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 20 of 36.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick matter of propriety, in view of what Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat has said and he is indeed right. My memory on the matter was inaccurate and that attribution to him was also inaccurate. I refer to a letter sent by the press secretary of the former Leader of the House, Minister Grace Fu, and this is dated 15 May 2020. This is what was said in that letter to the press: "Live broadcast of Parliament risks turning the House into a form of theatre and do not add to the transparency," the spokesman for the Leader of the House Grace Fu said on Friday, 15 May. This was in response to a letter from a TODAY reader. So, just to make the point clear to Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat. And to put on record, my incorrect attribution.”
“To the Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat, I do apologise if indeed my memory failed me. For some reason, that word "theatrics" was in my mind. But I think the larger point was about concern that Members of Parliament would play to the gallery. I believe that was the point but rest assured, I do not mean to misrepresent what the Senior Minister of State said at that point.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his speech and the point about live Parliamentary broadcasts. I welcome the Minister's comments that the Government is going to look into this matter. Since the issue has been brought up every now and then, my colleagues and I have reflected on the Government's reasons for not proceeding with live broadcasts. I note Minister has shared that Government still has those reservations. I believe the Senior Minister of State in the previous session, Mr Chee Hong Tat, used the word "theatrics" – there was a concern about Parliament being turned into that sort of a forum. I understand and my colleagues and I have tried to reflect on this. But it is our view that that element of theatre will be exposed and the public will conclude fairly quickly, if not immediately, fairly quickly who is here to turn Parliament into a theatre and who is here to be serious about Parliament as a forum where serious matters are discussed. So, I just wanted to make that point and hope it provides some assurance for the Minister in his deliberations on this matter.”
“Minister, just two quick clarifications. The first, is on the size of the TAFEP team that surveys, educates and takes action against companies that engage in unfair hiring practices. What is the size of that team? Is the Minister of the view that that team needs to be enlarged? The second question takes off from comments made by the Second Minister for Manpower in the course of the debate over the last few days. Is MOM looking to beef up resources on unfair hiring practices. Could Minister share some details on what those measures specifically are?”
“The Prime Minister alluded to a dishonest sort of packaging of what I am suggesting. The bigger moral imperative that I have, and it is a huge burden, and I felt this burden before the last elections, was whether the people who are standing as WP candidates could follow through. That is the heaviest decision. That is the heaviest burden I have. And if you choose someone who is not committed, not vested, that is the biggest pain for me as the leader of one party that aspires to represent Singaporeans in Parliament. So, I will have to do what is good and what is right by Singapore. Looking for the best people. Do I want to contest all the seats, more seats, slowly grow? A lot of it depends on the quality of people that come and are attracted by the WP and our platform. If Singaporeans are attracted to it, then sure, there is a prospect of growth. But it is not growth for growth's sake. I am not desperate for power, Prime Minister. But we have got to get good people if we want to bring this country forward. The PAP has been doing that as the Prime Minister has alluded to. At this point in our growth, we have to grow our roots as a loyal Opposition. After more than 50 years of Independence, this is the first time the Government has recognised the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. We have many, many more miles to go. But we are not chasing a destination. We intend to do right by Singapore.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for the responses. Just two points. The first one about the free rider. I do not think the residents in Aljunied, Hougang for 30 years now and even Sengkang, as a result of the results of the last election, would appreciate being called free riders. They are not free riders. The residents of Aljunied, I can speak more authoritatively for Aljunied residents because I am a sitting Member there, we are not just doing nothing, having been voted in. We are not just letting the other guy, the government of the day do something. We have got to do what we have to do. We have got to run the Town Council, which is why Mr Lee Kuan Yew conceived of the Town Councils in the first place. Because if you want to move forward in the system as an Opposition MPs, you have got to prove your worth in the Town Council. And we have had growing pains. I am not going to deny that. But if we were bungling things up, I would not be here today. My team would not be here today. We have tried our best in the circumstances that we are in. The Sengkang team is not going to have an easy time. For the first term, it is always going to be tough. But the voters of these constituencies put their faith in us because they know an opposition in Parliament is ultimately good for Singapore. And it is not just – and if I can suggest this – it is not just the NCMP version of the opposition, with full respect to everyone who was an NCMP in this Parliament and those who came before, but it is when you have elected Opposition MPs, the Government listens harder. And that means something to people. That is my view. I am sure the PAP may have a different on it, but that is my perspective. And that is why it is important for there to be elected Opposition MPs.”
“In it, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister himself, says this and I quote, "At the end of the day, if you are running the system properly, you must have a distinction between what is the party, what is the Government, so, if you are voted out of office, the machinery is there for the next party to take over. So, although we do not have much of an Opposition, we keep the system going, so that at any time the party is out, the Government, the Parliament, the Civil Service will be there. The Police, the Armed Forces will carry it through. It is not going to collapse". Mr Speaker, Sir, when my colleagues and I joined the Opposition cause, we did not have heady dreams of becoming Government. It is certainly not me. Why did I do this? I believe in an Opposition in a Parliamentary democracy. It is not going to happen with people just hoping someone else does it. Somebody has to plant his flag in the sand and say, "I am going to do it". And then, it is the duty of myself and my party colleagues, to make sure that the people who are onboard do their very best. This is my commitment to Singaporeans, and this is my commitment to the Prime Minister as well. Thank you. [Applause.]”
“The position prior to 1991, HDB built offices for everybody, every MP, including Opposition MPs. And then, they stopped in 1991. Why did they stop? Because the argument was there was a competing need for void deck space. Even though in the later Parliamentary sessions, that number is only 1%, I understand, that was dedicated for that purpose. And then, in 2011, the position changed. And so we have to deal with some of this reality as well. Poor understanding, call it what you want of the situation; people feeling that there is something inherently unfair and so, when they say, "I want the PAP in the Government, but I also want an Opposition," they are giving voice to the situation many Singaporeans actually feel, which is, "We want that an Opposition in this House! There must be an Opposition in this House!" So, my duty and the duty of my colleagues is to be responsible about our role. It is not easy. We come under pressure to from our own supporters too. But as the Prime Minister rightly said, I think we owe our loyalty to something larger. And we will do our best by Singaporeans, and if we are not good enough, we deserve to be voted out. And that is how the system should work. The Prime Minister referred to a point I made about the political system and whether it would still run and so forth. Well, these are not just my thoughts. I refer the Prime Minister to the unofficial biography of the PAP which was published by The Straits Times Press, if I remember correctly.”
