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 16 of 36.
“What is more difficult to grasp is the comparative lack of public knowledge on the non-legislative levers to address foreign interference. The Select Committee went through these non-legislative measures in a significant way. There have been a number of recommendations but the Government's response appears to have been focused on POFMA and, now, FICA. The S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) published a policy report in April this year on countermeasures against foreign influence. This has been circulated to Members by Parliament Library staff. The report said that to combat foreign interference, it is critical to build resilience, or, in our Total Defence parlance, psychological defence – by raising awareness about information manipulation in both the Government as well as amongst the public. The paper noted that foreign campaigns to sway public opinion during the 2017 presidential campaign in France were unsuccessful. This was because the French government created awareness about information manipulation, built strong central organisations to counter disinformation and undertook a strategy to push counter narratives that blunted the effects of disinformation, such as focusing public attention on the perpetrators. Coming back to the Singapore Government's approach, the examples raised about foreign interference focused largely on long past attempts, such as the Singapore Herald and Eastern Sun episodes and the Hendrickson affair. In a Straits Times article on 25 September, there were references to the impounding of SAF Terrex vehicles in Hong Kong and to reports of China's soft power efforts in Singapore through clan and business associations.”
“In the same month, March this year, the Member for Bukit Batok, Mr Murali Pillai quoted a speech by the Secretary-General at the 36th PAP Party Conference. Referring to the Prime Minister's speech, he said that Singaporeans have expressed a desire to re-examine our basic assumptions, try new approaches and have greater checks and balances. This was preceded by the hon Member's statement that it is important for each generation of leaders and people to find their own equilibrium of what people would accept without question, under what circumstances and towards what ends. This is a position that I accept. Looking at this as a statement by a Minister and a PAP member, it can be said to be highly contradictory if the Government acknowledges the desire of the people for more checks and balances but avoids public consultations on a Bill that will surely limit the civil rights of the Singaporeans, if it is passed by this Chamber and misused by the government of the day. (In English): Mr Speaker, the fourth part of my speech is on how the Government has been comparatively muted on the non-legislative measures to deal with foreign interference. Such measures should include educating the public to resist malignant information efforts and how to be vigilant against such interference that is commonly effected through business clans and cultural conduits, where the prospects of plausible deniability are high. Sir, this Bill is the final instalment in the series of legislative changes that arose out of the work of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. It was to be expected from the Committee's report that legislation would be used to address the problems identified.”
“However, I am also sure that, if asked, most Singaporeans would be in favour of our Courts acting as a check to ensure that executive power is exercised lawfully, appropriately and fairly. Mr Speaker, in the national language. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, there has been some disquiet among certain quarters about the speed at which this Bill has been tabled in Parliament. In March this year, during the Committee of Supply (COS) debates, Deputy Speaker Christopher De Souza asked MHA about the measures that will be taken to prevent foreign interference in domestic affairs. The Second Minister for Home Affairs replied by highlighting the need for legislative levers. She said, "Given the recent experiences of other countries, we need to consider further measures to guard against foreign subversion of politically significant individuals and entities. For example, what levels of transparency in funding, support and leadership are appropriate? For whom?" More importantly, she also said, "The public has a big part in this to shape proposals and to give the eventual safeguards their strongest support. It is the only way we can effectively deter bad foreign actors from exploiting our vulnerabilities." In the period of six months from Mrs Josephine Teo's statement at this year's Committee of Supply, to the First Reading of this Bill last month, the Government has not conducted any public consultation about this Bill, or obtained public feedback as it is usually done. This is very different from the statement made by the Second Minister for Home Affairs in Parliament, which intended to take heed of the views of the general public when drafting this Bill and its assurances.”
“" In the six months between Minister Josephine Teo's statement and the First Reading of this Bill, the Government did not hold any public consultation on this Bill and nor can it be said that the public played a big part in shaping this Bill. This omission contradicts the position on record of the Second Minister for Home Affairs, which was to lean on the public to shape the Bill, which must surely include its safeguards. In March this year, in his Adjournment Motion on Judicial Review and ousted clauses like clause 104 of this Bill, the hon Member for Bukit Batok and Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Home Affairs and Law, Mr Murali Pillai, stated that it was important for each generation of political leaders and the people to find their own equilibrium of what our people would accept without question. This is a position I accept and welcome. The hon Member then quoted his party Secretary-General's speech at the 36th PAP Party Conference held in November last year, when Prime Minister Lee said that Singaporeans have expressed the desire to have greater checks and balances, and that the PAP Government must change and respond to these desires and expectations. Taking the words of the Minister and the GPC Chair together, it is wholly incongruous for the Government to accept that the public of today desires greater checks and balances, then omits to seek public feedback on a Bill that does away with substantive judicial review. Mr Speaker, I believe I would not be too far off in speculating that if the public had been surveyed on this Bill, most Singaporeans would have readily supported the use of executive power to curb foreign influence.”
“Mr Speaker, the books presented to Speaker Coomaraswamy in 1966 and their subject matter may only be familiar to a small class of Singaporeans. But ask Singaporeans, generally, about checks and balances and a clear majority would agree that they are important for Singapore. Power and responsibility must be divided, to empower each branch of Government, and ensure the exercise of power is not unlimited. Which brings me to the third part of my speech on how the Government should have sought public feedback on the Bill. Mr Speaker, there has been considerable disquiet in some quarters at the speed at which this Bill has been presented to Parliament. In March this year, at the Committee of Supply debates, Deputy Speaker Christopher de Souza enquired what MHA would do to deter foreign influence in Singapore’s domestic affairs. The Second Minister for Home Affairs, hon Mrs Josephine Teo, addressed the query and announced that legislative levers may be needed. I quote, "Given the recent experience of other countries, we need to consider further measures to guard against foreign subversion of politically significant individuals and entities. For example, what levels of transparency in funding support and leadership are appropriate and for whom." More significantly, the Minister then went on to say, and I quote, "The public has a big part in this to shape proposals and to give the eventual safeguards their stronger support. It is the only way we can effectively deter bad foreign actors from exploiting our vulnerabilities." Let me say that again. "The public has a big part in this to shape proposals and to give the eventual safeguards their stronger support.”
