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 17 of 36.
“Were additional conditions imposed on certain operators in view of their past record or reputation, so to speak? And in this regard, again, was there a differentiated regime from the enforcement agencies to pay more attention to some of these establishments? The Minister spoke of, I think, a total of seven establishments – and I stand corrected if I am wrong – seven establishments that have seen their licences revoked but about 10% of the pivoted KTV establishments have been in breach of regulations. Are the licences for that 10% – which I think will extend to 40 establishments – going to be revoked as well? And, finally, I have received some emails from members of the public about warnings that they have given the authorities about some of these KTV establishments. How many warnings or pieces of feedback did – not just MHA but also MOH and the other agencies – receive on egregious SMM violations in KTV establishments?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few questions for Minister MTI, Mr Gan Kim Yong and originally, Minister for Health, but I think I will direct them to the Minister for Home Affairs. The first series of questions pertain to the differentiated regime between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, which is part of the coming to terms and treating COVID-19 as endemic in the community. The query pertains to the negative pre-event tests that unvaccinated individuals will be required to undertake. A few days ago in Israel, the Prime Minister announced that the unvaccinated individual there will pay for the test. I do not believe Minister clarified who pays for that test in Singapore. So, it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify that. The second question directed at Minister Gan pertains to supply issues of the vaccine. I think, previously, in updates that the MTF had given, is this still a problem or are we on track to open the economy in concert with the plan that MTF has announced, by, I believe, it is September now? The questions specifically on the KTV issues, indeed, as Minister Ong Ye Kung has mentioned earlier, lots of disappointment amongst Singaporeans, but I thought it would be important to have at least some understanding of common facts before coming to conclusions. So, the first question is with regard to the enforcement regime at the pivoted establishments, was it a heightened sort of enforcement regime? The Minister mentioned a few numbers – 202 enforcements from October last year to July this year. But was there some specific attention paid on pivoted KTV establishments? I think earlier on, Minister Lawrence Wong spoke in a Facebook post about a cat and mouse game. The Minister referred to that as well.”
“I hope the Government understands that with more information, actually, we can hold the line better before these discussions move into a realm of xenophobia and so forth. My question to Minister Tan See Leng pertains to TAFEP and the strengthening of the enforcement arm of TAFEP. We had an exchange at the opening of Parliament about this and I would just like to confirm with Dr Tan whether raising the numbers in the enforcement arm of TAFEP is on the cards and what discussions have taken place since August last year insofar as how TAFEP will be beefed up. The Workers' Party has a position about anti-discrimination legislation. Is that something that MOM will be prepared to look into? 4.20 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions: one for Minister Ong and one for Minister Tan. For Minister Ong, in 2016, my parliamentary colleague and Workers' Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera asked the then-Minister for Manpower – and this was arising out of feedback from the ground about CECA – issues about a lot of Indian nationals working on the ground. And the question Mr Leon Perera asked was about the number of intra corporate transferees (ICTs) that were working in Singapore through CECA. At that point, the reply that came was the Ministry does not disclose the data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs. In February this year, Mr Leong Mun Wai of PSP asked a question about the number of ICTs working in Singapore. This time, the Government disclosed the overall ICT numbers over Employment Pass (EP) holders. And the number was something like 5% of EP holders. Today, we have more information, that for last year at least, 500 of these ICTs originated from India. The point I want to make to the Minister and to the Government at large is the opportunity to quell or at least to nip some of these issues in the bud when they start moving into the realm of xenophobia and nativism. One important way to prevent that is the availability of information. In August 2020, a Straits Times reporter mentioned that "ICTs were a key bone of contention with respect to CECA". If this information on the number of ICTs had been made known earlier, it does occur to me that a lot of the misunderstanding and the reaction we see about CECA could have been addressed and actually nipped in the bud.”
“Mr Speaker, I will deal with the last comment first. Is the Senior Minister suggesting that the WP is using these episodes for political purposes? The answer, I think, should be obvious. The answer is no, we do not do that. I appreciate the accolade because I think it is appropriate. In terms of the series of hypotheticals that the Senior Minister put out, I think moving from one extreme to another extreme is probably not the policy approach; hence, the earlier exchange we had about evolving the EIP to suit the needs of this current generation. But I hope it does not undermine or take away the point that philosophically, where does the WP want Singapore to go? And I do not think the PAP is very far away from this – that we all are trying to move towards a race-neutral society. We may have different approaches of going at it. We, of course, have the harder job of trying to second guess what is reasonable in the way we move there, because we do not have the information and the broad sweep of facts that the Government has. But I think, by and large, we accept that we have to move forward in a way where Singapore, as a country, as a society, is strengthened. That should make things clear.”
“I think I can agree with the eventual outcome that even the Minister shares, which is to reach that race-neutral, race-blind end. To that extent, yes. I think you have to look at how the Government is performing on these indicators and eventually, with more Opposition Members in the House, looking at these numbers and figures, and asking more pointed questions and even putting up alternatives for debate and discussion, hopefully, we can reach that end state, which will be beneficial for all Singaporeans, not just this generation but those that come after us.”
