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 11 of 36.
“Yes, I am putting my question across now, Mdm Chair. And in this context, with regard to the refreshed Singapore Citizenship journey, Minister shared that the content was co-created with Singaporeans. Can I just confirm with the Minister, which aspect of the content is she referring to?”
“But some of them when they come in, they think they are a blessing to Singaporeans and act as if we should be pleased that they are here. I met some of them when I was a Member of Parliament. They talk as if we owe them. Now, this psychology is very important that Singaporeans do not feel that the foreigners whom we bring in are lording over them and looking down on them and misbehaving." In this regard, Minister said that the content of the refreshed —”
“Thank you, Mdm Chair. Just some clarification questions for Minister pertaining to my cut on new citizen selection which would come under the ambit of the ICA. The first clarification I have is the point about sensitivities. I think Minister shared that countries-specific information is not put out because it can be misinterpreted, I believe that is what the Minister said. I stand corrected if that is incorrect. My point is, based on the latest Census, and the Census before that, in 10-year intervals, information on the place of birth of PRs and citizens are actually provided in 10-yearly intervals. So, the countries that are covered – Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Asian countries – this information that is already provided. So, what specific sensitivities is the Minister referring to when the Minister says that revealing countries-specific information could be misinterpreted? The second question has to do with my point in the cut, I do not believe Minister addressed it. It has to do with English as a criterion for citizenship selection because of its utility as a language for better integration between Singaporeans and new citizens. Can the Minister confirm whether this is part of the process in assessing individuals for citizenship? My third clarification is on the refreshed Singapore Citizenship journey that Minister spoke of. Very recently, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Singapore, Mr George Yeo, spoke of suggestion of new citizens being approved by a jury of ordinary Singaporeans and these are his comments: "We are completely self-interested. So, we bring in clever people, wealthy people, connected people.”
“The Swiss Naturalisation Authorities summon applicants for a personal interview which focuses on their knowledge of Switzerland. They must be able to answer questions on Swiss geography, history, politics and society. Do we have similar requirements? For example, the latest Singapore Census 2020 revealed that 48.3% of the resident population in Singapore spoke English most frequently at home, compared to 32.3% a mere 10 years ago. Is the working proficiency in English a criterion for citizenship for better integration between new citizens and Singaporeans of all races and religion, since English is our main language of communication? Can the Government share more details on how new citizenships are granted, as there are aspects of the process and criteria currently that are opaque? How is our system different from that of the Swiss? Is there already a point system in place and what does it consider apart from the publicly revealed criteria, such as economic contribution, educational qualification, family profile and length of stay in Singapore? Most importantly, how will the citizenship selection process evolve in face of the Forward SG exercise and a review of the social compact? Legislation for Online Criminal Activity”
“Chairman, new citizens are going to be even more important to the future of Singapore. With our total fertility rate at the historical low of 1.05, it will not be hyperbole to say new citizens are a critical pillar in the shape of any future Singapore. In line with the Government's Forward Singapore (Forward SG) exercise that promises a renewed social compact with citizens, we need to ask: what should Singapore's goals be when bringing in new citizens? We want those who truly know Singapore and want to embrace the Singaporean way of life. We want those who really want to live here and be here. We want people who have already proven themselves by having integrated into the Singaporean life after some time as Permanent Residents (PRs). Singaporeans do not want new citizens who do not want to live here, but only want the power of the Singapore passport for their convenience, and the safe and secure environment for their assets and wealth. We do not want new citizens who are reluctant for their sons to do National Service (NS) and, certainly, none of us want people who only want Singapore Citizenship as a stepping-stone to another country but, instead, seek those who have a long-term commitment to Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has promised that Forward SG will move on to looking at solutions. The Swiss, for example, have a highly specific selection process for new citizens. People must show deep commitment before granted Swiss citizenship through naturalisation. Applicants must show themselves to be successfully integrated into Switzerland and know the Swiss ways and customs. For ordinary naturalisation, a person must have lived in Switzerland for 10 years and hold a permanent residence permit.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just a quick question for the Minister. This is with respect to his comments on works that had been temporarily halted on Pedra Branca. Can I confirm with the Minister: what is the timeline vis-à-vis Singapore's position on the monsoon season? When can we be expected to recommence work, precisely because the works are for the purposes of protecting against sea level rise and climate change?”
“I have alluded to this prospect at previous Committee of Supply (COS) debates. The Workers' Party (WP) agrees that Singaporeans should never allow ourselves to be divided – whether by race, religion, income, social differences or place of birth. The reality of a far more complex and diverse Singapore than ever before, can make this feel like a tall order. But it would be important to see ourselves as Singaporeans first, ahead of our ethnic differences, even as the latter categories define who we are culturally. 12.30 pm We should not shy away from saying that we are Singaporeans first, while recognising and honouring our ethnic and racial realities. This distinction would be critical in building up our psychological readiness for unpredictable US-China relations. Walking a Tight Rope”
“Chairman, the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally last year outlined perhaps the most pessimistic assessment of US-China relations in recent memory. The Prime Minister was bleak and direct. US-China relations, which set the tone for global affairs, are worsening. Neither side expect relations to improve anytime soon and there is a risk of things worsening quickly. The Prime Minister noted that more geopolitical contestation was likely in the Asia Pacific and that some countries would choose a side. This assessment was a marked difference in tone compared to the Prime Minister’s speech on US-China relations at the 2019 International Institute for Strategic Studies keynote address and the Prime Minister’s essay on US-China relations in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2020. In the aftermath of the recent shoot-down of a Chinese balloon over the US, there were reports of the visit of a senior Pentagon official to Taiwan. Taiwan is likely to be a focus of contention in US-China relations. How does the Ministry assess the Taiwan question? Is it a red line and will it force Singapore to choose a side? Chairman, it is often said that foreign policy begins at home. In view of the realities of our external environment and the multiracial character of Singapore, it is a reality that our social compact can be susceptible to fissure and cracks because of geopolitical tensions. Beneath the cordial and friendly nature of Singaporeans – the large number of foreigners, our ethnic and racial make-up and the number of new citizens in our economy – can easily be exploited as a fault line. This may make it more difficult for the population to be psychologically prepared for a far more contentious and unpredictable external environment.”