“We are doing it precisely because we are looking for alternatives to better consider the welfare of Singaporeans. The Prime Minister spoke about the social media post of Piyush Gupta and, obviously, it was posted with completely mala fide intentions. But similarly, when an issue is not framed accurately and the Opposition is made to look like charlatans, surely, we have to stand up and say, no, that is not the agenda. So, I hope that clarification is helpful when we talk about Reserves and why those numbers matter to us. The second clarification deals with the anecdote the Prime Minister shared about a lady who spoke to Senior Minister Teo and that choice, that difficult choice, she had to make about, "There will enough people voting for the PAP, they will be the Government. But there are also people who are saying two-for-one". This is an old issue. It has come up before in previous elections. And there is another side of the coin – that is one perspective. There are conversations that Opposition MPs hear: "Mr Singh, why is it that when new citizens go to the Community Clubs, the elected MP is not there? Is the elected MP, who is an Opposition candidate, not part of this larger political firmament? Is that not unfair?" And there are other questions too and these have come up as well. More recently, I put up a post about restarting the Meet-the-People sessions and a pro-establishment Facebook page goes on and says, "Hey, look at them, trying to engender sympathy from the public by doing MPS at the void deck". And, of course, people come up to me when I go on the ground and walk the markets. They say, "Mr Singh, is it true? Actually, the Government says you can build your own offices." I said, "That is true". The position changed in 2011.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for the address. Thank you. I have a few clarifications and I will start with the first one – the framing of suggestions that the Opposition puts forward about the use of the Reserves. And I think it is important. When we talk about the Reserves, we are not talking about raiding them. It is about slowing the growth slope of the Reserves. So, the principal is not touched. And there is nothing unusual about this because the PAP does it too. How so? In 2015, this House, including the Members of the Workers’ Party (WP), we agreed to include Temasek in the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula. Does that not reduce the growth of the Reserves? It does. So, the argument cannot be that when the Opposition tries to put that proposal forward, somehow, we are engaging in some sort of chicanery to steal what previous generations have toiled and perspired over to bring us here. When we look at alternatives, what are we looking at? Healthcare, ageing. For the same Singaporeans who worked hard, toiled hard, and are now in their retirement years who have some difficulties, questions of intergenerational equity come up. And that is the context through which some of these proposals are put forward. We have asked for numbers. I believe in the last term, Deputy Prime Minister Heng said no, this is a secret weapon; you do not reveal these numbers. But this House, this platform, provides us the opportunity to do so, if not in session, in Committee. And yes, there is Parliamentary privilege, but I am prepared to give up my Parliamentary privilege if I divulge those numbers. Then, I will have to be taken to task under the Official Secrets Act. So, why are we doing this?”
“I thank the Minister, for that clarification. Just a quick follow-up. Does stepped-up surveillance and enforcement also entail increasing the budget for TAFEP, for example, or increasing manpower for surveillance purposes? Because there are thousands of these companies in Singapore and across an incredible number of industries. How will TAFEP be able to have an effective handle over some of the discriminatory or unfair hiring practices and improve the situation from yesteryear?”
“It is okay, Mr Speaker, thank you. Sir, I have a clarification for Second Minister for Manpower, Minister Tan. This pertains to his reference to my speech and specifically the bit on fair hiring. I would like to refer, for that purpose, to an article that was in The Straits Times on 21 October 2019, entitled "Ensuring Level Playing Field for Singaporean Job Applicants". And reference was made there to a local IT firm found to be unfairly favouring job applicants who are foreigners. The firm was barred in mid-2017 from hiring foreign staff until it improved its practices – which is the standard form of what happens to employers of who practise unfair hiring. The next line is interesting: "But it was uncooperative until six months later when a TAFEP officer received a call from their CEO". My question pertains to the point that the Minister made in his speech about stepped-up surveillance and enforcement. Can the Minister share what really this entails, going forward, in light of unfair hiring practices, how is the system going to change from what it is, what it has been? FCF was introduced in 2014 – it has been five over years. Is the Ministry still seeing employers who are errant and who essentially do not cooperate? And if the Minister's approach is, "We have to engage them more", can the Minister please outline how would this be done to improve the status quo?”
“However Singapore pivots or evolves in the years to come, I believe a reasoned conversation before choices and decisions are made, or not made, will be critical. These will take time and consume much energy, and we will have to guard against conversations which are hijacked to advance sectional interests that demonise those who have reservations or a different perspective. The Workers' Party will seek to play a positive role in the national conversation both in and out of Parliament to leave behind a Singapore our children and future generations can be proud of. There is much to do. I support the Motion in the name of Mr Patrick Tay which gives thanks to the President for her Address delivered on behalf of the Government. 1.45 pm”
“The final point I would like to make on things that should change is on greater help for those who need it most. The Workers' Party believes that the Pioneer and Merdeka generation schemes, for example, are good ones. Indeed, we ourselves proposed policies along these lines, years ago. However, we believe more can be done. We know that there are trade-offs. Extending more health and other social benefits comes with a cost. Could this result in higher income taxes for many Singaporeans and those who work here, for example? Yes. But the benefits will go beyond mere financial help for those who need it. Will there be a price to pay in terms of higher costs for the end-consumer? This must be expected. Increasingly, there will be a price to pay if we wish to be "One United People" and move beyond the phrase as an aspiration or worse, a platitude. Many Scandinavians are content to pay higher taxes because they know this would mean that others in their society will be able to live with greater dignity. For those who earn higher incomes, to pay higher taxes is a point of pride for many of them. The Singaporean identity which sees community as a central pillar of its DNA should imbibe such thinking with those better-off paying more. Let us build a kinder and gentler Singapore. In conclusion, Sir, those are the three things I wanted to speak on today: first, things that have changed since the General Election; second, things that must not change; and third, things that should change. As history tells us, change can be for the better or for the worse. Around 50 years ago, some Asian countries were prosperous and thriving. Fast forward to today, as a direct result of bad choices and in spite of the best intentions, things have gone awry there.”