“" The Court of Appeal also observed, and I quote again, "any society that prides itself in being governed by the rule of law, as our society does, must hold steadfastly to the principle that all power has legal limits, and the rule of law demands that the Courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power." In stark contrast, the Bill before us today envisages the creation of a Reviewing Tribunal within the Executive branch with quasi-judicial powers with regard to the right of appeal against authorisation for Part 3 directions, or against the decisions of a Competent Authority. Clause 99 appears to go so far as to completely displace natural justice from the oversight process as drafted in the Bill. One of its paragraphs states that the Rules may enable or require a Reviewing Tribunal to hear or consider any proceedings or appeal without the person who brought the appeal having been given full particulars of the reasons for any conduct which is the subject of the proceedings or appeal. Many members of the public have read it carefully and I would forward that it shocks the sensitivities of many, and it goes some way to explain how this Bill has been framed and understood by the public since its First Reading three weeks ago. Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party rejects such an appeal mechanism. We propose an amendment of clause 104 to allow, first, for an appeal to the Minister and, thereafter, to the High Court with full judicial scrutiny. Of course, there is a provision for a private hearing where national security is at risk. Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC He Ting Ru will go through these amendments.”
“One can hazard a guess that not a small number of our citizens would be unsure of how important such principles are to our political system. Let me add a historical dimension. Members of this House may have noticed a compact wooden bookcase at one end of the Parliament library. This bookcase and a number of books on parliamentary and constitutional subjects were presented by the UK’s House of Commons to the then-Speaker of Parliament P Coomaraswamy on 16 November 1966 to mark Singapore becoming the 22nd nation of the Commonwealth to gain Independence. This House passed a resolution recognising the receipt of these gifts on 5 December that year. One of the famous books in this bookcase is the Law of the Constitution by Albert Dicey where that hallowed phrase central to the separation of powers in all parliamentary democracies is found, and I quote: "Powers, however extraordinary, which are conferred by or sanctioned by statute, are never unlimited, for they are confined by the words of the Act itself, and, what is more, by the interpretation put upon the statute by the judges." Unquote. The separation of powers doctrine and its close relationship with the rule of law was affirmed in the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP. The Court of Appeal observed that the separation of powers is, and I quote, "embodied in the Singapore Constitution by virtue of Article 23 (which vests the executive authority in the President and the Cabinet), Article 38 (which vests the legislative power in the President and Parliament) and Article 93 (which vests the judicial power in a system of the Courts).”
“As MHA's press release on the First Reading of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill shows, the danger of elite capture is an insidious threat. It would be unwise to assume that only politicians, civil society activists and journalists are vectors for foreign influence. To this end, it would be important for the public to understand that the Government did not think it necessary to designate such individuals as PSPs in the original Bill. I will leave Member of Parliament Gerald Giam to speak more on this subject. Of the four areas of amendments, foremost is accountability of the Executive, because, without that, fairness in scoping powers and greater transparency are but shadow puppets. This is why the second part of my speech is on how exceptional executive power requires the strongest of oversight to ensure accountability. Mr Speaker, the starting position of the Workers’ Party is that the ubiquity of the threat of foreign interference and its low-cost ecosystem, particularly online, is neither a figment of the imagination, nor can it be wished away. It follows that the Government must have powers and, in some cases, even potentially intrusive powers, to intervene in the appropriate case. However, if we accept that such broad-ranging, broadly defined powers should be legislated to deal with foreign interference, then this House must ensure the legislation of equally robust oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse of power. If a poll were to be conducted among ordinary Singaporeans on concepts like the separation of powers doctrine and its centrality to our system of Government, such a poll, I would hazard, would likely elicit quizzical looks.”
“This must be the default position for parliamentary democracy that recognises the centrality of the separation of powers under our Constitution. The second area is fairness. The law must more precisely scope the extent of executive powers to minimise the prospect of abuse of power. Phrases, such as "is likely to" and "where the Minister suspects" create low thresholds of proof that could be unfairly used against entities and individuals if power is in the wrong hands. While the Bill targets foreign interference, Singaporeans are the central focus and it is important that their constitutional rights are respected. The third area is transparency. There has to be greater clarity and transparency on the entities and individuals affected by this Bill. I note in this regard that MHA has made a statement in the middle of last week – I think there have been a few statements and comments made by the Ministry – that it will publish details of designated persons or entities, but the point is, surely, this should have been made more explicit in the Bill. The fourth area is effectiveness. The Workers' Party has no objection to the additional requirements that are ported to this Bill in connection with the porting over of the Political Donations Act into FICA. However, we do question whether the list of Politically Significant Persons is far-reaching enough. I note the Minister's comments in his Second Reading speech. But the point is our Civil Service has a significant footprint in the success of Singapore, with its central role in influencing Government policy. As key nodes in decision-making, civil servants from Deputy Secretary upwards, in our view, should be designated like Politically Significant Persons.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Bill. Before I begin, I do not recall coming across a Bill that is understood in such diametrically opposing ways by, on the one hand, some members of the public, including at least two Senior Counsels, many civil society activists, former Nominated Members of Parliament and journalists, and by the Executive on the other. This anomaly in our public discourse regarding this Bill is significant and it bears deep reflection on how our laws are made and communicated to the public before they are passed in this House. Sir, my speech has four parts. One, is a summary of the amendments filed by the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament; two, is on how exceptional executive power requires robust judicial oversight to ensure accountability; three, is on how the Government should have sought public feedback on this Bill; and four, is on how the Government has been largely muted as to the non-legislative measures to combat foreign interference and why this needs to be corrected urgently. Let me first summarise the amendments proposed by the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament who will explain the substantive basis of their amendments in their respective speeches. Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Gerald Giam and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim filed amendments to the Bill on 27 September 2021 by 4:30 pm, which is the deadline for filing any amendments to Bills for this particular Sitting. The thrust of the amendments is in four areas: accountability, fairness, transparency and effectiveness. The first area is accountability. The Government must be accountable when it implements this law and uses executive power against individuals and entities. There should be robust oversight of executive action by the Supreme Court.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I apologise. With regard to the Motion, I would wish that Workers' Party Members have their dissent recorded.”