“So, I took the opportunity to pull out then Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam's Second Reading speech on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, which effected this change. This is what was said: "We had deferred Temasek's inclusion when the NIR framework was first introduced and indicated that we would review this some years after implementation". So, that is correct. But the other thing that the Finance Minister did not say was including Temasek in the NIR framework, will provide the Government with additional fiscal resources in the years to come. So, that is the point that I pegged my response to, and I think I have made the representation in this House before, that the position in 2015 resulted in more fiscal resources, more reserves being employed by the Government. That is the point that the Minister did not state in his response to clarification number five. And just to set it out here, three reasons why these additional revenues were required: one, healthcare; two, human capability training, SkillsFuture, all this would be required, strengthening education; three, transport infrastructure, Changi Airport Terminal 5, Tuas Sea Port. These were the reasons why the tap was opened. There would be additional fiscal resources and because there is a need. The need for the hour calls for it. And that is the perspective that the WP are bringing when we speak of looking at the reserves differently.”
“Thank you for the indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two quick points. First one, again, I also do not want to belabour the issue of the point about the WP's housing proposal. The Deputy Prime Minister was saying we will have it published. It is already published. It is already publicly available for people to read. And the key point in there is the context that Minister speaks of in terms of his experience in MND is actually a subset of the larger context that WP was talking about, which was the announcement of VERS. The Finance Minister said there is no embarrassment in just changing your position and view – I agree with him. In fact, in 2018, it was Minister Lawrence Wong himself who identified a particular infographic, I believe, that the Workers' Party had put out on the capital reserves in PUB. And indeed, we took a look at it and our representation was incorrect; and so we corrected it. So, I do not think there is any difficulty that the WP faces in trying to correct something which is inaccurate. But I do not think the PAP has dealt with the housing paper in an even-handed way. Hence, the position that we are taking. No genuflection and we certainly do not intend to keel over when we feel that a relevant point has to be made. That is the first response. It does not require a response from the Finance Minister. But that is my response. The second issue was the fifth clarification I put to the Finance Minister pertaining to the reserves. The Finance Minister said he respectfully disagrees with my characterisation of the move made in 2015 to include Temasek and that this actually was a plan that the Government already had in the works for some time.”
“I will leave those clarifications out there for the moment and I will step in with more if I have to.”
“The fourth clarification is pertaining to the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) which the Finance Minister did pick up. The Finance Minister shared that overall, there was good progress. But, of course, there are some domestic sectors where there are issues. I would like to bring to the Finance Minister's attention to the Second Report of the Estimates Committee that was presented to Parliament on the 15 November 2017. And paragraph 29 says that the Committee, this being the Estimates Committee, expressed the need for robust KPI setting, monitoring and accountability of the various initiatives under CFE including ITMs. I raised this point in my Budget speech last year as well. Can the Finance Minister share some of this information with us? Because in the spirit of fiscal prudence, $4.5 billion dollars was allocated to the ITMs in 2016. I think we do need a report card. The final clarification pertains to the point the Finance Minister made about Mr Low and his responses to the drawdown of the reserves during the Global Financial Crisis. The simple answer to that is the position of the Workers' Party has evolved because circumstances have evolved significantly. And we can see it also, in terms of the contribution of the NIRC and the Government's own attitude to the NII framework post-Global Financial Crisis. You have Temasek being included in the NIRC formula. Why? Because we were told there were more needs, healthcare needs, ageing population. These are perfectly, eminently reasonable explanations as to why Temasek tap was included in the NIRC framework. I do not see this as a particularly problematic issue to deal with because naturally, as circumstances evolve, PAP also will change its position and the Workers' Party, of course, will be entitled to do the same.”
“I will do my best, Deputy Speaker. I just have two more clarifications.”
“The Finance Minister did not, of course, clarify some of the specific queries that I raised in my speech about this insofar as whether the Government will reveal the subsidies for each Build-To-Order (BTO) programme because it shows that, actually, there is a point of inequity that I think needs to be worked on. But I will leave it at that. The other WP MPs will come in with more clarifications. My fourth point has to do with —”
“And that was the context which I have not heard any PAP MP speak about. And in fact, they seem to be quite silent about it. And, on this note, of course, I have to then come to the irresistible conclusion that it is a convenient distraction because if indeed the point that was raised in the housing paper was critical, then the PAP would have raised it last year when the WP called for more HDB housing for singles. So, it was a response to the housing debate, I think the PAP recognised that accessibility and affordability of HDB flats is a serious issue, but I will leave it at that on the point of context. The second sub-point, however, I would like to make is an issue that the Finance Minister suggested that we do not want to deal with the difficult problem of subsidies and grants and how much this may cost the taxpayer. Completely untrue, because we raised it in this House. Again that the fact of the matter is more and more money, more and more fiscal resources are being diverted to the Home Ownership Programme – $1 billion in the past, touching $4 billion now. And given the approach that we are taking, this is only going to increase. So, when the Finance Minister says, when we ask questions about pricing of land and so forth, and he says that this is red herring, I respectfully disagree because we have to try and understand how we can make the Budget balanced, and how much is actually being devoted for a programme which the way we see it is just going to keep going up and up and up.”