“For example, the seismic political changes in Hong Kong may prompt some international businesses to move to other jurisdictions. We should aim to welcome those looking to move. But if we do not move purposefully to consolidate and position the Singaporean PMET in a competitive position vis-a-vis the work pass holder, the Government will not be able to secure support or adequate support for its economic agenda and take advantage of opportunities while maintaining social harmony. Let me now move away from foreign professionals to discuss local tradesmen. Another thing that we should change in Singapore is raising the value of the work of the Singapore tradesmen. In places like Australia, New Zealand and Germany, tradesmen make good wages that match or even outstrip those of university graduates. In Singapore, although our educational institutions train our citizens for such vocations, not enough is done to protect their trades. The way to protect our tradesmen is to regulate who can practice each trade. Medical professionals, accountants, quantity surveyors, insurance practitioners and even real estate sales professionals have to be properly qualified and certified. This enables them to earn a wage that is protected from undercutting by the unqualified. For example, for trades such as air-conditioner servicing and plumbing, anyone can offer such services. Uplifting our tradesmen will require a paradigm shift in how workers are viewed and trained. If it succeeds, it will raise the self-esteem and incomes of Singaporeans who may not be academically inclined but who have acquired valuable skills that many of us in this House would not be able to fully master. It is my view that such a decisive shift will fundamentally alter our understanding of meritocracy.”
“The two main justifications given for the hiring of foreigners are first, that they are unable to find Singaporeans with the expertise; and second, that foreigners do jobs that are undesired by Singaporeans. As it is unlikely that well-paying banking jobs are undesired by Singaporeans, the justification of these banks in hiring foreigners must be that they are unable to find enough Singaporeans with the needed expertise. If that is true, then we need to ask where the gaps are in our education and lifelong learning training systems. These gaps must be found and plugged as soon as possible. Last Friday, MAS responded to The Straits Times queries on the issue of foreign professionals at financial institutions. I agree with MAS that falsehoods on fair hiring are unhelpful and unfair. On the point of the number of Singaporeans at financial institutions, however, MAS did say that there are some functions and some firms where there is scope to increase the proportion of Singaporeans. MAS has also said that it would like to see more Singaporeans move into the senior ranks of the financial sector. MAS added that there is an urgent need to build the local talent pool in technology-related areas to meet increasing demand. I was glad to see that MAS made the same points I have made above – that a greater proportion of Singaporeans can be employed at financial institutions and that Singaporeans need to be appropriately educated and trained to take up jobs in the financial sector. Mr Speaker, I have spent some time on these matters which are on the lips of many Singaporeans because I believe that in spite of COVID-19 and the changes taking place in the world, opportunities are arising that Singapore can take advantage of.”
“At the moment, the penalty for employers who breach TAFEP’s fair hiring requirements is a debarment of up to two years from hiring or renewing foreign workers, including work pass renewals – and that is for the most serious offenders. There are no criminal penalties for individuals who are responsible for unfair hiring practices. Surely this tempts recalcitrant employers into trying their luck. If they practise unfair hiring, all that happens is that they are stopped from hiring unfairly for two years. Employers only face criminal prosecution if they make false declarations on fair consideration. And somehow, truthful declarations on fair consideration have allowed two companies to hire up to two-thirds and three-quarters of PMETs of the same nationality. Needless to say, prosecution only for false declarations is simply not enough. In tandem with a stronger regime of deterrence, there should be an educational credential assessment for all Employment Pass and S Pass applicants, the cost of which should be borne by the applicant. This will ensure that only objectively qualified foreigners may work in Singapore. Tied closely to the issue of the hiring of foreigners is whether the education system is adequately preparing our citizens for the jobs that are available. The big banks – OCBC, UOB and DBS – all have workforces that are made up of at least 90% Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. It is unclear what proportion are Singapore Citizens. Standard Chartered has said that 70% of its local subsidiary’s staff are Singapore Citizens. Are these really high numbers? What are the reasons why these banks cannot be staffed by even more Singaporeans?”
“For example, there may be some justification if the bank’s customers are not in Singapore, but are from the same country as the PMETs, and if these customers do not speak any of the languages widely used in Singapore. Some have argued that this is what it takes for Singapore to be a global financial hub. The problem is that we simply do not know enough. And the vacuum has given space for a more toxic conversation to ferment. We should nip this forthwith and some details earlier this week from MTI about inter-corporate transferees and remarks by the Minister for MTI have been important. To this end, more information, and not less, is certainly most helpful. One way for us in Parliament and for the public to know, is for MOM to publish the names of recalcitrant employers. We can then understand the operating paradigm of such businesses and understand how they intend to make the transition to fair hiring practices. The Government also needs to raise its signature in this regard, especially since this is such a hot-button issue, one generating a lot of heat but very little light. To assist, a Parliamentary Select Committee can investigate the limitations of the workforce and the needs of the economy on the one hand, and the reality of the Singaporean worker in the face of competition and the constraints faced by employers on the other. Beyond this, a far more purposeful way to prevent companies from hiring unfairly would be for Parliament to pass anti-discrimination legislation and impose penalties for discriminatory practices by egregious offenders. This should be considered alongside a more activist approach by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) in the immediate term.”