“So be it. [(proc text) Question again put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That the Petition on ‘Seeking Further Consultation and Scrutiny of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill’ presented by the Non-Constituency Member be referred to Parliament for consideration at the Second Reading of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill." – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the Motion.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I support, and the Workers' Party supports, the call to allow the Public Petitions Committee to review the Petition.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg your indulgence. Can the Workers' Party Members of Parliament have their dissent recorded, please?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to clarify a point made by Minister Lawrence Wong vis-à-vis his request that we vote against the PSP Motion. We feel strongly about the amendments that we sought to amend the PSP Motion. Speaker disallowed it because it was deemed to a substantive change to the Motion. But the reason why we opined that the change was important is because we have a different view on FTAs and CECA compared to the PSP. Similarly, I have shared with the House why I sought to move an amendment to the Minister's Motion and we feel strongly about those amendments as well. We have a difference of opinion on that. On both Motions, the WP will vote accordingly.”
“This limb is not inconsistent with the Government's acknowledgement in July that it is better for data, for example, such as that requested by Leon Perera on ICT numbers, and this is my example, to come out early when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia and that it is much better to quell these issues earlier. Sir, that marks the end of my speech. My colleague, Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will propose an amendment to the Motion by Mr Leong Mun Wai in her speech. Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“Sir, I beg to move the following amendments. Under limb (c), to delete the words "supports" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with "calls for stronger". Under limb (d), to delete the word "and". Under limb (e), to include the word "and" at the end of the sentence after the semi-colon. Finally, to insert a new limb (f) which reads as follows, "calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment." Mr Speaker, please allow me to explain the proposed amendments very briefly. The inclusion of the words "calls on stronger" in place of "supports", reinforces the importance of correcting course and adjusting or changing policies going forward to address the anxieties amongst Singaporeans that limb (a) of the Minister's Motion acknowledges has taken root in the recent past. The new limb (f) captures what we in the Workers' Party believe represents a fundamental change of culture needed with respect to information disclosure. A proactive approach to disclosure would operate to take the sting out of misinformation campaigns that ride on job and unemployment insecurity, and encourage a fact-based conversation amongst our people. This would, in turn, buttress efforts amongst Singaporeans to provide feedback on gaps and solutions that can improve outcomes for the Singaporean worker and PMET.”
“Sir, if I may, I will just wait for maybe 15 seconds for the amendments to be distributed.”
“The anxieties and concerns of the Singaporean worker and PMET are real. Our workers carry the same fears and concerns for their children. These insecurities and uncertainties are not recent. It is for this reason that the Workers’ Party proposes an amendment to the Minister for Finance's Motion, which I seek to share with this House. May I hand a copy to you, Sir, and, if permitted, thereafter to Members. [A copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]”
“Sir, those were the three parts of my speech: the Workers' Party's position on FTAs and CECA, local concerns on job insecurity and suggestions on what needs to be done. Mr Speaker, may I conclude by saying that being a country open to foreign investment and looking after the Singaporean worker and PMET must be complementary objectives. In August last year, I said in this House, "Foreigners are important to Singapore and they help power our economy. Their presence gives Singapore a vitality that keeps us economically relevant and also provides jobs and opportunities to our fellow Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans count the foreigners in our midst, regardless of race, language or religion, as our friends. But it is precisely because we need foreigners to power our economy that we need to pay more attention to Singapore workers, some of whom feel excluded from opportunities created in their homeland." The Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong, in reference to the Ministerial Statement made by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng, said that the tone of how we debate the issue matters. The Minister said that if investors start to feel that Singapore is less hospitable to foreign investment and talent, they will surely look for other options and there are many compelling options everywhere in the world. We may all end up worse off. In my estimation, Sir, a more open and accountable approach by the Government to the dynamic employment situation is likely to alleviate the anxieties of foreign businesses. They may well devote their intellectual capital to being a dedicated part of the solution, providing greater emphasis on in-house skills upgrading for all their workers, including Singaporeans, and become more conscious of their need to hire and train more locals.”
“Such realities make it more important to be forthcoming and aggressive in releasing information. Separately, the foreigner-local issue is a fault line that can be exploited by external parties to compromise and destroy Singapore's psychological defences. Some bad actors, knowing that we rely on foreigners to address our fertility numbers and to ensure an economically vibrant and successful Singapore and are equally aware of how nation building is more challenging as a result for us, would have their own reasons, no doubt, to see Singapore fail. Pitting one racial community against another is an easy way to do this. It is in our nation's interest that the Government anticipate, change tack and drive an active, not passive, conversation informed by facts rather than misinformation on jobs and the employment situation in Singapore. In the face of a US-China Cold War and our majority ethnic Chinese population, I would suggest that it is perfectly within the contemplation of other bad actors to use Singapore's racial balance to play out one act of a modern great game amongst our local population, pitting Indians against Chinese as an overlay to fraught Sino-Indian relations and to build up more anger against Indian workers and India in general. There is some data out there on jobs, which the Government releases every now and then. But the Government can bring this all together with key principals, such as MOM, SkillsFuture Singapore, Workforce Singapore and MTI, in an open and accountable manner. If we can clarify issues that disturb Singaporeans who would inevitably have less information than the Government, we would be able to focus singularly on the progress being made by the Singaporean PMETs and workers, and address gaps that develop.”