“The Government keeps the tax burden low and it aims to keep the tax burden on Singaporeans low. In the course of the debate, of course, I listened to various PAP Members of Parliament (MPs). I heard proposals for more intermediate- and long-term care subsidies, checking the rental rate of Government-owned and managed properties, even a call for a windfall tax. Many of these proposals were made in the WP manifesto and by WP Members in this House. So, for a minute, I thought that the PAP had become "WP-lite". Be that as it may, what none of the PAP MPs who raised these proposals did, was to tell us where this money was going to come from, something that the WP did in the last debate. We put it out there. The Finance Minister referred to the debate we had at the last Budget debate. What then are the main strategies then that the Government has for keeping the tax burden on Singaporeans low? This leads me to my third clarification and that pertains to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) issue. I will be brief on this because I am sure some of the other WP MPs will come in and seek further clarifications from the Finance Minister. On this topic and the Minister's iteration of this back and forth that is currently going on in The Straits Times Forum between the PAP and the WP, I am reminded of what the Government Whip said many, many years ago in this House, "Sometimes it is not just what you say but what you do not say that also matters." And what the Government is not saying, of course, is the context of the WP housing paper was in response to Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS), a Government proposal which was not very clear and it was looking into the future. So, naturally, the housing paper looks at a longer-range forecast of the housing sector.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Finance Minister for his round-up speech. I have a number of clarifications in view of the interventions the Finance Minister made on the Workers' Party's participation in this debate. I will start with the first and this pertains to the tax burden on the middle class. I think the Finance Minister put up some charts. They set out what the Government has shared in the past about the burden insofar as how much a certain percentile of Singaporeans pay vis-a-vis taxes and the benefits they accrue in return. I think this has been something that the Government has done consistently. On this note, in 2018, my colleague Mr Leon Perera asked the Government to consider measuring the consumer price index (CPI), which tracks inflation for specific demographic groups like young couples, parents with children and retirees. The Government would say it would do this when it was ready. Five years on, we are still waiting. I think we saw the headlines this morning about CPI and how it continues to go up. I am raising this now vis-a-vis those charts that the Finance Minister provided because you have to assess the pain points of the middle class from various perspectives. I think the CPI, when you look at certain specific categories and classes of Singaporeans, you may get a different picture compared to what the Finance Minister raised. We obviously need a better resolution on that. My first clarification is whether the Finance Minister would consider providing information from that perspective – specific groups of Singaporeans which we know are in the sandwiched middle class. The second clarification has to deal with the strategy that the Finance Minister laid out.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the helpful reply. Can I just confirm if the small percentage that the Minister of State speaks of is a number that she has on hand? And would the Government be prepared to release that number?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick question to the Minister of State vis-à-vis her response to the hon Member Mr Yip. For the GIP individuals who are PRs, does EDB or the Ministry track how many of them transit to being citizens in view of her reply to Mr Yip's question on rootedness?”
“That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In my speech, I mentioned at the part on retirement adequacy, that the contribution of a member's Ordinary Account drops to 21% when a member returns 36 years of age and is gradually reduced in five-year intervals to reach only 12% when a member returns 56. I got these figures from the latest CPF Annual Report which was tabled to Parliament on 27 June last year. It has been brought to my attention that in 2022 and 2023, the CPF allocation ratios actually have changed slightly. So, I think it is important that I put that on the record, and that the figures that I quoted were in reference to the Annual Report of the CPF of 2021. But it still does not change my fundamental point which was to re-allocate early on in a member's working life.”
“No, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a small technical clarification in my speech which I would like to clarify.”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Budget.”
“With the Minister’s announcement in this Budget to top up the National Productivity Fund by $4 billion for, I quote, "investment promotion", the impact of BEPS is likely to be a significant question mark with regard to the Ministry’s medium-term fiscal outlook. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Louis Chua will speak more about BEPS and share his analysis of the Budget in his speech. Be that as it may, the Workers' Party looks forward to more of such papers and recalls its proposal two budget cycles ago for the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office for a closer scrutiny of the Government's budget. In view of tighter fiscal environment in the years to come as predicted by the occasional paper, such an office would hold much promise for greater Parliamentary and public scrutiny on Government expenditure and whether programs are worth the taxpayer monies that have been allocated to them. In conclusion, Sir, in an Institute of Policy Studies' Study of Social Capital in 2017, the report stated, the sharpest social divisions in Singapore may be based on class, instead of race or religion. The perception of two Singapores that we must guard against which I raised earlier in my speech reinforces the point that fiscal redistribution, better social protections and greater support for our most vulnerable Singaporeans must remain a mainstay of our future budgets. It is imperative that policies should be continually refreshed and reviewed, including the applicability of the principles they were originally based on. Singapore, a young country, where Singaporeans feel, live and experience the emotions of nationalism and citizenship must continue to thrive in a fair, broad and balanced way, so that we leave a better future for today's generation and those that come after.”
“This diminishes resources available for you and your children." As of 21 February, 176 individuals gave the post the thumbs up while a far larger 553 individuals chose the emoji which I would describe as showing they were not being convinced. In the spirit of refreshing our social compact, I renew my call for the Government to also release the price of land for specific public housing, projects and their associated subsidies on a BTO project basis, so that Singaporeans can more meaningfully engage the Government in the course of the Forward Singapore exercise. Before I round up, I mentioned in the first part of my speech that the Budget titled "Moving Forward in a New Era", would find the past to be an important reference point. The release of an occasional paper by the Ministry of Finance earlier this month on medium-term fiscal projections has been helpful to the extent that it responds to the calls by the Workers' Party at the last Budget for additional details on medium-term projections. Singaporeans would recall that this was a call that had been made even earlier when the Goods and Services Tax hike was first mooted. Like the Finance Minister's Budget, the occasional paper was unable to shed significant light on the impact of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 2.0 (BEPS) on our fiscal position. However, it did hypothesise the prospects of greater corporate tax revenue collection under Pillar Two, which it said is expected not to deliver any fiscal upsides as any additional revenue would be ploughed back to encourage investments into Singapore by way of grants.”