“That openness and friendly attitude must continue as a manifestation of the Singapore spirit and the Singapore we leave behind for future generations of Singaporeans. But it is precisely because we need foreigners to help power our economy that we need to pay more attention to Singapore workers, some of whom feel excluded, some of whom feel excluded from opportunities created in their homeland. In recent weeks, letters in The Straits Times Forum have been published, one by a retired senior Singaporean banker and another by the Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS, in reply. These appeared after MOM placed 47 companies on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist. Of the 47 companies, 30 were financial and professional services institutions. On the MOM’s website, examples are given of one wealth management firm where almost three-quarters of their PMET or professional, manager, executive and technician jobs are held by persons of the same nationality. Another example is given of a bank where almost two-thirds are of the same nationality. The obvious question is: how did those two companies get to those stages without MOM taking action before this? MOM’s website states at one point and I quote, “MOM does not tolerate unfair hiring practices and employers who do not give locals a fair chance in hiring and promotion will face scrutiny and stiff penalties if found to have unfair hiring practices.” However, for three-quarters and two-thirds of the PMETs of two companies to be non-Singaporeans of the same nationality, Singaporeans may be justified in asking if MOM has tolerated their unfair hiring practices for some time. To be fair, this is a complex issue.”
“A second possibility for Select Committees would be the formation of more ad hoc committees. Such committees are already a part of Singapore’s Parliamentary processes, but the Workers' Party recommends that more of them be empanelled. The purpose of ad hoc Select Committees is to investigate a specific issue and report back to Parliament. In time, and given their importance, they can be repurposed into permanent Standing Select Committees. These Select Committees must function as investigators, with no pre-determined agenda, hidden or otherwise. They must go where the evidence, obtained through submissions and witnesses, leads them. The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, of which I was a member in the last term of Parliament, was a good start. But there is scope for further improvement. For example, by giving a longer lead time for submissions to be made; publishing written submissions at least two weeks before the hearings; scheduling hearings over more days; and releasing an interim report for public scrutiny that can prompt more written submissions and additional hearings. To this end, the President in her Address alluded to potentially difficult conversations that Government would need to have with Singaporeans. Parliament in committee – rather than in session like it is today – is an excellent platform to hear and truly listen to the voices of Singaporeans in an open way. The next thing we need to change in Singapore is how we manage and accommodate foreigners in our economy. Their presence gives Singapore a vitality that keeps us economically relevant and also provides jobs and opportunities to our fellow Singaporeans. Many of us count the foreigners in our midst, regardless of race, language or religion as our friends.”
“There are two possibilities for Select Committees. One possibility is for more Standing Select Committees to be set up to scrutinise the spending, policies and administration of each Ministry. The members of these committees would be drawn from a mix of Members in this House, including PAP backbenchers, elected Opposition MPs and NCMPs. Such committees are part of the normal political fabric of other democracies. The UK parliament has cross-party Commons Select Committees that check on each government department, also in the areas of spending, policies and administration. Those who follow American politics would also be familiar with the various Senate and House committees that are drawn from both Democrats and Republicans. This suggestion is not meant to be a blind copying of the British and American systems, but is made because such committees are an example of parliamentary institutions our democracy can benefit from. Such Standing Select Committees are not to be confused with Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs). GPCs are partisan – only PAP Members of Parliament sit on them. GPCs were conceived in 1987 when Mr Chiam See Tong was the only Opposition MP left after the removal of Mr J B Jeyaretnam in 1986. There were no NMPs at the time, nor NCMPs. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced them as a method of PAP self-checking. Now, with the presence of 10 elected Opposition Members of Parliament, Standing Select Committees are feasible and indeed desirable for greater accountability. If not for all Ministries, then perhaps for some of them. Of course, certain Ministries such as MINDEF and MHA may require the discussion of classified information. In such cases, cross-party committees could review matters at closed door hearings.”
“It is important that all communities support, respect and accommodate each other. Sir, my Workers' Party colleagues and I look at Singapore as a glass half-full or one that can be topped-up. There is much that is right and which should remain the same. But there is also much that can and should change. This brings me to my third area – things that should change in Singapore. It is my conviction that these changes would improve governance and better look after the needs of Singaporeans. First, to leverage an independent Organ of State, namely Parliament, the Workers' Party proposes the formation of more Select Committees. Some conversations in Singapore can continue to be divisive unless we decisively create a framework for reasoned conversation. Parliament, using the platform of Select Committees, can operate as an important safety valve and an agent of positive conversations that ought to have a direct impact on policies and laws. More significantly, in the information ecology of today's world, misinformation and disinformation campaigns are run online and offline, usually in combination, to manipulate content and hijack narratives. This House and the Government need to reframe the public narrative on our more pressing issues. In many countries today, even the mainstream media cannot moderate the conversation without significant public funding. A recent headline from the magazine Current Affairs put it starkly – the truth is paywalled and the lies are free. An apt description of the dilemma facing the mainstream media in the face of some aspects of social media. By forming Select Committees that meet regularly on the most sensitive and difficult issues for Singapore, Parliament can play a bigger role in leading the conversation and championing the truth.”
“The Workers' Party backs the Government in involving Singapore in United Nations initiatives, and those of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, UNESCO, the International Labour Organization and other multilateral initiatives. We support the Government's efforts in working with our neighbours to bolster ASEAN. We believe that a successful ASEAN boosts regional security through economic, political and security cooperation. In particular, we support Singapore's efforts to work with ASEAN and other countries to finalise the South China Sea Code of Conduct. As a small maritime nation and separately, a trading nation, the sanctity of international agreements and adherence to the rule of law is necessary to discourage arbitrary behaviour by more powerful states. Next, we support the Government's work in continuing various things that have become a part of Singapore's DNA. Singapore's position on corruption must not change. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was able to lead the achievement of something that many thought impossible at the time – the rooting out of endemic corruption from Singapore society. We are proud of Singapore's success in doing so and support the Government's continuing work in this area. If anything, Singapore's position on stamping out corruption should be strengthened so that extra-territorial corruption by Singaporeans is discouraged with as much diligence as domestic corruption. Equally important is Singapore's emphasis on racial and religious harmony. These words are almost a cliche in Singapore, and we should be grateful for that, because in many other countries, it is a source of intractable problems. The Workers' Party strongly believes in Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious and multi-cultural community.”
