP to relitigate the alternative ideas we raised to make up the GST hike by saying that the sums do not add up. I believe when he says this, he means the sums do not add up if you want to remove the GST completely. But the Deputy Prime Minister would be acutely aware that this House was never debating the total removal of the GST in the last session of the Parliament, nor have we been doing so as long as the Deputy Prime Minister has been in this House. This is a distraction and the PAP should be upfront about it since we have been clearly talking about the GST hike from 7% to 9%, and what alternatives there are for it. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government still intends to proceed with the GST hike from 8% to 9% next year or whether it would consider a pause in view of persisting inflationary and cost-of-living pressures; and secondly, to accommodate changes to our corporate tax receipts that will inevitably crystalise further in the wake of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 2.0 (BEPS 2.0). This is especially since the Government has announced at this year's Budget that it would implement a domestic top-up tax that will raise multinational enterprise groups' effective tax rate in Singapore to 15% in 2025 – less than two years from now.”
“The WP policy positions cannot be immutable and have to evolve with the political realities of the time. We may not have supported the GST when it was first introduced decades ago, but we recognise it as part of the system. But accepting the GST as it stands does not mean accepting every GST hike put forward by the Government. The WP went into the last General Election opposing the hike in the GST. We did not ask for the removal of the GST completely since the GST has been an endemic feature about tax system for many years now. At least from the time I entered this House, the WP's position concerned the necessity of GST hikes because the GST hurts the poor and middle class the hardest. Mr Speaker, Singaporeans know that no GST offset package lasts forever. Singaporeans are also acutely aware that a 1% increase in GST this year does not mean that the prices of goods and services will only rise by 1%. As we all know, for the men and women on the street the rise can be compounded many times, especially for basic things. Even with the Government's newly enhanced permanent GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme in 2022 by the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) own reckoning, for low-income households who do not have elderly members, the GSTV scheme will offset about half of their total GST expenses. I am aware that in February this year, the GSTV cash component of the GSTV scheme was increased by up to $350. However, I have not been able to find an MOF statement that sets out in parallel how much this increase will offset the total GST expenses for a low-income family without elderly members.”
“We also called for tax breaks and enhanced work-life grants to be made widely available to help companies accommodate the FWAs relevant to their respective industries. In the course of this debate no less, Minister of State Gan Siow Huang has reiterated that to entrench FWAs, MOM and the Tripartite Partners will introduce a set of tripartite guidelines by 2024. The guidelines would require employers to consider requests for FWAs fairly and properly. Sir, this is a non-exhaustive listing of the WP's alternative proposals. There are of course proposals that were long advanced by the WP MPs, for example, on criminal legal aid which was strenuously rejected by the PAP. For example, on criminal legal aid, the PAP's long-standing position was that it could not accept the taxpayer simultaneously funding both the prosecution and criminal defence. But they shifted positions, and criminal legal aid finally became a reality in the last session of Parliament. When the WP raised the matter of anti-discrimination laws and redundancy insurance, the PAP similarly offered many reasons why it could not be done then or were unmoved and not persuaded, only to shift its position later and take up the suggestion. One specific point which the Deputy Prime Minister reopened in this debate was the GST and the WP's approach to it. This is rather strange because the debate over the last few years has been about the GST hike and not the GST per se. Even so, as the Deputy Prime Minister spoke on Monday, I wondered why the Deputy Prime Minister would want to raise the GST question at this debate because those questions ought to have come during the Budget debate. Had the question on the WP position on the GST per se been asked then, the answer would have been obvious.”
“Number seven, one family paired to one general practitioner (GP). In our 2015 General Election manifesto seven years ago, the WP called for the family doctor pairing scheme. We argue that pairing families with GPs would encourage patients to remain with one family doctor who would be more familiar with their background and medical history. This would facilitate earlier detection of illnesses, provide more accurate diagnosis, reduce duplication of treatment and improve coordination with other care providers. We proposed all resident families be paired with a GP near their home and that Singaporeans could be given the option to change their assigned GP. In October 2022, this House debated the Healthier SG White Paper, which among other things put forward the Government's proposal for one family physician and one health plan for everyone. Under the plan, each resident chooses the family doctor or clinic. Flexibility will be provided for residents to change their enrolled doctor if they need to do so. Number eight, flexible work arrangements (FWAs). In our 2015 General Election manifesto seven years ago again, the WP called for the fair regulation of mandatory FWAs, where companies should be obliged to cater for a work-life friendly environment for workers. We suggested that employees who work for a company with more than 20 employees for more than six months should be allowed to make requests for FWAs. Employers could refuse the request on reasonable business grounds but must discuss the options available with the employee. The discussion must be duly documented, and employees may appeal the refusal if there is a dispute on the grounds for refusing a request.”
“In our 2015 General Election manifesto, we called for the "three-tries BTO". We proposed that first-timer BTO applicants on the fiancé-fiancée scheme be given priority up to their third try in selecting a flat, so as to minimise the waiting time for couples to buy a flat and plan for starting a family. We called for the priority to be forfeited if the first-timer BTO applicants were invited to select a flat in any one of their previous tries but did not book a flat. On 2 March this year, the Government announced that first-time BTO applicants who give up their chance to select a flat would lose their priority status. From the August 2023 BTO exercise, first timers who fail to choose a flat once will be deemed second timers for a year in the computer ballot. Second timers who accumulate one non-selection count, down from the current two counts, will have to wait one year before they can apply for flat again. Number six, impose a charge for the use of plastic bags. In our 2020 General Election manifesto on curbing the use of plastics, we called for the introduction of a single-use plastic charge, phased in over five years to encourage a reduction in plastic waste while looking for alternatives. This is what we said: the value of the charge would need to be sufficiently high to change behaviours but remains sensitive to the needs of lower socioeconomic groups and PwDs. We called for a nationwide public education campaign to raise awareness of the effects of single-use plastics and other more sustainable alternatives. On 2 March this year, the Government announced a plastic charge at most Singapore supermarkets from 3 July 2023, with two-thirds of all supermarkets imposing a charge of at least five cents for each carrier bag.”