“One prominent figure in the digital notices is that 97,000 Singaporeans have benefited from CECA. But where should Singaporeans go when they want more details? For example, at what wage levels were these jobs? Which industries benefited? Were these jobs part-time or full-time ones? This also invites the question of correlation and causation. Is it possible that these are net jobs created by firms since 2005 that are in India through CECA? If so, that does not necessarily mean that the advantages afforded by CECA created those jobs. Such information is not provided in the displays. I do not believe such additional information is a bridge too far, if the Government wants to clear the air. Surely, it would not be too difficult to incorporate additional detailed information or have it available by way of a QR code in the digital notice display. As intimated earlier, particularly for an issue as sensitive as this, the default position of the Government should be to release more information and explain the situation. Sir, the Government remains in the most privileged position to move swiftly to assuage public concerns or misunderstanding. The Government needs to reflect on its own omissions and resistance when it comes to providing data and information, and how it ought to take some responsibility for the groundswell of misinformation about CECA. Many Singaporeans receive news and information through social media. Much of the racist vitriol and xenophobia directed at Indians over CECA can be found online and from anonymous posts. In 2018, the report of the Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods identified particular traits within the ecology of social media, such as confirmation bias, the illusory truth effect, and the slow drip of falsehoods.”
“The ICT numbers that Mr Leon Perera asked for in 2016 would allow us to make a better assessment of the impact of ICTs under CECA compared to other FTAs. Revealing the numbers would promote a fact-based conversation. The Government’s initiative to release only the ICT figures for 2020, instead of placating CECA detractors, may actually have the opposite effect: it begs the question of what the figures for the earlier years were. To help us base today’s debate on facts, may I call on the Government to now answer the question asked by Mr Leon Perera in 2016: how many ICTs have come from India under CECA from 2005 to 2019? As far as the release of information from the Government is concerned, may I add that I read Minister Tan See Leng’s speech with an implicit caveat that the Government’s release of information on such matters would likely continue to be reactive and when it suits the Government, rather than proactive and when it suits the people. I would be delighted to stand corrected on this, but if I am right that the Government prefers to remain reactive, I would suggest to the Government that this approach can no longer hold water, nor should it, a point Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will make in her speech as well. This desire to interrogate facts communicated by the Government will only increase, a point that I have shared previously in this House. The Government must share detailed facts that matter to the public and not only consolidated facts that broadly support the Government’s position. For example, since July, the Government has been using the digital notice boards located at every ground floor lift lobby in HDB blocks to launch an aggressive campaign to address the concerns surrounding CECA. This is understandable.”
“Then Manpower Minister, Mr Lim Swee Say, replied, and I quote: “ICTs from any country, including India, would need to meet the Ministry’s work pass qualifying criteria to work in Singapore. The only difference is that ICTs from all countries are exempted from the advertisement requirement in our Jobs Bank. The Ministry does not disclose data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs.” Unquote. The Government simply refused to answer a question of national relevance for which data was readily available. Is this acceptable? Can Singaporeans be blamed for assuming that the numbers must have been so huge that the Government saw fit not to reveal them? To say that no other government reveals information to the granularity requested ignores the fact that Singapore is sui generis – of its own class. How many other multi-racial hub-economies, immigrant-needy and in our unique geographical and demographic situation can we name? None. The Government’s position on revealing ICT information seemed to change with Minister Tan See Leng’s speech in Parliament in July. I quote: “We recognise that if misconceptions continue to spread, in spite of all our attempts to address them in so many other ways, even more damage will be done. So, I will share some numbers to address the misconceptions and allow for a meaningful engagement of the issue.” Unquote. Minister Tan See Leng revealed that the number of ICTs from India was a low figure of 500 in the year 2020. But I should point out that this was a number after the onset of COVID-19. Quite obviously, there must have been a reduction of Indian nationals entering Singapore in 2020 compared to the previous years.”
“In other parliamentary standing democracies, such permanent Parliamentary Standing Select Committees on fundamental national matters that are appropriately resourced and supported by a strong secretariat, are par for the course. It is about time we had such a committee. My fifth suggestion is that the Government needs to communicate more and much better than it has been doing till now on foreign employment. And by this, I mean giving factual information so that public debate can be better informed. And this calls for a change of culture. A philosophical change. The Government should have started doing this years ago. Quite clearly, this feeling of displacement and heightened sensitivity was the order of the day well before CECA entered the public lexicon in the way it has done over the last few months. As early as August 2015, the Government fact-checking website, Factually, put out an article titled "Does CECA allow firms to hire Indian professionals in Singapore without valid work passes, or without adhering to fair employment guidelines?" The fact that such an article was needed and put out there suggests that the Government was fully aware that CECA was in danger of becoming a fault line many years ago. In July, when Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng made their Ministerial Statements, I shared with this House that more than five years prior in 2016, my Parliamentary colleague, Workers' Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera, asked the then Minister for Manpower a straightforward Parliamentary Question on the number of Intra-Corporate Transferees (ICTs) through CECA. Specifically, Mr Leon Perera asked how many ICTs from India had been approved under CECA from its first year to the latest year for which data was available.”