“Investors should know that Singapore will never close for business, no matter how many Workers' Party MPs there are in Parliament. We make a living by being relevant to the world and separately as a trustworthy and reliable interlocutor. Our Police and security agencies keep our country safe. Our teachers are excellent educators. Our doctors and nurses staff a healthcare system that provides quality care. These are but some of the reasons why foreign investors put their trust in Singapore. Opposition politics and advocacy for Singaporeans cannot ignore Singapore's place in the world and what we offer to the world. We must still look outward, even as we continually search for a lasting modus vivendi which accommodates the domestic pressures of being economically open, and the reality of a Singapore identity that evolves and crystallises as our nation matures. Singaporeans do feel patriotic, nationalistic and protectionist even. These are forces that are not intrinsically negative, but they have to be empathised with and understood by this House. In turn, Singaporeans should consider Singapore's relevance to the world from a broad perspective. After all, all of us, no matter what our political preferences, want our country to be thriving and successful and with a big heart. Moving on to the second thing that must not change. The Workers' Party supports the Government's positions on defence and foreign policy. These must continue as they are. These policies are well-considered and they place primacy on Singapore's interest while seeking long-term mutual cooperation with other countries and international organisations. They also take into account the realism of international politics and the reality of not just a small state, but our peculiar circumstances too.”
“Before I leave the subject of the Opposition, I would add that in the United Kingdom, the Leader of the Opposition is sometimes styled as the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. The term "Loyal Opposition" was coined in the Nineteenth century to make clear that opposing the Government was not considered disloyalty to the monarch, or to the state. I note the Prime Minister also used this term in the aftermath of the last election. The Workers' Party has always taken the position that when it is in the Opposition, it owes its loyalty to the President, the Republic of Singapore and the people. We have proven that we do not oppose the Government for the sake of opposing. We back the Government when national interests are at stake. Shortly after COVID struck in January, I said to the House from this very Table: "Workers' Party Members of Parliament agree with the Government when we have to, disagree where we must, in the knowledge that we endeavour for the best outcomes for Singapore and for a unity of purpose when politics must take a back seat, like during the current COVID-19 crisis." That position made in the context of the debate on the Unity Budget is a convenient point for me to transition to the second area I will speak on. That is, things that must not change in Singapore. First, Singapore's historical position as a trading nation. Second, the Government's policies and actions on defence and foreign policy. And finally, certain things that are now synonymous with Singapore – multiracialism, the greening of Singapore, the quality of our public libraries and our culture of abhorring corruption. Sir, Singapore has always been a trading nation and open borders are a fact of our lives.”
“Despite not being able to shadow each Ministry, we intend to organise our MPs to look into five areas that are critical for Singapore and of huge importance to Singaporeans. The five areas are: (a) health, ageing and retirement adequacy; (b) jobs, businesses and the economy; (c) education, inequality and the cost of living; (d) housing, transport and infrastructure; (e) national sustainability – a broad-ranging area that looks at policies and proposals to ensure we leave behind a thriving Singapore that lasts far into the future for successive generations. The next change that has happened is the first-time presence in Parliament of the Progress Singapore Party. I wish to welcome their two Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa. What is the relationship of other Opposition parties to the Leader of the Opposition? In other Westminster parliaments, the Leader of the Opposition is not considered a the leader of all Opposition parties in Parliament. This must be so in Singapore as well. The Progress Singapore Party has its own principles and ideology, that are distinct from the Workers' Party. Mr Leong and Ms Poa may propose policies and promote ideas very different from, and even in disagreement to those of the Workers' Party. It is possible that they may support Government policies that we disagree with or vice versa. However, where our positions match and are in the best interests of Singapore, I look forward to collaborating with the Progress Singapore Party's NCMPs. Taken together, this would make for healthy debate in this House where policies are debated on their merits and principles, rather than in support or opposition to the Government.”
“The Leader of the Opposition's office will not have the breadth and depth of the Party in Government in coming up with alternative policies. Nonetheless, the Workers' Party will continue pursuing alternatives we feel are important for Singapore, an example being the proposal for redundancy insurance for workers as put forth in the last term of Parliament. We will continue to advance meaningful alternatives for deliberation and debate, and will strive to improve on the quality of the alternatives suggested. Another change that has happened that led to the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition is that there are more Opposition MPs in Parliament than at any time since the years following our Independence in 1965. Mr Speaker, Members of Parliament are vox populi – the voice of the people. To raise in Parliament what the people cannot do directly is the duty of the Government ruling party and the Opposition. The Workers' Party intends to raise matters in Parliament that are important to the people of Singapore that the Government and PAP backbenchers may not. We intend to scrutinise policies to the best of our abilities. To that end, let me set out how the Workers' Party's Members of Parliament will be organised. With just 10 Members of Parliament – far from the more than one-third necessary to check the PAP's supermajority – it is not feasible for the Workers' Party to set up a shadow Cabinet in the tradition of Westminster parliaments. There are 16 Ministries in Singapore, including the Prime Minister's Office. These 16 Ministries have the resources of 37 political office-holders from Parliamentary Secretary upwards. Of these 37, 20 are full Ministers.”
“Every elected Member of Parliament is given a budget to hire a Legislative Assistant and Secretarial Assistant. The Legislative Assistant is paid an allowance of $1,300 per month and the Secretarial Assistant is paid an allowance of $500 a month. Based on these sums, these positions are of necessity, part-time ones. I should highlight that these are the same resources depended on by PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) who are not political office-holders. Each PAP backbencher also has only one Legislative Assistant and one Secretarial Assistant, although I should add that they can avail themselves of the additional resources of the People's Association, including the staff at Community Clubs for their grassroots work. For completeness, let me say that neither Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) nor Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) are given these resources. This would be an opportune time to thank the Legislative Assistants or LAs, both of the PAP and Opposition parties, who have over the years supported Members of Parliament. For the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government has allocated a budget for three more LAs. Applying the standard allowance for LAs, each of the three additional LAs for the Leader of the Opposition will be paid $1,300 a month. Again, these have to be part-time positions. An administrative assistant has also been made available to the office of the Leader of the Opposition by Parliament. By contrast, it is useful to remember that a sitting Government has at its disposal the resources of a Singapore Public Service, a very good one – I might add – of 146,000 full-time officers. Of these, 85,000 are members of the Civil Service.”