“More fundamentally in line with the renewal of the social compact through Forward Singapore, would the Deputy Prime Minister share more details on the differences between the valuation of land for public and private use? I asked some questions about this recently in this House and asked if the establishment of a committee akin to the Land Working Group of the Economic Review Committee of 2002, but one that would include Ministry of National Development (MND) and Housing Development Board (HDB) to review the principles of how land is sold for public housing would be something the Government would consider. Specifically, I also call for an understanding of the principles and rationale behind the market discount of up to 15% of land allocated for Government land sales and industrial Government land sales and the sale of some private land even below this market price threshold. In addition, I enquired how such sales of private land below market valuation intersected with the Government's call that HDB land not sold at market valuation would amount to a raiding of the reserves. The Government should reply to these questions which are asked with a view to considering alternative approaches the valuing of land for 99-year leasehold public housing. These are questions that members of the public are interested in, particularly since the details and principles of this subject have not been significantly ventilated in public. To illustrate the public interest in this matter, on 11 February, Gov.sg released a set of infographics on Telegram. The lead slide was titled "Does disregarding land cost mean BTO flats will be cheaper?" The second last slide put across the Government's narrative as follows: "Selling land below fair market value = eroding reserves.”
“Also, in a Facebook post of 12 February, the Minister for National Development alluded to going beyond building an additional 2,000 to 3,000 short-wait flats by 2025. The Minister said that the HDB will recalibrate its building programme from 2025, so that short-wait time flats form a larger proportion of our new flat supply than before. While the details for the moment are restricted to broad thinking, these public pronouncements were followed shortly by the Deputy Prime Minister's Budget Day announcement of higher CPF grants for resale flat buyers. Almost immediately, there were concerns about the impact of such measures on house prices by property watchers, especially for larger flats and those in popular areas. Would they feed into higher prices and only make a future correction even sharper when the reality of lease decay for resale fats set in? I hope the Minister can share the Government's thinking behind this move and the assessment of its intended effects, particularly in view of 11 quarters of growth in HDB resale prices. While these additional grants may appear on the surface to be a panacea, there is a real prospect of home prices rising to match the new grants for eligible first-timers. This could happen as a response to the increase in grants. But more likely, price rises could happen because buyers will be tempted to bid more for a flat they want because they know they have the additional grant to enhance the price they can pay. Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Gerald Giam will further elaborate on the affordability of resale flats in his speech.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Government was considering what more can be done to enhance retirement adequacy in its Forward Singapore deliberations. The decline in retirement adequacy in the past was mitigated by the appreciation of home values. However, the Government has also stated that housing is unlikely to see steep rises in value as in the past. The Government should begin a deep conversation to re-centre the CPF system towards its original purpose, especially as the cycles of job disruption, job redesign and job obsolescence become more pronounced and frequent in the face of rapid technological advancement. There have been suggestions made most recently by former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Theseira to reduce the usage of CPF funds for home purchases. This call was met by consternation from the public because of the already high prices and the reduced affordability of housing. However, achieving better retirement adequacy would require a hard look at how much the CPF system dedicates towards home ownership. More affordable public housing will inevitably improve retirement adequacy. This leads me to the next part of my speech – the announcement that CPF grants will be increased, which is for the ostensible purpose of making resale flats more affordable for first-timers. Sir, over 6 and 7 February this year, this House debated the Motions on affordable and accessible housing. Some 10 days later, the Leader of the House was quoted in The Straits Times saying, "but I think in the longer term, we are looking to see how we can make housing more accessible and affordable". From this it would appear that at the highest levels, the Government intends to intensify its efforts in this regard.”
“First, in view of the policy reason for this new salary ceiling which is to allow Singaporeans to save more for retirement, I am of the view that it would have been appropriate to simultaneously reconsider the percentage of CPF funds credited into the three CPF accounts with a higher proportion allocated to the Special Account. For example, currently out of 37% of total wages for a member aged 35 and below, 23% of the CPF contributions is allocated to the Ordinary Account. The contribution to a member's Ordinary Account drops to 21% when the member turns 36 years of age and is gradually reduced in five-year intervals to reach only 12% when a member returns 56. In contrast, contributions to the Special Account increased from 6% to 7% when a member turns 36 years of age and peaks at 11.5% between the ages of 50 and 55. To achieve the Finance Minister's policy intent of better retirement adequacy, a reduction in the range of 1% to 2% in the allocation to the Ordinary Account from one's early years in favour of the higher interest-bearing Special Account in step with the salary ceiling hike would serve the retirement needs of Singaporeans better. The CPF system after all is designed primarily for our retirement needs. May I ask the Minister if such a redistribution was considered; and if not, why not? On this point, Mr Speaker, numerous studies have been conducted on the income replacement rate, or IRRs of pension funds worldwide. The IRR is the ratio of retirement income to pre-retirement income. The World Bank recommends that countries should aim for an IRR of 53% of net final year wages or 78% of net average lifetime wages. For many, their CPF LIFE payouts are unlikely to meet this threshold since much of our CPF funds are locked up in housing.”
“Speaking as an NSman, I would be very cautious about moving in this direction. I would suggest leaving it to unit commanders to determine how best to accommodate the specific requests of their servicemen as they have been doing so for many years already. If a unit is having a major exercise of conducting a critical operation, the needs of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) or the Home Team agencies cannot and should never be compromised. Sir, the second Budget announcement I wish to address is the move to help middle-income Singaporeans save more for their retirement by the raising of the CPF monthly salary ceiling. CPF rates and income ceilings have been used as a macroeconomic counter-cyclical tool in decades past to combat recession, help employers save jobs and the prospect of slower economic growth. The Finance Minister stated that the salary ceiling was last raised in 2016. While this is correct, it should be noted that the salary ceiling of $6,000 was first put in place in 1985. In response to economic uncertainty, it was reduced to $5,500 in 2004 and further reduced to $4,500 in 2006 before re-establishing itself at the 1985 of $6,000 only some 30 years later in 2016. There is much catching up to do with respect to retirement adequacy, particularly since so much of our CPF funds are dedicated to housing. Because of the importance of retirement adequacy in the longer term, the Workers' Party supports the rise of the income ceiling to $8,000. However, I have a few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“SMEs should adjust and constantly reconsider their HR policies and job scopes to hire seniors permanently, with a view to make up the temporary absences of younger staff not just due to either paternity or maternity leave, but also due to those unplanned days and events where young children fall ill and parents scramble to make alternative plans. For this reason, I support the extension of the Senior Employment Credit (SEC) up to 2025. The SEC pays up to 8% of wages, up to a salary of $4,000 a month. However, for workers between the ages of 55 to 64, this contribution from the Government pays only up to 3% of wages. For example, a company that hires a worker who earns $3,000 and is between the ages of 60 and 64, the company would get about $90 for that senior hire. I believe employers can be given more support to encourage them to hire senior workers. Studies should be carried out to see how the SEC can be increased to better motivate employers to hire seniors. In view of our rapidly ageing population, has the Government undertaken any studies to consider the fiscal impact of raising the SEC? There must be an upside for employers as we undertake this cultural shift towards making the workplace more family-friendly. Notwithstanding the efforts thus far, greater support towards senior employability will open new vistas for our SMEs. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Jamus Lim will cover other Budget initiatives for businesses such as the Enterprise Innovation Scheme and advance other important Workers' Party alternatives, whose time we believe have come, such as the Redundancy Insurance. One additional point on paternity leave I wish to address is that some have commented that men be excused from their NS duties for the year they are child is born.”