“Aljunied Group Representation Constituency MP Gerald Giam called for a national renewable hydrogen strategy in Parliament in January 2022 during the Motion on a low carbon society and again during Budget 2020. On 25 October the same year, the Energy Market Authority announced that Singapore was launching a national hydrogen strategy to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions and to strengthen energy security. Number four, equalised maternity leave of 16 weeks for single unwed mothers. In our 2011 and 2015 General Election manifestos, we called for equitable support for single parents. In our 2011 manifesto, we stated that while having children outside of marriage should continue to be discouraged in our society, children born to single parents should not be denied the benefits that children of married parents receive. The children are innocent parties and should not start life being disadvantaged. We said that single parents should receive the same parenthood benefit packages as married parents. In our 2015 manifesto, we reiterate our call to grant single and wed mothers the full 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. In addition, we argue that single mothers should be made eligible for both the Working Mother's Child Relief as well as the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy relief. Excluding single mothers from these schemes unnecessarily penalises vulnerable children and single mothers. We added that the Government should extend the same help to single fathers. On 9 November 2016, the Government announced that from January 2017, unmarried mothers would have 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, equal to their married counterparts and fathers would have two weeks of paid paternity leave. Number five, BTO priority and forfeiture for non-selection.”
“If chipping away at trust in the Government was our real agenda, we would not see the Minister for National Development acknowledging the WP point highlighting the inherent inequity of the HDB taxpayer subsidies as currently applied between mature and non-mature Build-To-Order (BTO) flats. It is a most unfair charge levelled at the WP which, in reality, chips away at the integrity of our Parliamentary democracy as an important platform for the exposition and contestation of ideas. In fact, we welcome the PAP taking up WP points because the real beneficiaries are not the WP or the PAP – but the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, please allow me to list just a few of our policy proposals to demolish this idea that the WP has not put forward serious alternatives. Number one, verifying educational qualifications of Employment Pass (EP) holders. In our 2020 General Election manifesto, we called for the introduction of EP credentials assessment. We said that all EP and S Pass job applicants with university degrees and diplomas should be subject to mandatory educational credentials assessments, with cost to be borne by the applicant. On 1 March this year, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announced that companies in Singapore would need to verify the educational qualifications of EP applicants from 1 September 2023. Number two, broadcast Parliamentary Sittings live. In our 2020 and 2015 General Election manifestos, we called for the live, unedited broadcasts of Parliamentary Sittings. From 4 January 2021, Singaporeans were able to view livestreamed sessions of Parliament. Number three, national hydrogen strategy.”
“Mr Speaker, the Singaporean identity continues to mature. For a young nation, this is a positive force. One that instinctively drives us towards inclusivity. It is wholly consistent with the values professed by the Government's agenda that seeks, and I quote, "a deepening of Singaporeans' sense of shared identity and mutual responsibility towards one another". I hope the Government can explore the best ways to reinforce the importance of English as a common language in our daily life, as it makes a big difference to the lived experience of many Singaporeans. The signalling effect on the centrality of our multiracial and multicultural society is immense. Sir, let me move on to my third point. I did not expect the Deputy Prime Minister to use his speech on the President's Address to attack and accuse the WP of advancing opportunistic or populist ideas to chip away, bit by bit, the trust in Government. The PAP shifted its position yesterday in the course of the debate, when Minister Ong Ye Kung conceded that the WP have brought up many good ideas. But both Ministers were consistent in calling for the Opposition to present an alternative agenda and even an alternative Budget. I will deal with this point in the course of my speech. To address Deputy Prime Minister Wong, if all we were doing was putting forward populist, unrealistic policies, we would not see the Government actively considering some variation of the WP manifesto ideas on anti-discrimination legislation, minimum wage and redundancy insurance.”
“So, no one should be surprised at advocacy for our lingua franca, namely English, to bind Singaporeans together. At the same time, however, we must never sever our cultural roots. All of us must remain proud and celebrate our individual cultures, including our mother tongues. One legitimate concern, however, is the possible difficulty of an English requirement for foreign spouses who apply for PR or citizenship. Sir, WP – in its 2020 manifesto – called for the fast-track naturalisation of foreign spouses on the Long-Term Visit Pass Plus, subject to certain conditions, such as having at least one Singaporean child. I would suggest that an English requirement for foreign spouses can be one of the criteria for fast-tracking these applicants. My proposal calls for, all other things being equal, that additional points or consideration be given for PR and citizenship to foreign spouses who have a working proficiency in English. As the Government has openly stated, our immigration policy and immigration intake are calibrated to preserve the racial balance and by extension, an English requirement would not favour one racial group over another just because applicants in one racial group already use English and the other does not. Sir, a fast-track for foreign spouses would give families in Singapore with one Singaporean spouse much peace of mind. In effect, for foreign spouses, the English requirement would serve as a plus one criteria or bonus criteria. It would nudge and better align immigration policy with our bilingualism policy, which is a fundamental aspect of the Singapore system. For the record, this WP proposal does not contradict any of the eight principles of Singapore's bilingualism policy established by the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.”