“In early 2018, I asked a Parliamentary Question about the number of Permanent Residents (PRs) who remained PRs for more than 10, 15, 20 and 25 years respectively, and the common reasons cited by these individuals for not taking up Singapore Citizenship. The information provided was far narrower, specifically that about 15% of PRs have been PRs for 20 or more years. Sir, the additional details that were not provided are important so the Opposition can consider and put forward alternative approaches to population and immigration policies. The data will also put into stark relief the relevance of referring to someone as a local in our statistical data when it is clear that some PRs do not want to become Singapore Citizens or the state has no plans to extend citizenship to them. Mr Speaker, I accept that such matters are sensitive and the Government's unwillingness to provide the data in the format or detail requested, may arise not because of an unwillingness to disclose information. Instead, there could be genuine concerns about how information will be used or perhaps misused to rile pockets of the population since the PR policy is closely tied to immigration and jobs. But it is my case, Mr Speaker, that the Government will have to find a new way of dealing with such difficult matters. And I strongly believe Parliament is an important safety valve and a potential moderator of extreme conversations found offline and online on immigration and population issues. To that end, later in my speech, I will suggest some alternative approaches for the Government's consideration. As for resources, I would like to share my understanding of the resources that will be provided to the Leader of the Opposition. This is important for the public to know in formulating their expectations.”
“For Opposition parties to make greater headway in Parliament, we have to understand that today's political context necessitates the development of a rational and responsible approach to opposition politics that places not just the Singapore Citizen, but Singapore at its core. Mr Speaker, my Workers' Party colleagues and I will set our own standards and chart an independent course, just as my predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang did in the face of much resistance including from many personalities in the Opposition camp as he sought to build a credible Workers' Party. The road ahead will not be easy, but anything worthwhile never is. We will do our best by Singapore and Singaporeans. But how much we can do and how much the political conversation evolves for the better will be driven by three things. One, by the quantity and the quality of information that is shared by the Government in Parliament, and separately, released to the public more generally. Two, by the resources given by the Government to analyse and use that information for the benefit of the public. And three, by the willingness of the Government to listen to and implement the alternative ideas suggested. As far as information is concerned, the Opposition's output will depend very much on whether we can get the input we ask for. We intend to make targeted inquiries of Government departments and public agencies as such information is essential for crafting alternative policies. On its part, the Government should consider how it can put out more information without being asked to, particularly information and indicators benchmarked against other countries.”
“We will have to ask ourselves tough questions before critiquing Government policy – the chief of which is, what would we do if we were in charge. Singaporeans in general would be unfamiliar with the concept of an Opposition in Parliament and as an official part of our political system, let alone the office of the Leader of the Opposition. In the past, popular reference to the Opposition was almost always pejorative, usually centred around the points that the Opposition was out of Government, did not have a mandate, could only talk and as such was ultimately irrelevant. There was a lacuna in appreciating the value of a parliamentary Opposition as a part of Singapore's parliamentary democracy. With the new changes, it needs to be clear what the Opposition can and cannot do. The appointment of the Leader of the Opposition is an opportunity for citizens and indeed, politicians, to educate ourselves and understand better what exactly it is that the Opposition does and what its purpose is. What does it mean to be a check and balance on the Government and how exactly can the Opposition propose alternative policies? My assessment is that the public expects the Workers' Party and the Opposition in general to play a constructive role in Singapore politics. It should advance the interests of all Singaporeans, whether they may be in the majority or minority on any particular issue without fear or favour. The office of the Leader of the Opposition goes a long way to institutionalising an Opposition in Parliament and in our political system.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion, thanking the President for her Address. My speech will cover a variety of topics, organised into three main areas. First, I will speak about certain things that have changed in Singapore. Second, I will talk about things that must not change. And third, I will suggest some things that should change. First, let me speak about a few things that have changed in Singapore in the aftermath of the last election. I will speak about the Government's recognition of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, about how Workers' Party Members of Parliament will be organised in Parliament and finally, I will share some thoughts on the presence of our parliamentary colleagues from the Progress Singapore Party. Immediately after the results of the General Election were known, the Prime Minister announced the position of Leader of the Opposition and that this would come with support and resources. It would be an understatement to say that this announcement came as a surprise to the Workers' Party and to members of the public. My view is to take the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition and the motives behind it positively. The Prime Minister has signalled a change in the narrative and culture of how politics and government is to be conducted, and I thank him for that. We look forward to a different tone of political engagement and the Workers' Party accepts the changes as another step towards a First World Parliament. The appointment has created expectations. The Government, the Workers' Party and the people of Singapore all believe that politics in Singapore is changing and in some ways changing rapidly. My personal expectation is that my Workers' Party colleagues and I will have to work extra hard.”
“Indeed, as this generation of Singaporeans traverses a more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world than before, we would be remiss to ignore our closest neighbours and the context of Singapore's place in our neighbourhood and the wider world. I am sure the House will continue to look forward to your leadership in such official functions which also include meeting Singaporeans overseas and flying the Singapore flag high. Sir, on behalf of the Opposition Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, we wish you a successful turn as Speaker of this House. We will continue to support your efforts in raising the esteem of our Parliament and our country, both in and out of this Chamber. Congratulations. [Applause.]”