“Can the Government also flesh out the fiscal outlay set aside for the Jobs-Skills Integrators? Sir, related to the issue of jobs, Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will speak about the announcements that pertain to the Baby Bonus and more specifically work and family life in Singapore. Separately, Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Louis Chua and Hougang SMC Member of Parliament Dennis Tan will speak on the changes to the Working Mother Child Relief. I wish to add some comments on the extension of paternity leave. I understand some employers, particularly smaller SMEs, may find greater difficulty in accommodating two further weeks of paternity leave for their staff members because of manpower and operational challenges. It is a legitimate concern but I hope employers can empathise with the importance of strong families and the lived reality of raising children in Singapore. The time dedicated to raising children is in addition to other filial responsibilities such as spending time with our seniors and parents. This is a fact of our Asian culture. Many parents endeavour to strive hard and chase the pot at the end of that rainbow at the workplace for a better future for our children. More paternity leave is certainly welcomed and I hope SMEs make the adjustments necessary to accommodate male employees, just the same way as they do for their female employees with respect to maternity leave. To better negotiate this transition, employers should review the important mindset shift that the Government has sought to cultivate for some years and that is the hiring of mature workers.”
“Sir, what has become of these training and placement efforts and how are they qualitatively different from what the Deputy Prime Minister has proposed in the Budget? A sum of $4.5 billion was committed to the first Industry Transformation roadmap. When the Government was transiting to ITM 2.0, I asked in this House when the Government's report card on the first ITM would be ready. The Government replied that it was still early days and those details were not available. We have yet to hear in this House a proper accounting of the success or otherwise of the first ITM. I hope the Government can provide some details in this regard. Separately, on job placements. The then-Minister for Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say announced at Budget 2017 that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), specifically Workforce Singapore (WSG), had roped in two foreign job matching firms, namely Ingeus and Maximus, to help unemployed professionals with their job hunt. It was reported that Ingeus and Maximus would work on an outcome-based payment model. In 2019, WSG reported that the two appointed firms had demonstrated an ability to deliver satisfactory placement outcomes, which were comparable to that of NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) with more than six in 10 PMET jobseekers finding jobs within two months after tapping on Workforce Singapore and e2i's career matching services. Crucially, this move came after WSG stated that it had worked with four local employment agencies, but with I quote "lacklustre results" where the placement rate was less than 50%. I note that the new Jobs-Skills Integrators have not been named. Can the Minister tell us who they are and what KPIs will be used to determine the effectiveness of this latest pilot and which agencies will anchor this initiative?”
“Onto the first point of jobs and specifically equipping and empowering workers through the Jobs-Skills Integrators, the Budget seeks to ensure that training translates into good employment outcomes. Labour market intermediaries are being developed for two purposes: first, to ensure that training leads to real jobs; and second, to ensure job placement for those who have been properly trained. At first glance, the initiative holds much promise as many jobseekers may not have information on what opportunities there are out there, what they should train for or what organisations will need their new skills. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Jobs-Skills Integrators are being piloted for the precision engineering, resale and wholesale trade sectors. To get a sense of how this initiative might fair, we should look at past efforts in these sectors. In a 2016 press release on the Industry Transformation Map, or ITM, for the precision engineering sector with respect to digital manufacturing, the then-Minister of Trade and Industry reported that the move towards digital manufacturing would see the creation of 3,000 PMET jobs by 2020. Specifically, the press release noted that the workforce could expect strong support from the Government and that a new skills framework for precision engineering would be launched under SkillsFuture Singapore. In addition, employers and workers would be equipped with insights on career pathways for 13 occupations, job roles, and specifically training programmes. Professional conversion programmes were also promised to support the reskilling of mid-careerists who were keen to embark on new careers.”
“It is not lost on many Singaporeans including the Workers' Party that it is because of these efforts and those of their forebears that we have the capacity to propose other redistributive policies for our fellow Singaporeans today. I note the moves through the Budget to better equalise opportunities through fiscal intervention, such as raising taxes and duties for high-end property and luxury vehicles. And I note also the policies that came through last year, such as hikes in personal income taxes. In contrast, when some commentators characterise the Budget as a "Robin Hood" budget, they reinforce the perception of "two Singapores" being created. To combat both the perception as well as the reality in some quarters of "two Singapores" inexorably emerging, redistribution must be at the core of Government policies. To that extent, the Workers' Party supports the idea of a progressive society, where those who earn more pay proportionally more in taxes. Equally, we honour the centrality of a strong work ethic even as we are not only empathetic but also sensitive towards the disadvantaged and those who need extra support. The interventions of the Workers' Party for this debate would be in the spirit of this review of our social compact, envisioning how best society can position itself for an unpredictable and potentially far more disruptive future. I will now go on to the second part of my speech that will address three specific announcements in the Budget. In as much as the Budget is titled "Moving forward in a new era", a look back at the past is a useful guidepost for the new policies that are being introduced.”