“The wide support for an English requirement, as shown by the survey, can perhaps be traced to the historical use of English in Singapore, as established by the Pioneer Generation of PAP leaders. In the 2012 publication, Singapore's Bilingual Journey, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "When Singapore celebrated its 21st National Day on the 9th of August 1986, it also celebrated a different sort of milestone. It was the first-time emcees of the event used English to lead the audience, where before they had to use three languages – Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. The crowds, likewise, responded in English. Where before the different races in Singapore were like different tanks of fish in an aquarium together before your eyes but segregated from one another, now they have a common language linking them together. They still retained their mother tongues whether Chinese, Malay or Tamil? But a common knowledge of English enabled them to share together the joys of the occasion. I was a proud man that day." On the occasion of the 100th year of his birth, this year, those words of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew are timely. The late Prime Minister was clear. English would be a functional language with which to access the knowledge of the world and a tool for survival. The mother tongue is the cultural language used to transmit the culture's traditional values. More than three decades since his words in 1986, Singaporeans understand that immigration is necessary to top up our population but they also instinctively appreciate the importance of a lingua franca for better integration with newcomers and the signal it sends of Singapore as a multiracial and multicultural nation not just in form, but in substance.”
“He also said, and I quote, "People's psyche will change and as they do, the Government must change to a degree and at a speed unprecedented." Likewise, the interventions of the Opposition in this House, the questions it asks and the proposals it advances must reflect this new psyche. Going forward, the 4G PAP Leadership cannot be dismissive, or breezily use national security or sensitivity, as reasons for withholding information without good reason. In fact, I foresee that a greater openness to releasing information will be fundamental to the refreshed social compact that the 4G Leadership seeks to forge with Singaporeans through the Forward Singapore (ForwardSG) exercise. On the point of the Prime Minister's Office's Strategy Group's addendum covering better integration of newcomers into society, I had proposed an English requirement for PRs and citizenship applications in last month's COS debate. A few weeks later, in a demographically representative poll of 500 Singapore-born citizens aged between 18 and 69, a CNA MediaCorp survey reported on 3 April this year by CNA found that almost 80% were in favour of an English test for new PRs and citizens. Prior to the release of the survey result, in some limited quarters, the proposal for an English requirement was incorrectly understood as a divisive one, with the implicit point being that mother tongue languages would somehow be compromised or that an English requirement was actually a test for "Singaporeaness". But these criticisms missed the key point of the proposal, which was focused on integration. I am gratified that the demographically representative survey respondents did not miss the point.”
“In the meantime, pressures and tensions on the ground built up as a small number of Singaporeans became emotionally charged about CECA, using it as an adjective and in very uncharitable and downright racist ways. The WP sought information, answers to which could have shed light and reduced heat before things reached a boiling point. Unlike as suggested by Minister Ong yesterday, sometimes filing a Parliamentary Question does not guarantee receiving an adequate and substantive answer from the PAP Government, from which alternatives can germinate. Moving forward, another potential tinder box that the Government should look at closely is the growth of family offices, inflows of foreign wealth and how Singaporeans are taking to these developments. There are already murmurings of discontent that are led by emotional perspectives, created by facts such as the mass buying spree of properties in single developments by foreigners. If the Government does not step in early and fill the information vacuum on how outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans are enhanced, this subject may turn ugly too and it would be important for the Government to be on top of this. In future, the PAP must not see calls for information as a Trojan horse for ulterior motives or a red herring. When there are requests for detailed figures, the PAP must not turn defensive in response to the Parliamentary Opposition of the day playing its role checking the Government of the day. In moving this Motion, MP Mr Murali Pillai stated that we must recognise that the nature of the electorate is changing and today, a new generation is emerging – standing taller and brighter than the ones before.”
“In his addendum, the Minister in-charge of the Strategy Group under the Prime Minister's Office, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence has committed to carefully manage foreign worker and immigration flows to ensure that these translate into tangible benefits for Singaporeans and separately, to help newcomers integrate better into society. With respect to tangible benefits for Singaporeans, the WP has made that specific point repeatedly and we continue to see it as an important requirement to ensure society remains welcoming of foreigners. The WP has also made calls for a report card on the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and job outcomes for Singaporeans. The publication of outcome-based indicators of Government policies would be useful tools in ensuring continued public support, or at least, understanding of the Government's foreign talent policies. Providing evidence of how foreign talent policies help Singaporeans in concrete ways will help prevent xenophobia, something we must always guard against. To this end, it is useful for me to restate the point the WP made on the Parliamentary debate on free trade agreements and the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in September 2021, a point that Minister Ong Ye Kung brought up yesterday. As that debate proved, getting the PAP Government to reveal information on the number of intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) from India that worked in Singapore upon the introduction of CECA was like squeezing blood out of a stone. Parliamentary Questions had been filed by the WP on the issue from 2016, but forthright answers were not forthcoming.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government's direction as encapsulated by the President's Address continues in the same vein from the last term of Parliament. A significant part of the information contained in the addenda to the President's Address has been made known previously even before Parliament was prorogued. The WP Members of Parliament (MPs) have therefore raised issues that remain at the top of the public mind, such as Housing and Development Board (HDB) matters, the cost of living issues that affect seniors and the young, and matters of fairness and inclusivity. For my part, I will cover three broad points. First, I will speak about foreigners in Singapore and restate my call to the Government to ensure that our foreign talent policies translate to tangible benefits for Singaporeans. Secondly, I will revisit my call for proficiency in English as a requirement for new Permanent Residents (PRs) and new citizens. Third, I will address the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks on the WP as an opposition that seeks to chip away at the people's trust in Government. I will also address the Deputy Prime Minister's questions to the WP concerning the GST and list several policy proposals made by the WP, which have been adopted by the Government. First, foreigners in Singapore. WP MPs know from our engagement with the public that a unique Singapore identity – proud and distinctive – has formed but continues to evolve. Insofar as a new social compact is concerned, Singaporeans seek a fairer, more inclusive and more caring society. The Government recognises this, and my colleagues have signposted areas where these objectives can be operationalised.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister for the round-up speech on the Motion. Just a quick point on the matter I brought up in my speech. As I mentioned, COVID-19 was, indeed, an unprecedented crisis and it would not be realistic to expect no mistakes or missteps by the Government. That said, I maintain the position that we do not know what we do not know. We do not know what is stated in Mr Ho's report and the AARs from the respective Ministries. It would be important, in my view, for Singaporeans to consider the details and the breadth of perspectives secured from all who participated in the various AARs. I hope this information can be made available to the public at some point. But this difference of opinion does not overshadow the Workers' Party's support for the Motion.”