“I do believe that there is a fundamental shift in Singapore society and it will be useful to know if the CMIO model needs to evolve.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should thank Mr Sitoh for asking a question on our behalf. I think we have to accept that we operate on terms dictated by the Government which wins the mandate at the elections, and that has been the PAP government. It has continued this CMIO model. I think where we are coming from is – and I believe the Government is on the same page in this regard – that we want to level everybody up so that no race feels that the government policy does not reach out to them in a way which brings us to that destination which the Workers' Party wants Singapore to reach, of a race-neutral society. So, these questions inevitably will be asked but the point I want to share with Minister Edwin Tong is, to what end do we keep asking these questions? What is the end game? We want a situation where we can tell that government policy is improving outcomes, especially for communities which are not doing well. But let us be clear about where we want to go with this. More than that, I think, immigration after 1990 has changed the complexion of Singapore society in that, are we just looking at CMIO now or is there something a little bit more complicated in Singapore that we need to look into? The Minister did not address the PQs I have filed for tomorrow. They are Written PQs, they are on the basis of the census that has been released last month. In the census, if you look at Census 2010 for the Indian community, for example, it was broken down into the minority languages: Urdu, Gujarathi. More data on Indian community groups. But Census 2020 takes a much more narrow approach; some categories have fallen away. What are the reasons? I do not understand, hence, the PQ.”
“We still aim to remove it but, until we get there, we have to, as Minister said, even out the rough edges as much as possible and, at some point, I hope my generation, within our generation, we reach that place where we are race-neutral. It does not mean that sometimes things do not bubble over. But there are more important things that remind us that we are Singaporeans and we ought to look beyond our skin colour.”
“Well, it is a very nice way to close off our discussion on this topic. But I will be happy to clarify the doubts of the Leader of the House. The philosophical position remains, we aim as a society towards race neutrality. It does not matter what the colour of your skin is, we respect each other as Singaporeans, the Singapore family is going beyond CMIO categorisations and that is the target we need to keep in mind. That is where we want to endeavour towards. The Government is the government of the day, it wants to retain the EIP for reasons which I would say are not totally illegitimate. I think it is important that I state that. But having said that, how do we move forward with the EIP as it is, knowing that there are minorities, knowing that there are minority communities, knowing that there are even majority, even the Chinese community, who are affected by it? Is there a better way forward? I think that is our duty as an opposition also. Half the reason why I am asking for all that data on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis, over time – annually, not monthly – annually, is to try and see, for those neighbourhoods where EIP limits have been breached, what is unique about those neighbourhoods. Is it very different from any other neighbourhood in Singapore? How do we look into those details with more granularity? And I hope that clarifies the point by the Leader, but I do not think so.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for National Development. I think the point really, again, is the philosophy that we want to aim towards, towards a race-neutral society and we continue working towards this assiduously and keeping in mind that you do not want the policy to become a barrier to that vision, to that journey to become a race-neutral society. That is why we took the position that we had. I do not believe the Minister has suggested what sort of policy beyond the very helpful clarification of the anecdote, I think this is how Parliament should work: if an example is brought up, the Government clarifies. Beyond these cases where HDB looks at it on a case-by-case basis, we have a regime, the rental housing regime, where HDB is prepared to administratively lift block limits. So, it is not as if the Government, the arguments that were made by the Minister for National Development are cast in stone. There is flexibility beyond looking at individual cases and moving the boundaries. So, the question I like to ask is for the review that was supposed to take place 10 years after 2010, according to Minister Mah Bow Tan. What sort of scheme changes have HDB discussed internally, beyond just looking at cases on a case-by-case basis? If I have not answered any of the Minister's questions, please ask me again. I will be happy to answer them. Ours is a philosophical point. We take the position because we want to endeavour and move towards a race-neutral society.”
“In its current form, as I suggested, the EIP quota should either be further loosened to ameliorate the prospects of further economic loss for sellers with HDB committed to buying back the affected flat at the valuation price, or a larger geographical area representing the anchor for the EIP rather than the precinct and block quotas. And just before I conclude, my second supplementary question was not just a general question about the percentages at a broad level. It was about specific neighbourhoods across time. Would the MND be prepared to release that information?”
“Number four, as it is well known – this is really the heartbeat of why WP has taken the position it has since 2006. It was, I think, referred to as a "time bomb" by PAP even then – and that is the economic loss to minorities who have to lower the market price of their flats in the name of that policy. That is particularly painful because we hear that from many people who are in that position. I believe the Chairperson of WP in the opening of the Parliament for this session, referred to one individual who had to sell the flat at a loss of $100,000. That is shocking and that is really where we are coming from. Number five and finally, a reassessment of Singapore's lived experiences which acknowledge policies and guidelines that have successfully encouraged racial integration such as national schools, anti-discrimination guidelines at the workplace, National Service, amongst others, and how these compare in today's time with the continued efficacy of the EIP as a policy tool of racial integration. So, the position is this. The current policy as it stands has a larger impact on minorities, penalising them in the pocket when they have to sell their flat. By minorities, I mean not just racial minorities, but those who are affected by it, including Chinese, Malays, Indians. This may perversely interact with the stated objective of the policy of racial harmony, thereby breeding resentment amongst those who are affected by the policy. For that reason, the EIP as it stands needs to be reviewed. We must always keep in focus the prospect of endeavouring towards a race-neutral society where race-based policies like the EIP are no longer needed.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, that is the Workers' Party (WP) position, as iterated by the Minister, in the manifesto. It really is undergirded by the frustration that we sense from ethnic minorities who cannot sell their flats. The question is: is the EIP the only policy, among a whole gamut of policies, that the Government has to encourage racial integration, bearing in mind that it is a pre-emptive policy introduced in 1989? And we also have a hybrid system almost, in Singapore, where we do have places like Chinatown and Little India, where there are concentrations of a particular race but it does not disturb Singaporeans. It does not bother Singaporeans. We may take a different philosophical approach as to what the end situation will be, but I cannot speculate on one or two episodes and say that because of that, we are descending in terms of our journey towards greater racial integration. My own sense on the philosophy behind the HDB EIP policy as it stands today – almost one generation since its introduction – is that it needs to be revisited. It has to be revisited in the context and not limited to: number one, a larger national conversation on race relations in the context of today and tomorrow Singapore; and, separately, what it means to be Singaporean. Number two, the effect of immigration into Singapore from the 1990s after the EIP was introduced, leading to a larger Singapore family living in HDB flats that include communities outside the traditional CMIO categorisation such as naturalised Singaporeans from Myanmar, the Philippines and non-Tamil ethnic Indians. Number three, the more common experience of mixed marriages amongst Singaporeans and separately between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, and its impact on traditional racial categorisations.”