“Buying a car is an out-of-reach luxury for most people, unlike in many other countries. I have also heard it summarised this way. In the past, you may not have done well in school, but if you were prepared to slog and save, you could become rich and successful. Today, the view is that once you have not succeeded academically, even if you slog for years, success, let alone wealth, may not follow. These "two Singapores" could easily become a reality that causes frictions in society. Singapore is a tiny red dot and both these Singapores would unavoidably rub up against each other. There is no countryside to retreat to, where the pace is slower and prices of things are lower than in the city. Human nature and the instincts of envy and chauvinism and a narrative of haves and have-nots can quickly poison society and accentuate cleavages. With people living cheek-by-jowl, such views can easily take root and manifest themselves in cruel ways. As much as the Government endeavours to keep society open and bring new businesses and opportunities to Singapore and Singaporeans for the greater good, it is that second Singapore, where a very broad middle of Singapore lives and works and plays, which should never find itself unmoored and cynical about the future of Singapore. There are some Singaporeans within the bureaucracy and they include members of the Executive and other senior civil servants, who are fixated about keeping Singapore relevant to the world, thinking of how to enlarge the pie even as they keep the other eye on making sure the pie does not get smaller. Their efforts cannot and should not be underestimated or ignored.”
“For those of us on the ground, our social trends are clear – a rapidly ageing population, a belief that social mobility for younger Singaporeans contrasts markedly with that in our parents' generation and a view that meritocracy has developed a perverse edge, allowing the well-off to move ahead much faster than the broad middle-class. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Leon Perera will speak more on this theme in his Budget speech. These are forces that have to be properly managed and it is critical for any Government to make the fight against inequality a central policy agenda and to decisively intervene to lift those at the bottom. It would be remiss of me to say that the Government has not made moves in this regard. In his Budget speech for example, Deputy Prime Minister Wong spent time highlighting how disadvantaged children need an early leg-up. If Singapore does not do more, a threat that has loomed large on the horizon in the last few years, of the potential emergence of "two Singapores", may become reality. One Singapore is connected to the world as a hub economy. It is where high salaries and opportunities abound and where locals and crucially, many foreigners too, power diverse nodes of the economy. This Singapore gives meaning to the promise and lure of Singapore and how we remain relevant to world. It is a Singapore that always strives to be at the cutting edge of global developments. The other Singapore is one where the majority of Singaporeans live. It is one where there are perceptions of slowing social mobility, connected to the reality of high housing prices. Today, the prospect of upgrading to a condominium or a landed property, unlike in decades past, is not as realistic for HDB home owners.”
“Sir, my speech is in two parts. In the first part, I will speak about the overarching thrust of the Budget. In the second part, I will address three specific areas covered by the Deputy Prime Minister: one, Jobs and the new Jobs-Skills Integrators; two, the raising of the CPF income ceiling; and three, the increased grants for buyers of HDB resale flats. Let me start with my views on the principal thrusts of the Budget. At last year's Budget, which was titled "Charting our way forward together", the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the Government's approach towards strengthening Singapore's social compact. Deputy Prime Minister Wong reiterated a commitment to further improving social policies, saying that this would be a multi-year agenda to prepare Singapore for the future. The Workers' Party sees this year's Budget as another plank of that multi-year agenda. This Budget also coincides with the Forward Singapore exercise launched last June. The Forward Singapore exercise is intended to build on the expression "social compact" that was employed at last year's Budget. My view is that Singapore's social compact must be one where we move forward together as one Singapore to tackle an unpredictable and potentially disruptive future. We must guard against a split in society, where the rich and the well-off high-earners are pitted against the rest of Singapore. To achieve that end, significant work needs to be done. I say this because one theme that was carried by some outlets, both mainstream and online, was that this year's Budget was, I quote, a "Robin Hood" Budget. Referring to it as such pits one group, high-earners and the rich, against the lower- and middle-classes.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Yes, indeed, I thought I had made it clear in my reply. I had also made it clear in my speech what our position was on the Progress Singapore Party Motion. I think the operative word, when the People's Action Party Members spoke about the Motion was that they were reading an implication into that Motion. So, I had just stated our stand clearly that we do not read it that way. We do not see the Motion per se in an insidious fashion. We actually focus on the fact of calling for a review of policies for better outcomes. That is how we see the Progress Singapore Party's Motion, and we are going to vote in favour of the Motion. Insofar as the schemes are concerned, we see them as different from the Motion. I think the exact words I used in my clarification was, "These are not our proposals. We are not supporting them. We do feel that they should be studied further." I hope that clarifies.”
“I understand earlier he mentioned demand was broad-based, but does the Minister believe that the creeping reality of lease decay is also a driver behind this steep rise? I think it was 140% over the time period that was identified in Annex 5. I made some reference to the POFMA Order. I am sure the POFMA Order was drafted very carefully. Point number six of the POFMA Order I referred to, the one of 14 October, said that the Government cannot sell state land at nominal or much lower cost than its fair market value. I was inquiring in my speech whether HDB priced land with some different valuation or modelling in mind vis-a-vis public housing because it says not at a much lower cost. So, really, what are we referring to here? I thank the Minister for recognising my point about subsidies and equity. I think that really focuses on the questions that I have been asking and the detail that I have been seeking. The Minister replied about and I think I have heard him more than once refer to the brochure, and he uses this word repeatedly – "broadly reflects", "broadly reflects", "broadly reflects". I understand that. Hence, my clarification and my use of Waterway Banks, which was employed by the Minister for National Development in 2013 in his Parliamentary reply, where he could identify specifically subsidies, the fixed costs, and he identified the figure without a problem. I do not believe HDB does that and I believe it can. Yes, I think I have addressed the question that the Minister raised about WP's position on PSP's proposals.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me get that out of the way. I intended to put some clarifications to the Minister and also address that point which Minister requested for earlier with regard to WP's position on the Affordable Homes Scheme. Our view is that it is an intriguing proposal. The WP, of course, has its own proposals that we have put across in the debate on this Motion, but we are not carrying PSP's proposals. Our own view is that it should be studied further. This is the same for their Millennial Apartments Scheme. On the point about our view on PSP's Motion, I believe I already covered it in my speech. I have some clarifications for the Minister. The first clarification I have is with regard to his point that in the course of addressing some of the pain points with housing policy today, the Forward Singapore exercise would be one platform which would be used by HDB and the Government to seek feedback from Singaporeans. In this vein, I refer to the report of the Land Working Group of the Economic Review Committee (ERC) in 2003, which I referenced in my speech. When that report was released, industry watchers opined that the Land Working Group could not undertake a proper review of land policy because public housing was not within the committee's purview and neither was HDB or MND actually represented on the Land Working Group. As part of the Forward Singapore exercise, would the Minister consider standing up a committee to look into the impact of growing land prices and increasing taxpayer subsidies on HDB affordability in particular? The second query I have is with regard to the Minister's handout, specifically Annex 5. Does the Minister have a view on the reasons for the steep demand from second-timers?”