“Finally, thank you to the Multi-Ministerial Task Force for your efforts and exertions in guiding Singapore through COVID-19. Sir, the WP supports the Motion to the extent that it expresses gratitude to all in Singapore who contributed to the nation’s fight against COVID-19 and affirms the Government’s efforts to learn from lessons of the last three years.”
“In conclusion, the opening quote of my speech paid tribute to those in our community who played a massively oversized role in saving lives. However, there are many outside this House who played an equal part in saving livelihoods. As COVID-19 brought our economy to a near halt, many individuals saw their incomes evaporate. I will never forget my engagement with a group of private-hire bus drivers at the start of COVID-19. These drivers had mouths to feed and vehicle loans to repay, but no business to generate income. Their worries, and even fears, were palpable. These drivers, and others like them, were helped by the diligence of public officers who engaged with financial institutions to withhold the repossession of vehicles. I wish to restate my acknowledgement of these efforts. My appreciation also goes out to the many volunteer lawyers, assessors and SMEs and all businesses that exercised compassion by providing temporary relief to Singaporeans from their contractual obligations and potential enforcement actions. Sir, the Motion today bookends our main COVID-19 chapter. It seeks to internalise the lessons learnt from our COVID-19 journey and to improve preparedness for the next health pandemic. Doing so would honour the sacrifices made by Singaporeans and the community in our fight against COVID-19. We also stand in solidarity with Singaporeans and our non-Singaporean friends who have lost family members to COVID-19 and to those who suffer from COVID-19 or vaccine-related ailments. I hope the MOH will proactively follow-up with all individuals who have not succeeded in their vaccine injury claims and consider their circumstances and the well-being of their mental health, as appropriate, on an ongoing basis.”
“I would like to thank them and our volunteers and supporters for playing their part in the fight against COVID-19. Finally, I will speak on what the public can expect from the WP in future when crises such as COVID-19 strike, as they must be expected to. It seems a long time ago now, but, as early as February 2020, when the Unity Budget was announced, the WP made clear the tone we would take on the COVID-19 crisis. We called for a unity of purpose and for politics to take a backseat. In June 2020, as we exited the circuit breaker, and a few weeks before the elections, I reiterated in my speech on the Fortitude Budget, that the WP did not come in to publicly criticise the Government on its handling of an unprecedented crisis. We were determined to support, and not undermine, the national effort. As a political party that is not in Government, the WP will continue to lead with this approach in times of national crisis. In WP Town Councils, we implemented the necessary protocols effectively. When some residents expressed frustration at some safe management measures in common areas that came under our responsibility, such as hawker centres, playgrounds and void decks, we dealt with them with empathy and open-mindedness, but without compromising the national measures or the safety of Singaporeans. We realised that some rules could prove problematic when operationalised on the ground, and our Town Council officers diligently submitted their feedback to the agencies concerned. We took the view that any feedback would be taken seriously by civil servants and we endeavoured to work as one Singapore. As has come to be expected of our public officers, they did not let us down.”
“Whenever they were undecided or unsure, we encouraged them to clarify their doubts on existing medical conditions with their doctors for peace of mind. I would like to thank former Member of Parliament Mr Low Thia Khiang for agreeing to a suggestion by some of my colleagues and I to put out a video in Mandarin and Teochew explaining his experience with vaccination and why it was important for our seniors to get vaccinated, so as to reach out to as many Singaporeans as possible. Former Member of Parliament, Mr Png Eng Huat, did the same, speaking in Hokkien and sharing his experience, convincing his 92-year-old father to get vaccinated. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru shared with the public that she took her vaccination while she was still breastfeeding as there was a concern and confusion that nursing mothers could be passing something dangerous to their babies. Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Gerald Giam visited residents in clusters of blocks in Aljunied-Hougang town, where residents in entire blocks were identified for mandatory swabbing. When the news suddenly broke out of such mass swabbing, Mr Giam went door-to-door with words of support for residents while working with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to assist in the wipe-down and cleaning of the affected blocks, something our cleaners – predominantly migrant workers – did so many times over the last three years to keep our community safe. Other WP members and volunteers donated generously to the Courage Fund under the National Council for Social Services which sought to provide support to lower-income households affected by COVID-19.”
“Why did the Government decide against publishing the original review report presented by Mr Peter Ho in full? To publish the original AAR report would be consistent with the spirit of the Motion, which seeks to affirm the Government's effort to learn from the experiences of the last three years. Let me move on to my second point. I will speak on what the WP did and deliberately did not do during COVID-19. Sir, Opposition parties, including the WP, were not privy to the deliberations of the Multi-Ministry Task Force or taken into confidence on the Government’s planning processes for its COVID-19 response. In some countries, government approaches to COVID-19 were routinely attacked by parties outside of government in order to gain political mileage. The WP did not do this. We did not ride on misinformation or contribute to misunderstandings over national policies which were either intentionally or unintentionally conveyed. On the contrary, we encouraged Singaporeans to be mindful of rumours or unverified information and to clarify their doubts through the proper channels. For example, in the middle of 2021, Member of Parliament for Sengkang Assoc Prof Jamus Lim came out to clarify that the tragic death of a young resident was not due to COVID-19, as was being openly propagated by some individuals online, ostensibly to sow doubts about vaccine safety. Clearly, a unity of purpose was the need of the hour. A most worrisome medical reality of COVID-19 was that it struck hard at our seniors and elderly. We needed to protect them against the much higher risk of severe illness and even death. During our engagement with residents, WP Members of Parliament encouraged our seniors to get vaccinated.”