“I am specifically referring to the number of new neighbourhoods that have also come about. So, the percentage can be very difficult to understand. For example, in Kaki Bukit and Aljunied GRC, the neighbourhood level numbers for the Malay community are still, I believe, beyond the EIP limits. And there is nothing untoward about race relations in Kaki Bukit. And I think this will be replicated in other parts of Singapore. So, to this end, is the Government prepared to share details on the breakdown by ethnic groups in all HDB neighbourhoods, both new and old, on an annual basis from 1989? If it is, then, we will file the question. Finally, in response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in 2013, HDB shared that it had reviewed the EIP limits for rental flats; and administratively, it adds up to 10% for the block limits for HDB rental flats. Would HDB consider a similar approach for all flats and also exercise greater flexibility at the neighbourhood level as a means of loosening the EIP criteria as a compromise, or even remove precinct and block quotas in favour of a larger area of coverage? This is in view of the rising number of EIP waiver requests over the last few years, Singapore's changing demographic profile and for policy equity considerations towards communities that are adversely affected by the EIP.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader for extending the time for Members to ask supplementary questions. My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for that very nuanced exposition of the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). I think it has been the most nuanced reply that I have heard from a Government Minister on the EIP, considering on the one hand the realities of racial integration and other policies that can assist; and on the other, the fact that there are people who actually pay a price for the EIP. I have three supplementary questions. The first pertains to the request for waivers. This has been on the up, from 2017 to 2019. I understand the numbers were around 1,850 for the three years: 25% from the Malay community, 16% from the Chinese community and 59% from the Indian and other communities. The numbers actually cascade lower in the years before. My question is: for the EIP limit for the Indian and other communities, which was at 59%, when the EIP limit overall was actually reviewed in 2010, the EIP limit for that category was 10% and 13% at the neighbourhood and block level, and that was increased to 12% and 15% respectively. My question is: in view of the large number of EIP appeals continuing to come from this community and a suggestion made in 2010 by the then-Minister for National Development that there would be a review around 2020, has this review been undertaken and what are the new EIP limits, if any? The second question is a question for information. In 1989, when EIP was introduced, 28% of the neighbourhoods had already reached the established EIP guidelines on the start date of the EIP. Over the years, this has fallen but there is no real clarity about why this has fallen.”
“Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister. Like the original answer to the PQ, I take the Senior Minister's point. Section 3 of the Inquiries Act does say that "a Commission is suitable if an inquiry is to be conducted into any matter which in the opinion of the President be in the public welfare or public interest". I am not sure whether the AAR that the Senior Minister has in mind will be as broad-ranging as a Commission of Inquiry could potentially be but we await information from the Government in this regard.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister for his response to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on behalf of the Prime Minister. Sir, the main impetus behind filing the question was the commitment given by the Government about 12 months ago, almost a year ago, to look back at COVID-19 and I refer to the remarks of the now Minister for Finance: "I have no doubt that we will find many things where we could have done better and many changes we should make to be better prepared next time." And I think this is in concert with what the Senior Minister has shared. I also note that there are other countries, the United Kingdom, for example, and the state Legislature of Victoria which has already actually delivered a report on the government's handling of the pandemic. I would like to ask the Senior Minister what sort of form the AAR will take. I understood the Senior Minister when he said that there will be input from the public, but what sort of shape and form is the Government considering if it is not going to be a Commission of Inquiry? The Senior Minister said that there is a quasi-judicial aspect to Commissions of Inquiry. That is true. But Commissions of Inquiry also involve matters of public policy. Multi-agency issues of grave public concern have also found themselves to be subject of a Commission of Inquiry as opposed to an AAR. So, just to reiterate the question: what sort of review and how can the public play a part in the review that the Government has in mind?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to respond to the Minister's question about whether I support bringing in more foreign workers for the constructor sector. Earlier on in my speech and earlier on in the day, during Parliamentary Question Time, I spoke of opening up more non-traditional source countries to recruit foreign workers and I even raised the example of Vietnam because the infection rate there is very low compared to many other ASEAN countries; although, in the last few days, I understand, the numbers are going up. Still, the rise in terms of absolute numbers remains comparatively small. So, that should give an indication about where I stand on the situation affecting some of these companies. My communication has been with the small contractors – those with three, four or five foreign workers. And when you lose one or two foreign workers, you cannot execute a project. So, for these particular individuals, it is a dire situation. And, so, it would be grossly unfair then to suddenly pull the rug from under their feet and say, no, we have to stop foreign workers from coming in right now. But overall, I heard what the Minister said about the ITMs, in particular, the construction ITMs, the longer project, I would say, to wean the sector to be more manpower-lean. And I believe, at some point, the Government will have to present its report card on what its progress has been. I think that will be helpful also for members of the public to make an assessment as to whether the measures, the amount of money put into the ITMs, specifically the construction ITM, to improve productivity has borne fruit. I hope I have answered the Minister's questions.”