“The Workers' Party does not share that view. We do not read any implication into it but see it as a call on the Government to review its public housing policies with the view towards greater affordability and accessibility. This is something the Government, to its credit, does regularly in response to feedback. For example, at the last Committee of Supply debates, specifically on HDB Priority Schemes, the Workers' Party called on the Government to increase the ballot opportunities for first-timer, married couples with children to secure flats. Sometime later, the Government announced changes broadly along these lines. On the PSP's specific proposals which are separate from the wording of the Motion, we believe a deep conversation of the options surrounding land pricing policy and how land for public use is valued, should be a priority of the Government to ensure HDB flats can be more affordable and accessible, particularly in the face of the use of more taxpayer subsidies to fund the HDB home ownership programme. [Applause.] 8.53 pm”
“Sir, the single amendment is as follows: In line 3, to delete "endorses the commitment of the Government to" and insert "calls on the Government to intensify its efforts to meet". I ask Members to consider whether the current anxieties of Singaporeans do not warrant greater effort by the PAP Government to review its commitment to affordability and accessibility with respect to public housing. Voting for the PAP Motion, as drafted originally by the Minister for National Development would mean that Singaporeans are satisfied with waiting up to four to five years for a HDB BTO flat. It would also mean that Singaporeans do not have quarrel or concern with the price of some BTO flats, such as 5-room BTO flats in Ang Mo Kio, priced at $877,000 and the significant increase in resale flat prices across the board recently. It would also mean that young couples and first-time Singaporean families who cannot secure a HDB BTO flat in a timely fashion and are pushed to the resale market where resale prices are higher than they have ever been – are not seeking better outcomes from public housing policies. We know from our engagement with Singaporeans that this is not the case. In the circumstances, it would be thoroughly underwhelming and missing the point for this House to carry a Motion which endorses the commitment of the Government's effort on affordability and accessibility thus far. Amending the Motion to call on the Government to intensify its efforts to make HDB flats more affordable and accessible would be consistent with the reasonable expectations that Singaporeans have for public housing today. For the record, the Workers' Party has no fundamental objection to the PSP's Motion. One PAP Member inferred the PSP's Motion to be insidious.”
“Sir, I seek your permission to move the amendment. May I hand over a copy to you before seeking your approval to circulate it to Members? 8.45 pm”
“The policy intent of the resale levy is to reduce the taxpayer subsidy the buyer receives on their second subsidised HDB BTO flat and ensures a fairer distribution of subsidies between first and second timers. At the point of sale of their first subsidised flat, the first time buyers of both a mature and non-mature BTO flat must return some portion of the taxpayers' subsidies they originally received through the resale levy. Can the Minister clarify, for individuals who bought a BTO flat after 3 March 2006, when there was a change in resale levy policy, what is the range of subsidies a 4-room mature and non-mature BTO flat lessee respectively would have received, even though the actual resale levy is fixed for both lessees at $40,000 by HDB? Until the Minister releases more information, it is open to question if the payment of the resale levy, which crucially does not distinguish between mature and non-mature flats, is either fair or equitable in view of the potentially wide variation between the original subsidies allocated to either lessee upon the purchase of their first BTO flat. I hope this information is forthcoming so alternative pricing models for HDB flats, a fair allocation of taxpayer subsidies and new policy proposals can be considered and advanced. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the PAP Motion as drafted, does not sufficiently take into account the reality that the Government should endeavour to make HDB BTO flats more affordable and more accessible than they currently are. The Workers' Party proposes an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Minister for National Development. The single amendment is as follows: in line three, to delete "endorses the commitment of the Government to" and insert "calls on the Government to intensify its efforts to meet".”
“With respect to these taxpayer subsidies, a distinction between mature and non-mature BTO flats is important because any deployment and subsequent recovery of subsidies for the home ownership programme ought to be, in principle, equitable and progressive. To this end, different subsidies allocated for different HDB BTO developments did not prevent the former Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan from sharing the dollar value of subsidies for specific BTO developments. On 9 September 2012, in a written answer to a question by Member of Parliament Ellen Lee, even without being specifically asked, the Minister shared the example of Waterway Banks – a BTO project launched in November 2011 in Punggol. The then Minister shared that this project had 1,016 units of 2- to 4-room flats. The project cost was $279 million and the sales proceeds amounted to $240 million with taxpayer subsidies making up to $39 million. The then Minister's answer starkly makes the point that there is actually no reason that can adequately explain why the current Government does not release the information on the taxpayer subsidies allocated for each BTO development. Coming back to Minister Khaw's revelation of subsidies from the Waterway Banks' project, will Minister Desmond Lee confirm if taxpayer subsidies to make up the difference between the sales proceeds and project costs are applied equally, regardless if a buyer purchased a 2-room or 4-room flat for example, or is the subsidy tiered proportionally to flat sizes? Compounding the matter of limited transparency on subsidies further, is the application of the resale levy at the point of sale.”