“To that end, the White Paper tabled before the House today states that it “was prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office” and that it draws on Mr Ho's review, which included interviews with key participants in the crisis, both Ministers and civil servants. It incorporates the findings of various reviews by Government agencies as well as the perspectives of the private and people sectors. The White Paper adds that it attempts to, and I quote, "synthesise and make sense of the breadth of perspectives gathered, weave them together with the known data and facts, and offer as balanced and objective an account as possible” of the Government’s COVID-19 response. To those familiar with the study of official history, this document would be referred to as a secondary document. There is an original document from which it draws its findings and conclusions. This original document is not before the House. While the White Paper acknowledges some shortcomings in the Government response, Singaporeans do not know what has been excluded from the original reports and reviews referenced in this White Paper produced by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Are the contents of this White Paper all the findings from the AAR that the Government is prepared to share with the public and Parliament? Presumably, Mr Peter Ho submitted a more comprehensive AAR report to the Government. Can that report be made public to Parliament so that Members of Parliament and Singaporeans can better understand the breadth of perspectives gathered, the known data and facts, and draw their own conclusions? If there is confidential information within the AAR report that could harm national security if revealed, that could be redacted from the report.”
“Post-elections, we raised COVID-19-specific measures in Parliament covering a wide range of issues, such as the MOH's suspected adverse events report, recalibration of COVID-19 controls for Singaporeans visiting their terminally-ill family members, vaccination safety protocols for children, clarifying the Government's position on TraceTogether with regard to its applicability for criminal investigations, the inclusion of non-mRNA vaccines into the National Vaccination Programme and the reasons behind the delay in permitting migrant workers to be reintegrated into the community, just to name a few. During my Fortitude Budget speech in June 2020, I reminded the Government that Singaporeans had a right to expect a thorough review and accounting of the Government response to the crisis. I suggested that a Commission of Inquiry, or some other independent body, be appointed to review specific aspects of the Government's response up to that point. I emphasised that whatever form such a reckoning might take, our position as a constructive opposition required us to communicate the feelings of Singaporeans in Parliament, which necessarily includes a public expectation of Government accountability. Sir, many COVID-19 reports presented through national parliaments the world over saw witnesses called to give feedback through unvarnished testimony, consistent with the substance of government accountability. On 9 May 2022, in response to my Parliamentary Question, this House was informed that the former Head of Civil Service, Mr Peter Ho, was overseeing the COVID-19 After Action Review (AAR) process and that the Government would share the findings and lessons with the public when the AAR was completed.”
“Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru will speak on Government communication, the gender wage gap and the underpaying and undervaluing of work traditionally carried out by women, mental health and the implications of "long COVID-19". Finally, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Leon Perera will cover issues pertaining to the role of general practitioners (GPs) in future pandemics, in addition to making points on the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the situation in our migrant worker dormitories. For my part, I will speak on the approach the WP as a political Opposition, took on COVID-19. I will make three points. First, I will speak of the role the party played to bring concerns of the public into Parliament over the last three years through our COVID-19 experience. Second, I will cover what the WP did and deliberately did not do, so as to support the national effort; and finally, I will speak on the political posture of the WP during a national crisis. Firstly, the role of the WP in our Parliamentary system of Government. Sir, throughout COVID-19, the WP kept focused on playing our role as a responsible and loyal opposition. We did not abdicate our role of holding the Government to account, as the design of our political system demands. Even without the full suite of considerations and details that are privy to the Government of the day, we advanced concrete proposals on managing the COVID-19 crisis as part of our General Election 2020 manifesto.”
“Mr Speaker, "Our workers fighting in the trenches and workers supporting the fight – from nurses to cleaners, from GP doctors to infectious disease specialists, from medical researchers to delivery persons, and those Singaporeans driving our people to hospitals and quarantine facilities – are our heroes. We should not forget our public officers too. From civil servants and teachers to those guarding our borders and public spaces namely our men and women in uniform, we must honour them for trying to allow Singaporeans to live our lives as normally as possible while keeping us as safe. The same goes for every Singaporean involved in this fight. Thank you for your efforts and for the hard work." Sir, I first made this statement from this table almost three years ago in reply to the Government's introduction of the Solidarity and Resilience Budgets. Reciting this today, I feel – as I felt then – that it simply cannot adequately express the appreciation many Singaporeans continue to have, for our frontliners and public service workers, for seeing us through the last three years. For some, the challenges took a lot out of them – public health workers, in particular are still reeling from the intensity of the last three years and it is important for us to continually consider the long-term impact of the stresses they faced. The Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament will elaborate further on this and on the findings of the White Paper in their speeches. Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Mr Gerald Giam, will speak on healthcare capacity, including Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in future pandemic response measures, domestic manufacturing during crises and the role of Temasek Holdings.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My understanding from people in the industry is a lot of these materials are then actually compressed together – tyres are used with rubber soles as well. Because each layer of the surface of a running track is made of different materials. I would not get into the technicalities of it, of course, but I think the principle point remains with regard to ensuring that the method that SportSG adopts is actually more green and sustainable to ensure that programmes like this succeed.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is directed at Minister. This is pertaining to the Reuters report, which I think, really, was addressing the prospect of greenwashing, or at least the concerns of greenwashing. I do not really have any objection to the principles behind why this initiative was carried out by Sport Singapore. I think sustainability initiatives ought to be encouraged. But my question pertains to whether Sport Singapore or MCCY made an assessment as to the conversion of sports shoes into rubber granules as being more green or more environmentally sustainable than the existing method which, as I understand also, uses this recycled tyres, for example. So, the question then is, does this initiative move the needle, or is it just a conversion of one recyclable material for another?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister shared that the Lee Foundation festive grant – which I came to know about because one of my residents received a letter and he did not know when the grant was going to be disbursed to him. I think I heard the Minister say $82,000 and 680 recipients, and they received it because they applied for ComCare assistance but they did not qualify. So, am I right to say that only 680 people applied for ComCare and all of them got the festive grant?”