“Madam, while it could be unrealistic to expect construction companies to throttle back on bidding for new projects in order to rely on the relief legislated by this Bill, I hope the Minister can acknowledge this point so that Assessors under clause 79(e) can carefully consider applications for relief made by companies holistically across all the projects undertaken and not just for the specific contract for which relief is sought. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, undoubtedly, the construction industry has borne a significant brunt of the COVID-19 restrictions for the past year and I support measures to help them cope. However, rewriting a contract price to one that was not initially agreed to by the parties is a drastic intervention that must be exercised with utmost care.”
“In the same vein, I would like to ask the Minister what this would amount to and its impact on the Government's Budget. Separately, has the Ministry considered the impact of the Bill on Town Councils and whether it would be providing assistance to them? Madam, in my discussions with some Qualified Persons, or QPs, and consultants over the weekend, it was made known to me that a small number of contractors are citing problems with meeting project deadlines because of COVID-19 while, at the same time, tendering aggressively and securing contracts for new projects. Earlier this year, the Minister, at a seminar organised by BCA and REDAS, confirmed that construction contracts for the built environment sector are expected to grow to between $23 billion and $28 billion in 2021 as the sector recovers from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was up from the $21.3 billion worth of projects awarded in 2020, even as that figure fell by $10 billion owing to the pandemic. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it would be important to note that the sector comprises construction companies of varying sizes, from big players to small-time subcontractors who could all potentially rely on this Bill for relief. To that end, it would undermine the purpose of this legislation if some companies, particularly larger ones, cite COVID-19 as a reason for higher foreign manpower costs resulting in increased cost for contracting parties or even the public, while at the same time deploying foreign manpower to start on new projects even as their contracts that predate the 1 October 2020 are allowed to proceed slowly, when they may instead be completed forthwith.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. The construction sector, like many others, has been hard hit by COVID-19. This Bill seeks to provide relief for businesses undertaking construction works under construction contracts that have been affected by a rise in foreign manpower salary costs. This is a real concern for the sector. According to some construction bosses, even as the Government has rolled out a number of assistance schemes and levy waiver since the onset of COVID-19, the situation, especially for smaller sub-contractors, has been difficult, disruptive and, for some, even desperate. And some are at the risk of going out-of-business. Earlier on during Question Time today, I spoke of the difficulty of securing entry passes for their foreign workers for many contractors prior to the latest spike in the COVID-19 cases, resulting in significant operational unpredictability. I asked the Second Minister for Manpower about reimbursement of IPA fees and opening up more non-traditional source countries from where foreign workers can be recruited from as a way to moderate the impact of COVID-19 on businesses in this sector. Mdm Deputy Speaker, while the Workers' Party is supportive of the assistance this Bill will provide for the construction sector, as of now, its impact on the public is at best unclear and, at worst, could potentially be very significant for some contracting parties. I note that this Bill will cover contracts to build residential units, including existing contracts to build HDB BTO flats. Can the Minister confirm how any adjustment in the price of HDB contracts with builders would impact home buyers? Would they be at risk of upward price adjustments? In addition, many public sector projects would also see a hike in construction costs arising from this Bill.”
“The Workers' Party Members of Parliament have been doing their part to encourage older Singaporeans, in particular, to get vaccinated. My second question is, again, to the Minister for Health. This pertains to the cluster at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. We have some residents – as I am sure Members in this House also have – who are in Tan Tock Seng Hospital because of some terminal illness or who are very ill. And the cluster at Tan Tock Seng Hospital has resulted in the visitation hours for family members of some of these patients to be severely curtailed. I am requesting the Ministry to consider whether there could be some regime to help these family members to have a bit more face time with their ill or terminally-ill family members.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, a quick response to Minister for Home Affairs on his short statement. Yesterday, the Head of the Workers' Party media team, Mr Leon Perera, put out this Facebook post, this is 13 hours ago: "It is important that as a society, we each do our part to help make sure that difficult times bring out the best and not the worst in Singapore. We should take heed of incidents like this as it is a reminder of the part we all play to deny acceptability to acts of hate such as this appears to be." This was in response to the Police announcement that it was investigating a man accused of using a racial slur and kicking a 55-year-old woman. Insofar as the Minister for Home Affair's statement is concerned, indeed, we are in agreement. There is no place for racism in Singapore – no "ifs", no "buts". I have two supplementary questions with regard to the Statement by the Minister for Health. The first pertains to the HSA safety update that was recently released. It covered the suspected adverse event reports and I think this is a very important document released by MOH, because there is significant misinformation fuelled by not just misinformation alone, but different understanding of the safety of the vaccine. So, it is not necessarily misinformation, but genuine concerns that people may have. As usual, when you are concerned, you tend to be more animated and this can take on a life of its own. So, my request to the Minister is to consider whether this very useful document can be made into an infographic for easy sharing amongst members of the public, particularly the last 20% to 25 % that Minister said is hard to get through to with regard to the messaging on vaccination.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for replying to the Parliamentary Question (PQ). We have heard about anecdotes of companies applying for entry permits for their workers 30, 40, sometimes almost 50 times for one In-Principle Approval (IPA). It sounds like a large number; and, of course, the companies get frustrated. On the other hand, there is also an acknowledgement that the Government has to control the COVID-19 situation as best it can. So, it is a very fine balancing act. Nonetheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. First, how long is MOM proposing to extend the IPA of Work Permit and S Pass holders respectively in view of their repeated unsuccessful entry pass applications? I understand MOM extends it one time as a given. That means if the IPA is for three months for the Work Permit holder, MOM will extend it automatically. Is this going to continue? The second question is: would MOM be amenable to reimburse IPA application fees if, for whatever reason, the applying company decides, "Look, I don't think it is possible to continue with this uncertainty". So, would MOM consider reimbursing the IPA cost if the entry pass just does not come through? The third question pertains to the second part of my two-part PQ. Some contractors have suggested non-traditional source countries like Vietnam as a potential source for workers. I know there is a long tail to this, it is not a case of just getting a person from any country; there is a whole process of training, and so on and so forth. Would this be something the Ministry would look into?”