“Some reskilling initiatives for these workers may be necessary to better align their foundational capabilities. Yet others may have made the transition out of choice. Better measurement and regularly reporting of such underemployment would also enable Singaporeans to assess the Government’s efforts in this regard. An accurate understanding of skills-based underemployment would also have the knock-on effect of ensuring that the selection criteria for work pass applicants would be more accurately scoped. The Workers’ Party suggests that there is an urgent need to publicly track underemployment amongst Singaporeans and to publish such findings. My fourth suggestion is that there should be a check and balance of a dedicated platform where the policy-makers can be questioned, and this is the suggestion of a permanent Parliamentary Standing Select Committee dedicated to the issue of jobs and foreign employment. This high level of accountability would do two things. First, such a committee would closely monitor the Government’s efforts by tracking unemployment and underemployment and job-related data, in addition to calling witnesses to give evidence. Such a committee could also ensure that Singaporeans are getting a fair shake at the workplace and address concerns on job security and employment prospects of Singaporeans, including where training and skills upgrading opportunities lie. Second, such a committee, by virtue of increased transparency and signature, compared to the current status quo, would minimise mischievous attempts at stoking xenophobia and unreasonable expectations of job protection regardless of competence.”
“Currently, employers expect the EP of foreigners to be routinely renewed. A fixed-term EP would be one that would only be renewed if the applicant company can prove that, under the previous EP, Singaporean workers in the company or in the industry have benefited from skills upgrading. This new category of work pass can be piloted in newer, disruptive industries, such as autonomous vehicles and AI, where there should be no reason why Singaporeans should not be the candidates of choice. I hope MOM can look into such alternative proposals to secure tangible and positive outcomes for the Singapore worker or PMET by tracking skills transfer to our people. Third: underemployment. The Government needs to track and solve underemployment. Workers' Party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim, in her Committee of Supply speech in 2016, suggested that underemployment should be measured. MOM said at the time that time-related underemployment is the only internationally accepted statistical definition of underemployment and since it is recommended by the International Labour Organization or ILO, Singapore follows that norm. Ms Sylvia Lim spoke again on underemployment in her 2019 Budget debate speech, to which the former Minister for Manpower responded that MOM is interested in tracking other forms of underemployment, such as skill-related underemployment, but reiterated that there were no internationally recognised ways of doing so. She said that the Government was working closely with the ILO to develop suitable methodologies. We have yet to hear of the result of this work with the ILO. Skill-related underemployment appears to be a reality affecting some of our workers. These workers are not undertaking work for which they were trained, for example, engineers working as private hire drivers.”
“This Government programme has been extended to 2024 and, in its own words, seeks to, I quote, “support pervasive innovation throughout the economy and build deep capabilities in our local workforce to support companies, associations and professional bodies to speed up the transfer of global capabilities into Singapore”, unquote. Does it do what it promises? There has to be a reckoning, a balance sheet drawn up, where the successes and shortcomings of such initiatives to transfer skills to Singaporeans are properly accounted for and assessed across sectors and industries. In response to my queries in Parliament, the Government reported that $5 million has been spent over the last five years and this initiative has benefited 970 Singaporeans. Without more, this does appear underwhelming. I note that the CTP is only one arrow in the Government’s quiver, but this only reiterates the point that a holistic assessment and reporting of the transfer of skills from foreigners to Singaporeans is necessary. I suggest that the extent of skills transfer from foreigners to locals be publicly tracked, monitored and reported as a Key Performance Indicator, or KPI, for each sector in the revised Industry Transformation Roadmaps under ITM 2.0. As each industry is tracked, reasons should be given why skills can or cannot be transferred. It should also be clearly stated how these gaps are being plugged. Second suggestion: fixed-term EPs. To ease the insecurity felt by the Singaporean worker or PMET, Mr Speaker, I restate a proposal raised by my colleague Member of Parliament Leon Perera, at the Committee of Supply debates in March. He suggested fixed-term EPs that are tied to the training of, or skills transfer to Singaporean workers.”
“as a government, we needed to monitor the inflows of PRs and foreign workers as well as demographic changes more closely. No surprise that the people reacted in the way they did….the negative ground sentiment went beyond crowdedness. It also encompassed perceived job competition from foreigners and preference of some companies for foreigners over Singaporeans.” Unquote. Sir, if a former Prime Minister whose job was not directly threatened or taken away by a foreigner can say he was "surprised and annoyed", how much more so for a Singaporean who has experienced such a fear of, or actual loss of their livelihood? Mr Speaker, I now move on to the third part of my speech on what needs to be done to repair the local/foreign divide. I make five suggestions which I will elaborate on in turn. One, policies and procedures must be introduced to more effectively promote and track skills transfers from foreigners to Singaporeans; two, fixed-term EPs tied to skills transfers should be considered; three, the problem of underemployment must be tracked and solved; four, the Government should consider setting up a Parliamentary Standing Select Committee dedicated to overseeing this issue of jobs and foreign employment; and five, the Government needs to communicate more and much better on jobs and foreign employment that it has been doing up to now. The first suggestion: promoting and tracking the transfer of skills to Singaporeans. My first suggestion is that the Government should double down on how it monitors the success of skills transfer initiatives which are generously funded with taxpayers’ money. Do skills transfer initiatives work and to what extent? I spoke about the Capability Transfer Programme (CTP) during the Committee of Supply debates this year.”
“Those Singaporeans who ride on the opportunities created by a growing economy, or who are new immigrants doing well economically, can more readily accept the new status quo. It is a small price to pay and one can interpret the new reality as the price of progress and economic growth. But for those who lose their jobs, see their incomes stagnate and fear for their children's prospects in a competitive Singapore – and these are commonly the sandwiched class and low-income Singaporeans – strong feelings are aroused, with many feeling that the playing field is uneven and the Government is slow to protect Singaporeans in their own land. Ordinary Singaporeans do not delve into the intricacies of FTAs. Instead, they look around and come to conclusions based on what they perceive and experience. If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs while qualified Singaporeans are unemployed or underemployed, we would not be talking about this today. Over the last two decades, the effect of the Government's immigration and foreign talent policies has been so pervasive that former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong covered the subject in his autobiography released only a few months ago, the second part of his autobiography, and I quote, “….take PRs, for example. In the years before, the numbers rose to 50,000, then 70,000 a year. It was nearly 80,000 in 2008! I was surprised and annoyed. I told the Prime Minister so. Since then, we have kept the numbers to around 30,000 PRs every year. But even then, when you add the numbers up over the years, you will begin to feel the cumulative effects within the society and in daily living…" Then he goes on, " ...”