“Sir, this cut is about the Vaccine Injury, Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP) for COVID-19 vaccination. MOH has released information that as of 31 December 2022, 413 applications have received payments under VIFAP, with nearly $1.9 million having been paid out. May I ask the Minister, how many applications were made in total, up to 31 December 2022, so that we can know how many applications have been turned down? Could the Minister also let us know the reasons for turning down those applications? It would be reasonable to conclude that unsuccessful applications were turned down because the injuries were determined not to have been caused by the vaccines. However, can we go beyond that? Considering that there has only been such a short time to understand the side effects of vaccines, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. For those applicants who were turned down, how many of them claimed that they were unable to perform the activities of daily living? What threshold does MOH use to decide that a person is eligible for a payout? Must the vaccine be proven to have caused the effects suffered before payouts are made, or are payouts made if it cannot be proven that the effects were due to some other cause? Or are there some other tests or thresholds being used? When more information becomes available over the years, can the unsuccessful applications be reconsidered? Bolstering Support for Caregivers”
“I thank the Minister for the considered reply. On the point of how do you re-allocate that, I recognise the difficulty in doing so, particularly in the context of a zero-vehicle growth policy. But I think the other context to consider, and I make this appeal to the Minister, is the landscape with regard to what has happened since 2017, and today – insofar as a burgeoning of the gig economy and the need for lower-income Singaporeans to have an affordable mode of transportation to deliver food and whatever else, has changed. So, that was the context in which I raised the argument that covered a previous policy of LTA, which was to take COEs from the motorcycle Cat D and put it to the Open Category. And I was wondering whether there could be some considerations because of the landscape, to see whether it is feasible to consider a transfer back. In my cut, I use the word "equity and fairness". It is not meant to dilute the Minister's response of the larger task of re-allocation from other categories as well. I take that point. On the point of the market, indeed, ultimately, that is the bedrock that has to sustain financing. But in view of the ForwardSG exercise, I think there was an exercise which looked at the prospect of cooperatives partnering businesses to better manage finance. I am wondering whether the Ministry could nudge our cooperatives to consider providing loans for lower-income Singaporeans, so as to ensure that the arbitrage that motorcycle financers gain is not overly large, to the detriment of lower-income Singaporeans who need these bikes in the first place.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Minister, my cut to MOT this year is a follow-up to my colleague, Mr Faisal Manap's Adjournment Motion of October 2021 on motorcycle ownership and his other Parliamentary Questions on high motorcycle COEs. I note the Minister's point about finance as a service offered by many motorcycle dealerships and I recognise the role that it plays. However, the prospect of speculative bidding of motorcycle COEs has always been a concern of the public. I will not go through the newspaper articles that can substantiate this concern. The Minister said that the violations of motorcycle financing would be subject to the Hire Purchase Act. But the Hire Purchase Act comes under the purview of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). In view of high motorcycles COE prices, does MOT, for example, monitor the number of repossessed motorcycles and would it consider doing so to have a better fix on the impact of motorcycle financing through dealerships today? To this end, would the Ministry consider a broader study into alternative financing options for our motorcycle riders, such as through cooperatives, that could bargain for not just better block-financing rates from financial institutions, but also reduce the arbitrage component of some loans that are, in turn, offered by some motorcycle finance companies today? My second clarification is very short. It pertains to the second point of my cut. Does the Minister have a perspective on the total number of motorcycle COEs transferred to the Open Category over the last 10 years? I use 10 years because it is the lifespan of a COE, even though I note that the practice had been stopped in 2017. Would the Ministry consider an increase in motorcycle COEs to make up for the COEs transferred to the Open Category in the past?”
“There have been concerns expressed about how the prospect of offering such financing in and of itself provide an opportunity to profit from financing, even if a motorcycle is prematurely returned before the loan is fully settled since the unused portion of the COE can be redeemed. Do high COE prices for motorcycles create a perverse incentive for some motorcycle finances to drive up motorcycles COE prices in a largely unregulated space? Would MOT look at motorcycle finance as an area of deep study and review to ensure that motorcycle riders – almost 70% of whom ride Class 2B motorcycles and who are more than likely earning well below the median income – are not unfairly penalised because of a lack of Government regulation? Safer Worker Transportation”
“A Bloomberg article late last year put it aptly. Singapore's reputation as one of the world's most expensive cities now extends to one of its cheapest modes of transportation: motorcycles. Many Singaporeans who earn wages at the lower deciles rely on motorcycles for transport, gig work or undertaking deliveries. In March last year, LTA attempted to arrest high COE prices by increasing the deposit for motorcycles COE and halving their validity period from six months to three months. These moves did not arrest the rise in motorcycle COE, which rose to more than $13,000 in November last year. Clearly, more needs to be done. In response to last year's changes, the Motorcycle Trade Association suggested raising the COE bid deposit to $2,000 and reducing the COE validity period to one month. Can the Ministry share if it has looked at this to further manage motorcycles COE premiums? Secondly, in years past, LTA had transferred motorcycles COEs to the open category. At one point, the number of motorcycles COE transferred to the open category was up to 25% before being reduced to 10%. This practice was ended around 2017. Would the Government consider redesignating some open categories COEs to motorcycle COEs for reasons of equity and fairness for our low-income Singaporeans and of course, the gig economy landscape? Thirdly, an important but seldom discussed aspect of high motorcycle COE prices revolves around the largely unregulated motorcycle financing ecosystem. The fact here is that it is the motorcycle traders and sellers that overwhelmingly offer in-house financing. In some cases, the interest-bearing component of such loans can be oppressive for our motorcyclists. High COE prices mean motorcyclists will require more financing to buy motorcycles.”