“I will come to that, Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I will be brief. But I would agree with the Minister to the extent that one has to be fair to the journalists because there are good journalists. And a good example can be found in a piece published on 1 May this year. The Chinese Media Group head of Zaobao, Lee Huay Leng asked some very serious questions about the leadership transition to the 4G leadership and, she said, "internal competition is intense; there is no consensus to pick any one". On the other hand, the English papers, "a major Cabinet reshuffle but now is not the time to read the tea leaves". So, there can be different views on the quality and the standards of journalism and it is for that reason that I put my earlier question to the Minister about a Select Committee and to try and get some understanding from the public what they expect of a taxpayer-funded CLG. I note the comment the Minister made about the surveys. But I think this is an opportunity to hear from the public and I hope the Government can consider this favourably.”
“I asked about the time when the Government first informed SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business and I also asked about the size of that grant. I would be surprised if the Government had not considered what would be the extent of the grant that it would extend to the CLG. So, can the Minister share with us if there is any ballpark figure as to what is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be going to the CLG? The Minister made a point about the standards of journalism. It is not a simple issue to address in the course of a Ministerial Statement. But my generation, at least, remember this headline, this cover page in the New Paper, which was in 1997, at a very sensitive time just during the elections. It contained a checklist to help you decide how to vote. The Minister spoke earlier about objectivity and balance. The only thing objective about this cover page is the EPL scores – no-win for Liverpool and also for Manchester United. The checklist, essentially, told the voters what you are voting for. If you vote for the PAP, you are voting for upgrading, Edusave and Members of Parliament of acceptable character.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just following up from my first list of clarifications.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. Before that, I thank him for his Statement, which contained a lot of information or some information at least, that the public has heard for the first time today and here in the House. I have a few questions. First, when did the Government first inform SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business? Secondly, what is the size of the funding that Government has pencilled yearly to support the SPH CLG? Does the Government aim to cap the grants it extends, with the expectation that CLG will also secure other sources of funding from the private sector, for example? The third question is with respect to some public documents that were released by SPH last week. It was decided that the SPH contribution towards the CLG would be, I quote, "arrived at after considering various factors, including the potential funding requirements of the media business for a few years". Does the Ministry consider this contribution to be a reasonable one and how did it come to this conclusion? My final two questions: what structures will the Government insist on to ensure the independence of the SPH CLG from possible Government's interference and to foster a culture of editorial independence across its titles? And, finally, in view of the significant change in the sector, would the Government consider the formation of a Select Committee to allow members of the public and Singaporeans in particular to: (a) express what editorial standards they expect from the CLG, taxpayer-funded mainstream media; and (b) to express their views on how best the SPH CLG can ensure editorial independence from any government of the day?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the extended comments on this issue. The recent public exchange between the Singapore Medical Association and the Life Insurance Association of Singapore has put into focus the role of the regulator, namely, MOH. Even as I acknowledge the Senior Minister of State's establishment of the MHIC, which has been set up to look into some of these issues, I have, nonetheless, two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, would MOH, as the regulator, be amenable to setting up a database transparent to both doctors and insurers to allow parties to compare and assess their bill sizes with a view to better manage medical inflation in the public interest? The second supplementary question is in conjunction with the first, which is, together with the establishment of the database, would MOH, as regulator, consider setting up an independent panel of assessors under its purview which would be accessible to patients, doctors and insurers to resolve disputes about fees and the necessity of medical procedures?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the Statement. My query pertains to hurt offences. I take the Minister back to the debate when the Criminal Law Reform Bill was tabled in Parliament in 2019. There was a discussion amongst Members of how voluntarily causing hurt, being a non-arrestable offence, is dealt with by the Police. Then-Senior Parliamentary Secretary who at the round-up speech confirmed that Police do look at voluntarily causing hurt (VCH) offences in some broad classes – I do not think those were closed classes. These included road rage, secret society members, fighting, racial, religiously-aggravated VCH cases. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary then in the round-up speech mentioned that, I will quote what he said, "post-amendment we can assess if there is a need to create a more expedited framework for the resolution of other types of VCH cases and if this can be done without compromising due process or compromising the delivery of Police response to other more serious offences". I would just like to confirm whether the Ministry has considered looking at VCH offences, the section 321 type of offences, the non-arrestable offences, in a more variated manner so that we can take expedited action in the appropriate cases.”