“It is also upsetting for Singaporeans when they learn that a foreigner has filled a job position for which a Singaporean is suitably qualified. The emotions that we see today, while directed differently – towards Indians in some cases – have been directed at other communities in the past. As noted by Minister for Manpower in his Ministerial Statement in July and I quote, "In the 2000s, we experienced a similar situation when the share of PRCs in our foreign workforce increased significantly, before tapering as China's growth took off. Both then and now, the large numbers did not go unnoticed and created frictions within our communities." An important distinction between the vitriol directed against the PRC workers was that many of them were employed in low- to middle-income sectors, while there has been an acute focus on Indian professional workers today. Today, the influx of employees of Indian ethnicity – not all of whom are from India, some are from the US and elsewhere – taking up competitively paying jobs has also activated emotions in a not small number of Singaporeans. Some ask, "why can’t our people do those jobs?" After all, our students score so well on standardised tests. Our much-vaunted education system should have put our workforce in a much better position. This is a subject Member Gerald Giam will speak more about in his speech. Our sense of home is also affected when some EP and S Pass holders struggle to speak, let alone communicate in our workplace lingua franca – English – which represents a fundamental basis around which we organise public affairs in Singapore. When this happens, some Singaporeans stop feeling that we are one Singapore, all rowing in the same direction.”
“The Workers' Party also notes that there have been some elements in our society or perhaps from abroad that have used CECA as a dog-whistle, masquerading racism for genuine economic concerns. The Workers' Party accepts that genuine economic concerns exist and that it is fair to raise concerns about them. However, we abhor and denounce the racism and xenophobia that have become a part of the public narrative in some quarters. Some have gotten carried away resorting to loose and vile language online as an outlet for their frustration, something they would not do in person, or worse, extended this behaviour to the real world. This can never be right, and must also be rejected and condemned. I now move to the second part of my speech: public perceptions on job insecurity. Mr Speaker, the Government would accept that there have been long simmering emotions amongst a sizeable number of Singaporeans surrounding CECA and, more generally, over the perception that Singaporeans are denied fair opportunities in the job market. Some of this has resulted in highly-charged conversations and incidents, both online and offline, even without the PSP's focus on this subject. Immigration and the job prospects of locals are not only issues for Singaporeans. Globalisation has meant that the local populations of many countries, particularly advanced economies, share such concerns. As a young nation, these feelings of insecurity and dislocation can shake our national cohesion, with the country being unrecognisable to the one many of us grew up in. Job displacement is very emotionally jarring, especially when your HR department tells you that your role has been made redundant, only for you to later find out that your job has been rejigged and filled by a foreigner.”
“Second, we note the Government's explanation that CECA does not allow Indian nationals free rein to enter Singapore and that the entry of foreigners who seek employment is regulated by the Government and, specifically, MOM's work pass policies. However, we believe that it is fair to ask whether the Government and MOM, for many years past, have failed to regulate work passes in the best way possible. I note that the Minister for Manpower recently announced that anti-discrimination legislation will be introduced. This is one of the things that the Workers' Party has called for in its manifesto. Third, the Workers' Party does not assume that good jobs are automatically created for Singaporeans by virtue of Singapore's pro-trade policies and a strong network of FTAs, including CECA. We believe that, for a few groups, such as the sandwiched class, workers who lack skills and lower-income Singaporeans, the opposite may well occur. These groups may see depressed wages and fewer good job opportunities. Our view is that the Government needs to intervene aggressively through policy or legislation to ameliorate this and ensure the availability of stronger safety nets for Singaporeans who cannot make the transition. The Government must ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against during their job search or at the workplace; that our education and training systems provide skills that are workplace-ready; and that skills are transferred to Singaporeans by foreign talent. Finally, the Government should proactively report on the costs and benefits of our FTAs across time, a subject Member Jamus Lim will touch on as well.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on both Motions, the first filed by PSP Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai on 31 August last month, and the second filed by the Minister for Finance Mr Lawrence Wong on 8 September. At their core, both Motions concern the employability of the Singapore worker and PMETs. Sir, our local population acutely feels the consequences of Singapore being an open economy, with a large number of foreigners working amongst us and living next to us. On this lived reality, fundamental questions that have come up in the last two decades include: where does the Singapore worker stand and what are his or her job prospects in our hub economy? These questions will continue to come up more regularly than ever, as we move into a post-COVID-19 future. My colleagues, Members He Ting Ru, Leon Perera, Gerald Giam and Jamus Lim, will also participate in this debate, with perspectives on both Motions and suggestions on the way forward. My speech is in three parts. First, I will set out the Workers' Party's stand on free trade agreements (FTAs) and the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). This part will be brief. Second, I will iterate the public sentiments on job insecurity felt by Singaporeans. Third, I will make a few suggestions on what should be done to alleviate the concerns of Singaporeans and ensure that the local/foreigner employment divide does not become a permanent fault line. Sir, let me first start by stating the Workers' Party's position on FTAs and CECA. First, we accept that FTAs have encouraged investments and created jobs and opportunities for both Singaporeans as well as foreigners. This is undeniable.”
“So, at the stage where the party says that should not have been done, what the Bill does is to confirm that the Court cannot look into the public interest ground in assessing that application. This is the nub of my concern. I am suggesting that, in view of the earlier point I made about costs, if the Courts can look into the substantive arguments later on, why not just allow them to do so earlier?”