“Thank you, Madam. Minister, I referred to the distinction between mature and non-mature BTO flats. I understand this distinction is currently under review and study. Can I confirm if this change in nomenclature is something that is being studied as part of the Forward Singapore exercise or is it something for the longer term? I ask the question because obviously there would be much interest in the impact of the removal of this nomenclature on prices and subsidies.”
“When such powers are used in keeping with the spirit of the HDB Commercial rule that ODAs are only to be used for the display of similar trade items that are found in the shops, some itinerant traders and the lessees or owners of the shops that sublet their ODA questioned why such rules are not enforced in other commercial areas where they operate as well. I would like to inquire if the expectations of HDB commercial towards Town Councils in enforcing the rules and the approaches to the management of the ODA regarding the display of items are consistent in all areas where there are HDB commercial and retail shops, such as town centres. Does the HDB entertain exceptions to the aforesaid rules that can be sought with the approval of the HDB Commercial section to allow itinerant traders to sell their goods at the ODAs? That could be some reasons for this. For example, in view of a possible imbalance of shops in a typical area or because of the limited variety of shops in a commercial area or simply to encourage vibrancy. I would be grateful for some clarity in this regard. 1.00 pm Building Strong Social Compact”
“Sir, HDB town centres are hive of activity, particularly on weekends. HDB retail shop fronts near commercial centres close to MRT stations and major infrastructure enjoy high footfall. The same cannot be said for all HDB retail shops, particularly those in smaller or more isolated HDB commercial areas. Over the last few years, an itinerant industry of shopfront traders have emerged, particularly in smaller commercial areas, moving from place to place and securing outdoor display areas or outdoor display areas (ODAs) space directly from shop owners or lessees for a few hours each day. The HDB Commercial department rules currently require that commercial shops are required to display the same trade items in their respective ODAs. This is a legacy rule. Today, however, it is not uncommon to see this particular rule generally disregarded with some ODAs rented and sublet out to itinerant traders for a few hours each day. I would imagine that one of the ostensible purposes for HDB Commercial department to establish the rule against the display of dissimilar ODA goods would be to ensure that there is not an excess of one type of trade in the area where a broad range of goods and services are usually available. While the number of itinerant traders can be small and constantly varies, they do raise accusations of unfair competition amongst some HDB commercial and retail shop owners and lessees who: one, adhere to the rules and do not sublet their ODA; and two, display the same items in the ODAs as they do in their shops. For their part, Town Councils extend the use of ODA to shopkeepers and lessees and have powers to revoke ODAs if necessary.”
“Sir, beyond grants and payouts which are certainly helpful, there are things which the Government can do to help Singaporeans on a daily long-term basis to reduce costs. One suggestion I have is the building of more hawker centres in the areas where a large number of Singaporeans work at. For example, people who work in the Marina Bay Area have few choices for cheaply priced lunches. Not everyone who works in the Marina Bay Area is a wealthy banker. Assistant deliverymen, cleaners, coffee ladies, new entrants into the workforce and many others in junior positions have to work and eat lunch there and those in junior positions usually have very restricted lunch times and cannot travel far for lunch before having to get back to the office. The difference between a $3.50 hawker centre plate of food and a $7.00 food court plate means a great deal to those on a limited budget. One person told me that his daughter is happy that she recently moved from working at Marina Boulevard to working at Havelock Road where she has many more reasonable options for lunch that are easy to get to. This is one area where the Government can directly intervene – build hawker centres in areas where people work and keep rentals down, so that we can help hawkers in turn keep prices down. This is a way to keep everyday costs low for Singaporeans. Productive Hawker Centres Programme”
“Sir, in January this year, the eighth Meeting of the International Advisory Panel on Workplace Safety and Health made its recommendations, which the Government accepted. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s press release stated that "2022 saw a spate of workplace fatalities largely due to basic safety lapses, such as inadequate safety planning and control measures, and non-compliance with safety measures." I also know that the Heightened Safety Period (HSP) which was to have been from September 2022 to February 2023, was extended by three months until 31 May. The fact of the extension itself indicates that the previous HSP did not adequately meet its objectives. While the workplace fatality rate has improved, unfortunately, the annualised rate of major injuries actually increased from 16.8 to 18.7 per 100,000 workers during the first three months of the HSP. For the built environment sector, in particular, do major safety lapses occur in the context of subcontracting work where margins for profits and time to complete work may be narrower and are safety lapses more prevalent here? I understand that effort is being put into this issue of workplace fatalities and major injuries, but may I ask what the Government is going to do differently when implementing these new 2023 recommendations? Does the Ministry foresee a deeper cultural shake-up required in the attitudes towards workplace safety? How are fatalities and major injuries going to be arrested in a more significant way?”