“A good way to start the morning, Minister. Sir, I believe some years ago, the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza filed a Motion on the drug issue, and I made a speech in that debate. It was really about acknowledging that this is a serious issue, the drug problem, especially internationally. And certainly, I would support a tough stance against drugs.”
“Speaker, just to clarify the consultancy study I referred to in my question to Senior Minister Teo, it was an NEA study on the development of storage sites for radioactive contaminated waste, not nuclear. I said nuclear, I should have said radioactive.”
“Sir, I am not saying that because I do not have information on what could be the impact of that study or that proposal. But it would appear that the Government has looked into it, so it would be helpful to know what the Government's position is.”
“Thank you, Madam. I thank the Ministers including Senior Minister Teo for sharing the more intricate details of the Green Plan. From an observer's perspective – a Singaporean looking at this – the targets are a very interesting part of the plan because with technology moving so quickly, I can imagine it is difficult to say when a certain thing can happen by. I have got two questions. One was actually pertaining to a point with regard to the trade-offs that Senior Minister Teo alluded to in reply to Member Louis Ng's question about nuclear power. I recall seeing in the Government financial statements, a consultancy study that was done to study the prospect of the safe disposal of nuclear waste. And this was I think, a study that cost in excess of a $2 million. I can file a Parliamentary Question on this matter as to what were the findings of the Government, but certainly in terms of clean power, nuclear power that is a source that potentially should be looked at. So, it will be helpful to know what the Government's findings were in that regard. My second question is for Minister Desmond Lee. We read in the mainstream media allusions to how land, forested area should be dealt with, just like how we deal with our fiscal reserves, very carefully, with a second key, almost. My question is for the public to better understand the trade-offs, because it is a sensitive subject for the members of the public to have open areas and green lungs in the country, what sort of processes take place in Government to ensure that the trade-offs that are taken to, for example, remove a forested area, is a very careful one; and there are checks and balances in that process to make sure that all other alternatives have been considered carefully?”
“It would be important to study the steady state condition of the pilot toilet at this hawker centre, which should be perceptible after a few months of use, allowing for a better perspective on the effectiveness of the measures proposed. With hawker culture recently added to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, it would be important to get this done right so that a broadly consistent toilet hygiene standard is consistent across all hawker centres in Singapore. Thirdly, the TIP also envisages an enhanced maintenance regime, the details of which have not been communicated to Town Councils. Does NEA envision an increase in manpower to achieve the cleanliness standards required? Finally, can I also check whether market associations or committees were spoken to, along with Town Councils that manage NEA markets, for their feedback before the TIP scheme was considered? And in light of the tiered nature of the grant, how many hawker centres in Singapore currrently do not have smoking areas and, out of these, how many are newly constructed hawker centres and how many are legacy hawker centres? Environmental Services Industry”
“Quite simply, the TIP grant and its objectives, while independently commendable, will create the prospect of new disamenities in other Town Council-managed areas and, possibly, between HDB flat dwellers. Town Councils may well have to create new smoking areas somewhere else close to the hawker centres shortly after the grant is given to the Town Council, or even reinstate a smoking corner in the market after the grant has been disbursed. Would it not be a better policy for NEA to tie the TIP grant with specific compulsory criteria related to the renovation of toilets that are energy-saving, green and come with lower life-cycle costs, in line with the Government's Green Plan and targets? To this end, some of the recommended features in the TIP include the toilet feedback management system – something I believe is akin to those found in shopping centres and/or the airport where users rate toilet cleanliness. Other additions NEA has recommended include the installation of toilet pedestal mounted bidets. Sir, public toilets at hawker centres are heavily utilised. It is open to question whether some of these recommended features under the TIP are practical in the long term. It is difficult to imagine how much care must be taken by a cleaner to hygienically clean a toilet pedestal mounted bidet and, separately, how easily such a feature can be damaged in a heavy-use setting. I would like to make two suggestions to the scheme, along with some other questions. Firstly, extend the programme beyond March 2022, by when toilets are expected to be completed to qualify for the grant. Secondly, NEA should conduct a pilot scheme at a very heavily-utilised public toilet in a busy hawker centre to field trial and assess the viability of the recommended TIP features.”
“Mdm Chair, the NEA's newly-launched Toilet Improvement Programme (TIP) extends grants to Town Councils at an amount capped between $60,000 and $90,000. The grant seeks to raise the hygiene and cleaning standards of public toilets. A corollary aim of the TIP is to encourage the removal of smoking corners. For the grant to be disbursed, Town Councils have to ensure the renovation works to their toilets – provided they are approved for innovation – are completed by 31 March 2022. Madam, I seek clarity on the policy reasons behind tying the upgrading of toilets with the removal of smoking corners at hawker centres. While the grant can be tapped upon should a smoking corner not be removed in a hawker centre, the quantum of the grant is quite significantly reduced. In designing the grant parameters, what impact does NEA foresee in the event of the removal of smoking corners from hawker centres with existing smoking corners? Specifically, what is the assessment of the displacement effect of smokers from hawker centres out into the community? While I appreciate NEA and the medical advice would lean on the very reasonable hope that some smokers would quit the habit as a result of the removal of smoking corners, there is a greater likelihood, at least in the immediate term, of smokers migrating from hawker centres to other areas in the community. This includes smoking in the comfort of their own homes, potentially leading to more nuisance complaints from their fellow neighbours. To this end, what is the policy connection between toilet upgrading and the removal of smoking corners?”