“In doing so, I hope Singaporeans are, in turn, driven to understand the issues we debate deeply but always in the context of a small and multi-racial society which has to balance and accommodate many different viewpoints and shifting norms. Beyond our shores, I, along with other Parliamentary colleagues, joined you in an official visit to Malaysia in March last year. The courtesy visit to the Malaysian parliament, the Dewan Rakyat, was a highly successful one. I recall the moment our delegation had just taken our seats in the Malaysian parliament's Visitors' Gallery when the matter of a Malaysian member of parliament's ejection from their parliament was being fiercely debated and vigorously challenged. I do not think it was a coincidence that another Malaysian member of parliament stood up and invited the Dewan Rakyat to seek your advice from the Visitors' Gallery as to whether such a removal of a member of parliament was proper. Though we have not experienced such an episode ourselves in the Singapore Parliament in recent memory, it is clear that your views of how such a matter should be handled are valued in the region. You followed up with another visit in the latter part of 2019 with an official trip to the Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly or Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia where you invited former Workers' Party Secretary-General Mr Low Thia Khiang to join the delegation. Sir, your active interest in engaging parliamentarians of our closest neighbours is something that has not gone unnoticed.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Workers' Party Members of Parliament and the Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, congratulations on your re-election of Speaker of Parliament. Since your election as Speaker in 2017, you have given the Workers' Party Members of Parliament appropriate time to engage the government of the day on the issues that matter. We trust that you will continue in the same vein. In your few short years as Speaker, you have sought to increase public awareness of Parliament and its work through new methods of communication, such as engaging younger Singaporeans through social media. In doing so, you have encouraged Singaporeans to take an active interest in Parliament as an Organ of State that is fundamental to our democracy. Mr Speaker, you have done so in step with the changing norms of society and without losing sight of the formality and serious purpose of Parliament as a central pillar in our system of Government. When Parliament opened after the President's Address in 2016, I spoke on the tremendous scope available to Parliament and, more specifically, through Select Committees to make our politics more accountable and better accessible to all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I hope you can lend your weight to this and continue to explore ways to demystify the work of Parliament and to better enable Singaporeans appreciate law-making and debates on policy imperatives and trade-offs. Parliament's direct and indirect impact on each and every Singaporean and our businesses is massive; and it is only appropriate that we amplify the choices and the reasons behind the decisions made or not made in Parliament more widely.”
“I understand that, Senior Minister of State. Can I ask what were the reasons given by those experts for that change?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for that clarification. In that vein, can I ask the Senior Minister of State, with regard to the decision earlier this week to stop usage of face shields except for certain classes of individuals, how was that decision originally taken to allow for face shields and then, a u-turn made thereafter to limit it to specific classes? How did that information change from the health experts I imagine that the Government has access to?”
“This is a positive development, even as COVID-19 has hit Singapore while we contend with other pressing short and medium term issues, such as demographic shifts, technological disruption, climate change and, more ominously, the impact to our position as a global Asia hub from US-China competition and rivalry. The economic picture may be bleak today and, for some, a moment of anguish. But as I had put forth in my response to the Resilience Budget, there are opportunities to reset some fundamental assumptions about the type of society we can endeavour and pivot towards. I use the word "pivot" because Singapore is a far more complex and varied economy and society than it was in 1965. The transition will demand everyone's participation, effort and energies. But with the people determined and committed to the nation's recovery and success, COVID-19 is a golden opportunity for this generation to envision and build a better Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the Fortitude Budget.”
“Members would recall one citizen's poems were nitpicked with a view to cast wholly negative aspersions on his character, even though that individual was not present in the House to defend himself. Mr Speaker, when any leader or person of influence engages in what will be interpreted as dog-whistling, it sets the tone for how members of the public debate with those whose views they disagree with. If binary black-and-white perspectives are the shape of how we as a society deal with differences after COVID-19, Singapore will become an ordinary society, no different from many around the world. But nobody expects the Government to willy-nilly change its decision at the first sign of pressure and agree with a critic. Singaporeans do recognise the multitude of perspectives the Government has to take cognisance of, but it is important to recognise and not forget that citizens criticise and even organise, because they care. Moving forward, the Government should look at opening more avenues like Parliament for citizen engagement, greater data sharing and empower other institutions like our think-tanks, and nudge the mainstream media to give alternative perspectives more voice and even provide platforms piloting change on a small scale. As we traverse the post-COVID-19 volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, we need to place more faith and promote even greater participation from Singaporeans than ever before. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has prompted many Singaporeans to ask fundamental questions about our economy and who we are as a people. As many Singaporeans will have to buckle down to take on new skills and jobs, COVID-19 has also provided an opportunity for Singaporeans to take a deeper interest in their country and their society.”
“Another case in point is the recent response of various Chambers of Commerce on the calls made by Singaporeans to moderate the number of foreign workers in Singapore as a result of the COVID-19 experience. With many corporates and big businesses already perceived to be over-represented in our political ecology, be it through the grassroots or through their association in private-public national level committees, the Government needs to consider how it can become a better arbiter between different views, to give and encourage more space to our youths, NGOs unlinked to GLCs and trade unions, and the people sector to voice their contrarian views and perspectives. This should be done while retaining a laser-like focus on fact-based conversations that portend a progressive future all Singaporeans can endeavour towards. To this end, we have some Singaporeans, including young ones, wondering whether we had done right by foreign workers, calling for an improvement of their living conditions, but only to be met by naysayers questioning their motives. In fact, COVID-19 has, paradoxically, vindicated a smaller group of Singaporeans who have been lobbying for improvements to foreign worker management policies for years. To that end, the Government's decision to quickly introduce guidelines for better foreign worker accommodation standards and the promotion of a more respectful culture between Singaporeans and migrant workers has been a very positive development. In my view, Mr Speaker, we should count ourselves fortunate that we have citizens who are the loving critics amongst us, some of whom have been questioned in this very House in this term of Government.”