“Sir, I appreciate that explanation. I understand the parties can oppose the ex parte application. But what the Bill –”
“There is an expectation that you can assess the public interest grounds when you look at costs but, earlier on, for example, an opposing party applies to intervene to challenge the entry of the AG, the Court cannot look into the merits of public interest grounds. So, my suggestion, number one, is that, is that not incongruous? To further this point, and I agree with the Minister, AG is to act in a non-partisan way and that is the expectation and it is important that we record that in the Hansard. But in Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal also notes the prospect of an adverse Court order against the AG. And it is actively contemplated, albeit exceptionally. And there, the Court says, "in cases where the AG has intervened with improper motives such as to deliberately advance the interests of one of the parties to litigation, that would take the AG out of his capacity as a non-partisan advocate of the public interest and into the shoes of a de facto party to the litigation." This again aligns with the earlier question I had. If the prospect of an AG acting in a partisan manner can be contemplated at one stage of the proceedings – this is the determination of costs – would the Minister not agree that the Courts should be empowered to consider the public interest grounds at the point of the AG's intervention in proceedings?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for addressing some aspects of the speech I made on this Bill. My fundamental interest was to try and understand whether the common law position would change with regard to the two-stage process. I listened very carefully to Minister Edwin Tong's speech at the Second Reading and when Minister Edwin Tong went through the various clauses that pertain to Part 4 of the Bill, insofar as Part 4 section 4A(4) was concerned, it reads in the Explanatory Statement: "In considering whether to grant permission to intervene, the Court need only be satisfied that the grounds for intervention are adequately set out in the affidavit. The Court is not to examine the merits of those grounds." But the Minister added in his speech the words "at that stage", and my concerns about at what point the merits of the AG's arguments would be assessed by the Court is the subject matter of my query. Let me go into the specific query. For example, at paragraph 56 of Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal noted that if the Court takes the view that the issues that the AG raised do not pertain to the public interest, it is open to the Court to refuse a cost order in favour of the AG, even if the AG considers his intervention and submissions were warranted in the public interest. Although this point pertains to costs and not the subject of an order to set aside the order for the AG to intervene as envisaged by clause 488, is it not incongruous for the Court to consider the public interest rationale for the AG's grounds for intervention at one stage of the proceedings, but not at the point of application of leave to intervene as it is the case under the common law today?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two questions for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, does the Government now have a fix on the number of Singaporeans who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons? The second supplementary question is, the Senior Minister of State, if I heard him correctly, replied that the Government is extending free ART testing to certain groups of employees at the workplace. Does the Government have a position on testing-related subsidies for Singaporeans who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons and not just in workplace settings? I understand that we have got free ART kits that are being delivered to Singaporeans, but for elderly Singaporeans who still cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons or thereafter, are there going to be some subsidies for them, for additional ART kits, for example?”
“Distinction is drawn between public law cases and private law cases, even those private law cases that may involve the public interest. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government needs to clarify the basis of the proposed amendments in part four, both because there is already a common law procedure in place and the AG's right to intervene on matters of public and even private law has not been questioned by the judiciary. More specifically, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions. Number one: what triggered the proposed amendments? Have there been civil cases in Singapore recently that the Government wishes it could have intervened in without having the Court examine the merits of the grounds for the Attorney-General's opinion as to the public interest under the proposed amendments? Number two: are there possible cases which have not occurred in the past, which the Government is preparing for as a contingency? And if so, what are these possible scenarios? More generally and as an extension of the above two questions: are there new areas of public interest that have hitherto not come up, which the Government is trying to protect? Number four: how actively is the AG looking to be in applying these proposed amendments. Finally, the answers to the above questions do not adequately address this: why does the current procedure, which is well accepted and widely practised in common law countries, have to be changed?”
“In the ARW case, the High Court Judge stated in his judgment in 2017 that an intervener must establish his standing. He said that in public law matters, the standing of the AG to intervene is not usually in question but that in a civil suit based on private law rights, the AG's role may not be immediately apparent and must be properly established. From what the Judge said, it does seem clear that, conceptually, at least, a distinction is currently made between matters of public law and private law. In matters of private law such as in Deepak Sharma and ARW, the AG currently has to justify his application to intervene and the Court decides on the merit of the application. The Government now seeks to replace the Court's function of deciding on the merits of an application to intervene with the proposed amendments to the Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Act that are before the House. Let me move on to the positions in a few other common law countries. In Australia, at common law, the AG has the right to intervene in cases affecting the prerogatives of the Crown. This right has been extended by statute to cases involving, for example, the interpretation of the Constitution and the Migration Act. For other types of cases, the Australian AG can seek leave from the court to intervene. In New Zealand, the position is similar. The AG has the right to intervene in proceedings affecting the Crown's rights, property or profits. Otherwise, the AG must seek leave from the court to intervene in other cases. In Canada, the AG can intervene in constitutional matters without obtaining leave but on non-constitutional matters, the AG must apply for leave. These positions are broadly similar to Singapore's current position.”
“However, in a private law dispute, the Bill before us today would allow the AG to intervene, with the Courts having no scope to assess the merits of the AG's submission as to what public interest the AG is protecting and in the event an application is made, to set aside the order granting permission for the AG to intervene. Can the Minister confirm that these amendments effectively represent a significant shift or a shift to the common law position on the AG's right to intervene? There is already a process under common law for the AG to apply to intervene and for the Courts to consider the merits of the AG's application. It is a well-established procedure and there is no case law in Singapore to suggest that the AG is fettered from intervening in the public interest. Quite simply, the current intervention process under common law appears to work well. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to give this House the context of the changes, let me talk about the AG's interventions under current law and the AG's interventions in other common law jurisdictions. In Singapore, the AG may currently intervene through the authority of legislation or via common law. First, the AG has the right to intervene where a statutory right is given. For example, section 46 of the Charities Act entitles the AG to be heard in appeals to the High Court against decisions of the Commissioner of Charities. Other statutes that give the AG the right to intervene in specific situations are the Industrial Relations Act and the Women's Charter. Second, the AG may also intervene at common law, as I intimated earlier. This process can be seen in action in the cases of Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore and ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax, both of which are referred to in the Explanatory Statement.”