“And here, I believe the Capability Transfer Programme has a lot of scope.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, thank you to all the MOM office holders for replying to the cuts filed by my WP colleagues and myself. And I also like to thank Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo for responding to my Budget debate speech on the Capability Transfer Programme. I think she gives some information with regard to how much has been expended on it so far. I believe the figure was $5 million. Just going back very quickly to when the programme was announced in 2017, the former Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say, stated, and I quote, this was in the Budget debate of 2018, he said, "The scope of capability transfer is tremendous – high tech to high-touch; MNCs to SMEs; domestic to export-oriented industries". And we were given some information about the funding cap per project. It was $300,000. And in exceptional cases, even more could be given if the particular project was worthy. 1.30 pm To that end, I would like to ask whether it would be correct to characterise the Capability Transfer Programme thus far as a scheme for which there is more to be desired, in view of the amount of money that the Government has spent on it so far. Because I would agree actually that there is a lot of scope for it to support and improve the prospects of the Singaporean Core. The second question that I have is, again, with regard to the Capability Transfer Programme, whether there are plans to improve its usage across industries tracked by the ITMs because I would agree that there is a lot of scope for it to be a gamechanger. I think we had an example of it in the MTI COS where the Minister for Trade and Industry spoke about moving into a high-value bracket in manufacturing, for example; not just doing what other people are doing but doing things which very few people can do.”
“Sir, Work Injury Compensation coverage has represented a form of worker protection that long predates even Singapore's independence. It serves as a critical bulwark to protect workers against accidents, providing them important financial relief and some degree of protection in times of uncertainty and distress. Even so, the central role of platform workers or gig economy workers in the economy over the last few years has shown no signs of abating. In a time of heightened retrenchment and lower salary prospects, such work provides an important outlet for many Singaporeans workers. In this light, concerns abound over the lack of important worker protections for this group of Singaporean workers. Independent contractors under a contract for service also find themselves in a similar predicament. I have come across Singaporeans undertaking delivery work, like couriers, for example, finding themselves without WICA coverage. In the event they injure themselves in the course of their work, while loading their vehicles for example, no prospect of Work Injury Compensation exists for them. Does MOM have any indication of the number of such workers without WICA coverage, especially those in the low-income bracket? Separately, does MOM have any plan to address the worker protections for such Singaporean workers? This is in light of developments in other jurisdictions, like the UK, where the Supreme Court recently recognised platform workers as employees, lending weight to important questions over the appropriate statutory protections that should be extended to such workers in future.”
“To this end, what role do Government bodies like the BCA, for example, play to ensure that the interest of Singaporean HDB dwellers and other consumers are protected from unjustified hikes in the guise of adherence to the Progressive Wage Model, in this case, in the lift and escalator sector? Thank you.”
“One major lift company started with a more than 40% jump in lift maintenance fees, positing that costs would likely rise by 40% on account of the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model in this sector. When this company was questioned what percentage of this increase would go to workers, considering it maintained thousands of lifts across various Town Councils and should benefit from significant economies of scale to accommodate a mandated rise in wages through the PWM, company representatives demurred and argued that a rise in excess of 40% was just an opening position and that this amount was subject to negotiation. Sir, I recognise that such discussions with lift companies are commercial arrangements. The argument from some, when a minimum wage like the Progressive Wage Model is applied, is that costs will rise and the burden will have to borne by consumers. But it would appear that some vendors could take advantage of the Progressive Wage Model to profiteer under the pretext of increased costs. In view of the design of the Progressive Wage Model, and the extended conversations that take place between union representatives, the Government and the companies, I would like to know how the tripartite partners ensure that the prospects of profiteering by unscrupulous vendors is kept in check under the guise of rising wages for workers. This is especially in sectors like the lift and escalator sector where a number of the major players dominate and have a large footprint in that sector. Sir, I filed this cut before Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon delivered his speech last Wednesday, where he recommended the setup of a committee to guard against companies profiteering from the rollout of the Progressive Wage Model.”
“Sir, the Progressive Wage Model for the lift and escalator sector was approved by the Government in 2018 after a tri-sector committee comprising of union representatives, the Government and lift companies made its recommendations. Arising from this agreement to raise the wages of Singaporeans and PRs in the lift and escalator sector, a move that all Singaporeans should support, it is inevitable that some maintenance costs for lifts and escalators will rise. The lift and escalator industry is one with relatively high barriers to entry and it is dominated by a handful of major players. Some years ago, arising from a number of high profile accidents in the Town Council setting, many Town Councils moved to, as far as possible, tag the maintenance of their lifts to their original equipment manufacturers. This was also done in anticipation of a smoother rollout of HDB Lift Enhancement Initiatives. Currently, Town Councils are in discussions with various lift companies that seek to increase the maintenance costs of lifts in HDB estates arising from the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model in the lift and escalator sector. In tandem, lift companies are also increasing the fixed schedule of rates for their lift parts. The latter move should not have any direct connection with the rollout of the Progressive Wage Model in this sector as the costs of spare parts generally rise in tandem with inflation, accounting for a reasonable 3% to 4% increase in costs for Town Councils. 7.30 pm In my discussion with lift companies as an elected Member of Parliament of Aljunied/Hougang Town Council, the starting position of some lift companies has been to throw in a steep increase in maintenance cost.”
“Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, it is an offence if employers do not pay their foreign employees their contractually stipulated salaries or inflate their foreign employees' salaries with no intention of paying them the amount declared to MOM. Sir, I believe it is time to come down harder on errant employers who denied their foreign workers and Pass holders a fair wage and, in doing so, also lower the employment opportunities of Singaporeans who are qualified to do the same jobs. Compared to the numbers from 2010 to 2014 where 60 errant employers each year were found to have illegally deducted the salaries of their foreign workers, the numbers are clearly on the increase. One direct way to resolve this matter would be to raise the deterrent effect of the enforcement regime by increasing the penalties for underpayment of foreign workers and Pass holders under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. A second approach could be to tweak the law to require an errant employer, in addition to criminal penalties, to pay the foreign worker a penalty amounting to six months of the foreign workers' wage for each instance of intentional underpayment to circumvent MOM regulations. This amount would represent a punitive element that seeks to activate a behavioural effect to nudge foreign workers to proactively report employers who do not pay their declared wages, as required by MOM.”
“Chairman, the underpayment of foreign workers and Pass holders is not just a travesty against foreign workers; it sabotages Singaporean workers by undercutting their wage competitiveness. Unscrupulous employers take advantage of the significantly imbalanced negotiating position of foreign workers and coerce them to return a portion of their salaries in cash. Foreign workers are usually in debt by way of agency fees owed back home or to middleman employment agents, many of whom are outside Singapore's jurisdictional reach. The foreign workers in question would unsurprisingly be more concerned about their prospects for continued employment or employability in Singapore. In such a scenario, the disadvantages of reporting an errant employer to MOM can far outweigh the advantages. The Minister for Manpower, arising from Parliamentary Questions filed by Workers' Party Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap and Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai, recently confirmed that about 190 employers were found underpaying their foreign employees every year between 2015 and 2019. That total corresponds to close to 1,000 employers over a five-year period. The total number of foreign workers who were underpaid was not disclosed, nor were any details of restitution made to these workers disclosed as well. Can the Minister make these details known? The Minister also shared that the number of errant employers caught was the result of improved detection capabilities and education efforts to encourage foreign employees to report salary irregularities. Minister committed that the Ministry would continue to take strong surveillance and enforcement action.”
“What I would caution, as I have done before in other speeches, is to restate how the algorithms behind some of these cameras are managed and guarded, because if that information leaks, if it goes out, I think it can damage public confidence in some of this technology that the Home Team seeks to introduce. Thank you, Chairman.”
“Thank you, Madam. I have three points to make in response to Minister's speech. The first pertains to the point that my cut could have been interpreted to mean that some civil servants are biased. I think it is important that I make it clear that I am not suggesting that they are, nor do I mean to undermine their work and their morale. My motivation was to really seek a restatement of the Government's commitment towards secularism. And I thank the Minister for dealing with the speech and the Government's approach to what I said in a very detailed way. I did not realise the Minister had made these remarks nine times since 2015. Suffice to say, I appreciate his tenth restatement more than anything. 6.45 pm The second point, I think it was an important remark that Minister made, which was with regard to the point on LGBT and non-LGBT persons and that they are all equal and no one is any lesser compared to the other. I completely agree with this. I support this. I think it is a very powerful statement – a fair and egalitarian approach to dealing with the matter. And I hope all Singaporeans, regardless of race or religion, actually coalesce around this and have reasoned and respectful conversations on LGBTQ issues, and I think we will be stronger as a nation for it. The third point I wish to make concerns the Minister's latter comments about up to 90,000 more cameras coming on stream, provided the Budget allows for it. I think it will be foolhardy to try and stop and prevent the usefulness of technology in the support of the work of the Home Team to resolve crimes and matters of that regard. So, in that sense, I can support it because it will help the Police's work.”
“Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong also made similar remarks. Beyond a new White Paper or Maintenance of Harmony White Paper updated to identify the key dangers to communal harmony in Singapore for this generation, will the Government consider a restatement or an update of its working rules and laws to ensure that there is preservation of strict secularism, so that all communities recognise that no one is placed above the other in matters of law, policy and governance in our multi-racial and multi-religious society which also increasingly holds other communities. 5.00 pm Deterring Hostile Foreign Actors”
“Radicalism and extremism, not necessarily religion versus religion, but religion versus other communities, are subjects that deserve closer attention today. Yet, the principles stated in the 1989 White Paper and the worrying examples of that era, bear restating and updating because they are even more important now in our age of information silos. The White Paper stated that paragraph 27, what I believe to be the critical point, and I quote, "The purpose of attempting to separate religion from politics is therefore not to determine the validity of various religious or ethical beliefs which have political or social implications. It is to establish working rules by which many faiths can accept fundamental differences between them and co-exist peacefully in Singapore." Sir, far-right extremism has at its core, the rejection of the other. Earlier this year, the owner of an eatery uploaded a video of a well-dressed man in office attire, throwing the rainbow LGBT pride flag at staff members. The flag was placed at the shop front. The man allegedly told staff members, one of whom was hearing impaired, to I quote, "Go to hell", and accused them of being the kind of people who I quote again, "destroy Singapore". Beyond this incident, it was concerning to read that one of the reasons the eatery owner uploaded the video was, and I quote, "to highlight the everyday reality that the LGBTQ community experience when most incidents are not even caught on camera." I am aware Minister for Home Affairs, in particular, has spoken up about the state's intolerance of acts perpetrated against the LGBTQ community. Minister has stressed that the Government's job is to protect everybody and warned race, religion or sexual orientation was irrelevant.”