“These are taxpayers' subsidies and they represent the "loss" that the HDB incurs on the HDB's home ownership programme. This loss is fully funded and made good by the taxpayer. In his oral reply to my supplementary question last month, Minister said that resale prices had increased to around 28% or 29% over the last few years. But that BTO prices had been kept stable, ostensibly because taxpayer subsidies made up the difference. It must follow that Government expenditure would be reallocated or directed from some other programmes to fund the homeownership programme. This fact alone, one that has significant fiscal implications – but also a fact the Government, to my knowledge has thus far, never canvass as a reason to raise taxes would make it important for the Government to provide a breakdown of the dollar value of taxpayer subsidies for the home ownership programme. The broad answer given to my Parliamentary Question on a breakdown of taxpayer subsidies filed last month was that the taxpayer subsidies are not the same across BTO developments. This reply raises important, questions of fairness and equity. Mature BTO flats are more highly sought after compared to non-mature flats precisely because there is a greater profit and upside to be made after the Minimum Occupation Period, bringing the question of subsidies into acute focus. Mr Speaker, I speak without benefit of the information sought in my Parliamentary Question. Based on the Minister's reply, it would appear that an applicant who succeeds in securing a BTO flat in a mature estate where flats can be significantly more expensive, benefits from more taxpayer subsidies than one who secures a flat in a non-mature estate.”
“Tenderers will qualify if they bid more than 85% of the assessed market value of the land. If they bid less than up to 85%, the tender exercise can be aborted or is aborted. Does the 15% discount on the market price of land or the reserve price under GLS programmes constitute a draw on past reserves? And will the President's approval be required for such land sales which are sold below market valuation, and if not, why not? Finally, how did the Government decide on accepting tenders for private land at 15% below the market value and what is the basis to this figure of 15%? Based on a recent Parliamentary Question by Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee, we also know that the Government does not automatically rule out bids below the reserve price for GLS sites. And that the award of a site depends on the prevailing market conditions, number of independent bids received and the specific circumstances of each site. I would like to ask the Minister, how do these exceptions – because they are exceptions – avoid the often heard PAP criticism of raiding pass reserves? Would such exceptions provide enough reason and context to review how the Government prices land for public housing with a view to gradually cool the market? Conceptually, this would not be dissimilar to the fiat the Government can wield in not ruling out tender bids below the reserve price for private land. I now come to the final section of my speech with questions for the Minister on taxpayer subsidies. Sir, the quantum of subsidies the HDB allocates for the home ownership scheme is another important but less ventilated aspect of HDB policy when it comes to affordability.”
“" In 2013, on the back of the "Our Singapore Conversation", a Straits Times editorial titled, "Pondering next phase of public housing" stated, "When the HDB's key mission of building affordable homes has to go hand-in-hand with broader considerations, a variety of fresh ideas deserved to be explored. Those floated by National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan recently are lower-priced BTO flats with a longer Minimum Occupation Period before these can be sold on the open market. A shorter lease to match cheaper prices and the separation of new flats from others by allowing resale only to the HDB. Other means of lowering prices could be to increase grants to first timers or take land costs out of prices and recover this when the flat is resold." In a POFMA clarification on 14 October 2022 directed at Yeoh Lam Keong by the Ministry of National Development, the Government stated that it cannot sell state land at nominal or at a much lower cost than its fair market value without the President's approval, as doing so would constitute a draw on past reserves. On this point, I have some questions for the Minister. Can the Minister confirm if the words, "not much lower cost than its fair market value" – the emphasis being on not much lower – as stated in the POFMA direction, does it suggest that land for HDB flats can be sold to HDB at a price lower than its market value, as established by the Chief Valuer? If so, under what circumstances can this be done? In comparison, such an interpretation would not be inconsistent with the concept of a reserve price for sites sold under the Government Land Sales, GLS, for private housing, and industrial GLS programmes which are pegged to 85% of the estimated market valuation of each site.”
“Mr Speaker, it is trite to say that any major reset of public housing policy cannot take place without upsetting either buyers or sellers or perhaps both. The Government currently sets land costs at fair market value to the price of flats. Mr Leong Mun Wai has sought to address that the land cost component of HDB flat prices from a new perspective, through the PSP Affordable Homes Scheme proposal. The Government would be familiar with the gist of this proposal as it was originally put forward by a researcher from The Institute of Policy Studies, a Government think tank about a decade ago. The idea of the land cost for public housing being accounted for differently is not new. There have been calls from the public and in the mainstream media to see how land cost can be dealt with to make HDB prices more affordable. And these come from a good place, and they should not be received by accusations of wanting to raid the reserves. In 2002, The Business Times published a reader's letter which said, "land is purchased and assigned to HDB by the Singapore Land Authority. The actual land costs on the assignment to HDB should not be governed by the market, as the role of HDB must include the important social objective to provide public housing to those who are unable to participate in the private sector. This is a fundamental policy issue which needs to be acknowledged. We need to be more transparent with regard to the cost of land assignment, so that the public can constructively and actively participate in examining the formula of land assignment to HDB.”
“" Today, the BTO system is both similar and different to the booking system of 1989 in some respects. But one fact is dramatically different. The BTO system today does not promise flats for buyers in two and a half years. Of course, the downside of this pre-BTO model, which ensures an ample supply of flats is that in the event of a "black swan" episode, like the Asian Financial Crisis, there may well be an excess stock of flats which take time to clear, including administrative costs. But in that worst-case scenario, new accessibility options can be considered, for example, HDB would be able to offer excess flats towards schemes like the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, which is, oversubscribed even today. Other options include expanding rental options for low-income households, which host large families to flat types that can be up to 3-room or even 4-room in size. I acknowledge the reply given by Minister Desmond Lee to Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Chua Kheng Wee by way of his Parliamentary Question that since 2018, the HDB has offered close to 11,000 BTO flats with shorter waiting times of less than three years. However, as the Minister revealed, for the 23,184 flats launched in 2022, only 8% are short-wait BTO flats. The Minister's new commitment, as announced yesterday, to increase this to 2,000 to 3,000 flats each year, will not move the 2022 figure of 8% in a significant way. How is it that the HDB could build high-quality flats at a much faster rate decades ago compared to today, even after the introduction of productivity measures, such as prefabrication technology? Can the Minister make a commitment to bring accessibility to commitments made in 1989?”