“So, although the proposed amendment say that the AG must apply for permission to intervene, in reality, there would be very little room for the Court to deny certain application. If the existing parties to the proceedings disagree with the AG's intervention, the proposed amendments place the onus on those existing parties to apply to set aside the permission to intervene after it has been granted to the AG. But while the Court may consider matters such as the stage the proceedings have reached, prejudice to the parties, yet again, the Court cannot examine the merits of the AG's grounds as to the public interest the AG is protecting. This onus placed on parties reverses the usual order of things in Court and the common law position on the AG's right to intervene where it is the party who wants something who should apply for it and justify it. The changes proposed by this Bill are extended to all civil proceedings. The proposed clause 4A(3) allows the AG to intervene in any proceedings and I emphasise the word "any". They are not criminal proceedings and are proceedings to which the AG is not a party or representing any party. Clause 4A(4) spells out that the AG may intervene in proceedings such as judicial reviews, any civil proceedings, family proceedings or quasi-criminal proceedings appeals and proceedings before Judges under the Legal Profession Act and the Medical Registration Act, although clause 4A(4) is careful to point out that this list does not limit subsection 3, which as I have said, allows intervention in any proceedings. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party has no issue with the established position that it is the AG who is the guardian of the public interest in matters where there is a public interest component to a civil dispute or criminal matter.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill proposes amendments to several statutes. The Workers' Party supports the Bill and the majority of the proposed amendments such as the ones related to supporting the digital transformation of the Judiciary, the simplification of court terminology, civil justice reforms and the empowerment of the High Court to grant interim relief in aid of foreign court proceedings. In addition to these, however, there are proposed amendments to the Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Act. I seek clarification on Part 4 of the proposed Bill. In MinLaw's factsheet on the technical amendments to this Bill, the objective is to, "clarify the scope of the Attorney-General's right to intervene". I have some questions on this part, as I alluded to earlier. I will first summarise the proposed amendments in Part 4, then discuss the current position in Singapore law and finally, briefly compare Singapore's position with those and other common law countries. First, the proposed amendments. The Bill proposes a statutory framework for the Attorney-General, or AG, to intervene in proceedings where the AG is of the opinion that the question of public interest has arisen and the AG is of the opinion that it is necessary to place information or make submissions before the Court. A critical element of the proposed amendments is that the Court is not to examine the merits of the AG's grounds for intervention – essentially, the public interest grounds – before granting permission. The Court is only to look at whether the grounds for intervention are adequately set out with a supporting affidavit.”
“In addition, Heads of Agencies will prioritise and intensify our internal audits to look out for any such wrongdoing. And when such issues are detected, we will deal with them decisively. So, our public officers, do recognise that public accountability remains a top priority for the Government and they are committed to addressing the lapses identified and resolving the problem at the root and this includes strengthening organisational, capabilities, systems and processes to prevent future recurrence.”
“The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary questions. He had asked what efforts are being taken to address this because there were a number of infractions across various Ministries and agencies. I think we can break it down to two responses that would be appropriate. As you can see from the lapses, one is a process problem. For the process problem, the key is to be able to pick this up as quickly and as efficiently as possible. And the key to that is lies in having more automated processes. As I had indicated in my earlier answer, what we are doing is to have more process improvements and to deploy more central IT infrastructure and common services to facilitate regular reviews. That way, hopefully, you minimise human error and you are able to flag up the inconsistencies or the red flags as and when they occur. The second and the more important one is really the people part. Partly, it is building capability, but the other part is impressing upon public officers the importance of doing this well and carrying out these functions well, so that in fact, they internalise it. The Public Service has in place platforms such as sharing sessions and training programmes to educate and engage the officers on the importance of maintaining the high standards of personal conduct and upholding the integrity of the Public Service. And the leaders in the Public Service will continue to emphasise to their officers that misconduct is viewed seriously and will not be condoned; and will also remind them that there are internal avenues to report wrongdoing and fraudulent acts, if these occur and if the reporting is made in good faith.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you to Minister Indranee and Minister Edwin Tong for replying my Parliamentary Questions. I have supplementary questions for Question Nos 4 and 7. For Question No 4 to Minister Indranee, this year's AGO report was unusual in that there were a number of Ministries and Statutory Boards observed to have documents altered, backdated, artificially created or falsified. Hence, my Parliamentary Question was to inquire into the number of investigations and individuals involved, to get a better extent of the size of these infractions and the number of people involved. In view of information that the Minister has just shared and her reply that efforts will be stepped up to resolve some of these issues, can the Minister share what is the nature of these efforts, do they include more frequent internal audits, for example, or intensive contract management and procurement-related training programmes for the relevant personnel? To Minister Edwin Tong, two questions. I understand that PA's internal investigation went beyond the test checks that were done for the contract variations with regard to the two development projects. Can I confirm that PA also will be making an announcement on the results of these findings when the investigations are complete, in view of the statement that was released on 22 July 2021. The second supplementary question for Minister Tong is: is there a process or procedure in place to bar companies including managing agents for all Government-related tenders that are found to have been flagged out by AGO for significant irregularities, for example, like the managing agent identified at paragraph 56 of the AGO report which found irregularities in more than 90% of payments that were test checked?”
“I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. Just to give us a better sense of the 1%, in absolute numbers, how many individuals are you referring to?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the round-up. A quick question on an issue which some Members brought up, which is foreign workers who are currently still in the dormitories. I understand they get to go to certain facilities within a closed-off area in the dormitory for rest and recreation. Is there also a roadmap for them when they can also be re-integrated into the larger community? They have been, as we know, locked down for a long time.”