“On 9 January this year, the Straits Times reported that NTUC was looking to work with the Singapore Plumbing Society to effect a Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the plumbing sector with the NTUC Secretary-General referring to a person is in his or her mid-40s potentially earning $6,000 to $7,000 in vocational trades such as plumbing. However, he also stressed that the Labour Movement is not the Government and does not set national policy, including the scope of the PWM. Earlier last month, on 9 February, the same newspaper announced the proposed setting up of the Career Progression Model to support the skilled trades industry, covering occupations such as plumbers and electricians, with a view to better career prospects and salaries. Apart from the strategic importance of having a strong Singaporean Core in skilled trade occupations, the simple fact is that these trades do not pay as well today and are less attractive than working in an office type or air-conditioned setting. In view of the Minister's reply last April, can I inquire what efforts the Government intends to take to specifically target Singaporean workers into skilled trade jobs? As a nation and society, it remains my view that a decisive shift to aggressively promote skilled trade jobs for Singaporeans would also alter our understanding of meritocracy, for the better. Resilient and Future-ready Workforce”
“In April last year, I asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry was looking into new strategies to improve the prospects of skilled trade jobs for Singaporeans such as licensed electricians and plumbers. It was a follow-up to my speech at the opening of Parliament this term. The Minister replied to say that it would not be realistic to aim to grow the Singapore Core in every single occupation in view of our finite local workforce, with the ageing cohorts larger than the cohorts that are entering the workforce. Sir, in reply to a follow-up Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, it was disclosed that of the 950 licensed plumbers in Singapore, close to 90% are Singaporeans, some 5% are Permanent Residents (PRs) while the remaining licensed plumbers are foreigners. Around 70% of the licensed plumbers are above the age of 50. The reply to the same Parliamentary Question I put to the Minister for Trade and Industry for licensed electrical workers (LEWs) was less granular. As of end-June 2022, there were close to 4,000 LEWs, of which less than 1% were foreigners from various nationalities on either S Passes or Employment Passes. The majority of the LEWs were between 41 and 80 years of age. Unlike licensed plumbers, the number of Singaporeans who are LEWs was not directly revealed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). Sir, the House would be aware of the highly professional status of plumbers and electrical workers, to name a few trade occupations in many OECD countries. Such individuals earn middle-class wages and are an integral part of the economy.”
“Particularly in the case of the Albatross Files, I think they will show, as I understand, that separation was negotiated over a number of months and it was not a case of Singapore being kicked out. At least, that is what one commentator shared on National Day last year in an article in TODAY newspaper. I think the fundamental point is I think more of the release of such information is something that the good people at the National Archives should be acknowledged for. 5.15 pm”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just three quick clarifications: one for Minister Josephine Teo and two for Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. For Minister Teo, I note the upgraded Digital Access at Home scheme that she spoke of, and I think the auto-qualifying aspect of it is certainly excellent. I may have missed what the Minister said about the eligibility criteria. Can I just confirm that the criteria is still the same as the previous rendition of this scheme, which was, I believe, total gross household income of $1,900 and per capita income of $650? Does that remain, or has that also changed? That is my clarification question for the Minister. I have two clarification questions for Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. First, thank you for responding to my cut. I understand what the Senior Minister of State said with regard to the two files not being in the possession of the NAS, but they are in the possession of the Ministry. My first clarification pertains to a file which is in the possession of the NAS when a member of the public, even a sitting Member of Parliament, for example, puts in a request for that file. Would the NAS have to then seek permission from the originating Ministry, or is it at liberty to release that file provided the reasons are legitimate? That is my first clarification. The second clarification question is more of a comment actually in response to what Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary said about the Albatross Files. I think I have to give credit where credit is due. The release of these documents, legacy historical documents, are important for the nation as part of the nation-building process.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Sir, in the second half of last year, I wrote to the National Archives in Singapore to request two Government files, the challenge of attracting international talent and the evolution of the work pass framework. Both these documents were referred to by a writer in the bibliography of his book, "The History of the People's Action Party", which is now on public sale. The National Archives said that they did not have the documents but that they were in the hands of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). I wrote to MOM. However, MOM replied to say that it does not, as a general policy, grant public access to Government files that have not been made public through the National Archives. It also said that Members of Parliament similarly do not have access to Government files and can seek information from the Government through a Parliamentary Question. It also shared that for the book in question, the Ministry granted special permission to cite relevant information in some Government files, subject to conditions to do research in the writing of the book. I find it incongruent that such information on important national policies can be extended to a researcher but not to legislators for whom the background to policy can be critical. Would the Government be prepared to loosen its criteria for request to such file, which have already been made conditionally public to others for research purposes to all sitting Members of Parliament?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a question for the Senior Minister of State, in view of the reply to the hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. In the last decade, I understand LTA had allowed for the transfer of up to 25% of COEs originally put aside for Cat D motorcycles and allowed them to be transferred to the Open Category. That number then was reduced to 10% and I think now, the transfer is not allowed anymore – or at least, that policy has ceased, that is, the move from motorcycle COEs to the Open Category, to Cat E. Can I ask has LTA ever transferred COEs from the open category to Cat D, for the motorcycles, to raise the number of COEs available for motorcycles?”
“Yes, Mdm Chair. The question was with regard to the point that Minister made in her speech about the refreshed Singapore Citizenship Journey. And she mentioned that the content was co-created with citizens. So, I have asked what aspect of the content was co-created by citizens.”
“Mdm Chair, I thank the Minister for that. I believe it would be helpful, so I would advocate for it. And I used the peg of the findings of the latest Census report which spoke of English and how commonly it is spoken in Singapore, comparing 2020 to 2010, and it is much more widely spoken today. So, the peg that I am coming in from is its utility as a tool to improve integration between Singaporeans and new citizens. So, in that regard, given the new information that we have, I believe it could be a helpful tool to improve integration. Just on the first clarification that Minister provided, I do not think Minister answered the question. I am suggesting that those countries, the information which shows where someone was born is actually already provided in 10-year Census. So, what sensitivities apply with regard to not wanting to release that information on a yearly basis, when I see it releases its information on PRs and citizenships awarded that year?”