“We have experienced it in bucket loads over the last two months – a greater acknowledgement of mental health issues; warm cheers of support for healthcare frontliners from HDB flats and condominiums; more stories of Singaporeans offering the Food Panda or Grab delivery person water or a drink before he or she fulfils the next order; and the list goes on. Singaporeans may have grumbled, but they got on with their lives in spite of the inconveniences of the circuit breaker and played their part in protecting lives and livelihoods. In addition, many younger Singaporeans have taken a great interest in those less well-off. This has been one of the seminal moments of the COVID-19 experience thus far. Volunteering to help distribute food to Singaporeans in need, volunteering to swab foreign workers, delivering laptops to families in need with school-going children, and so much more. In a crisis that this generation of Singaporeans will never forget, we saw the best of Singapore. Mr Speaker, being able to put oneself in the shoes of the other is the very definition of empathy. And empathy is a significant source from which fortitude springs and a basis to call upon the cohesion and strength needed for Singapore to overcome challenges and odds. In response to my Resilience Budget speech and, specifically the reference to the New Deal in the US, Deputy Prime Minister Heng cautioned about localising schisms from the US where liberals support comprehensive relief and reform programmes, and conservatives oppose plans that are hostile to growth and business. The Deputy Prime Minister would be aware that Singapore is not alien to diametrically opposed ideological perspectives and these have been present in Singapore for some time. The online discourse has, in fact, accentuated it.”
“Malaysia closed its borders before our circuit breaker, resulting in a difficult adjustment for many Singaporean companies, both public and private, reliant on foreign labour. Can we imagine the psychological impact on Singapore had Malaysia stopped food supplies like vegetables as well? Public crisis preparedness, such as a lack of understanding of emergency terminology like DORSCON also revealed gaps that need to be plugged in future. A belated explanation of Singapore having raised its DORSCON level to Orange in 2009 as a result of H1N1, ostensibly to temper panic-buying, and the jolting of memories about the existence of a rice stockpile could not overcome a distinct lack of understanding and preparedness about emergencies amongst many segments of the public. This is unlike the mindset of many Merdeka and Pioneer Generation Singaporeans who would recall emergency preparedness exercises, such as water rationing, for example. Engaging more Singaporeans on the need to better compensate for, if not overcome, our limitations in key areas and reintroducing public emergency preparedness for psychological resilience, has been exposed by the crisis, and significant focus would need to be placed on this in future. To that end, and critically, we must take stock of the entire economy and relook at sectors where greater self-sufficiency and buffer are required, especially essential jobs and services. Such a thorough review could potentially become a source of more job opportunities for Singaporeans, pegged at more respectable wage levels in some cases. I hope this is something the National Jobs Council can look at. The last "E" I wish to talk about is empathy.”
“Other Members have spoken about the operational frustrations of businesses, like those in construction, and I will not repeat these. This morning, the Straits Times carried a story on COVID-19 regulations comparing hair treatments that go on for hours, contrasted with directives that prohibit beauty treatments that last more than 30 minutes. For some Singaporean businesses, at times, it felt as if no one in Government was taking ownership of how COVID-19 directives would be perceived, interpreted and understood on the ground. Then, they were higher order trade-offs and decisions that could have turned very differently in view of numerous unknowns associated with the spread of the virus. While other countries requisitioned mask supply lines, it would appear that Singapore resisted doing so, probably with an eye on the future so that international companies would always see Singapore as a reliable place to do business. This must have been a tough call. But rather than getting the public to speculate about these decision making trade-offs, such as whether the possible shortage of reagents to ramp up COVID-19 testing far more quickly was a problem, the public was largely left to infer positions that ought to have been unequivocally made by the Government. For younger Singaporeans, this crisis has been educational and revealing. COVID-19 has reinforced for some Singaporeans, if not exposed for others, especially younger Singaporeans, how reliant Singapore is on foreign sources of manpower and supplies. This is something commentators online would do well to remember when they speak ill or run down our neighbours.”
“The Workers' Party has not come in to publicly criticise the Government on its handling of an unprecedented crisis in ways that would undermine the national effort. But Singaporeans have a right to expect a thorough review and accounting on the response to this public health crisis. Some, both in and out of this House, have suggested a commission of inquiry or some other independent body to review specific aspects of the Government's response thus far. Whatever the form such a reckoning takes in future, our position, as a constructive Opposition, requires us to communicate the feelings of Singaporeans on the ground in Parliament. As we exit the circuit breaker, there is the perception that the Government's handling of the COVID-19 crisis has certainly not included adjectives more commonly associated with the Singapore Government, such as clarity and decisiveness. For example, there is a broadly accepted view that the public should have been told early and clearly, and not through illegal recordings behind closed doors, for example, that universal masking would prove to be a challenge in view of supply constraints requiring the Government to prioritise our healthcare and other essential workers. To this end, straight talk, especially on Singapore's limitations and shortcomings in managing the crisis, did not always define official Government communication on COVID-19. There was a perception among some Singaporeans of a public confused with many piecemeal announcements, u-turns and positions that did not gel intuitively, like limiting the number of visits to parents and grandparents to two individuals, when public transport safe distancing rules had already been lifted.”
“In this regard, the employment of the Contingencies Fund in this Budget answered the question posed during my Resilience Budget debate speech, which queried whether the next Government would have enough fiscal firepower to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 fallout. Nonetheless, I have a few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister on this count. It would appear that this Contingencies Fund would provide the Government with a significant buffer against post-circuit breaker uncertainties. What is of interest is the decision-making process behind the allocation of this amount. How did the Government settle on it? And on what basis was it justified to the President? After delivering the Fortitude Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister was also quoted in the media as saying that Singapore's financial position will be a lot weaker in the coming years. This is a very significant comment on Singapore's fiscal health, the implications of which have not been discussed in public in a significant way thus far. Can the Deputy Prime Minister share more details on his thinking on this matter and what can the public expect in the short and medium term over the next five to 10 years, especially with regard to recurrent taxes and the social contract between people and the state. This brings me to my second "E" – engagement. Mr Speaker, when the first of four Budgets this year was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 28 February, I stated in my speech during the debate that as far as the Workers' Party was concerned, politics would take a backseat for a unity of purpose in times of the COVID-19 crisis so that Singapore could single-mindedly overcome this challenge.”
“As JSS expires in time, some retrenchments are inevitable. To that end, the goal of the Government to accelerate digitalisation, up-skilling for the future and the creation of a National Jobs Council are steps in the right direction and supported by the Workers' Party. These initiatives cohere with an eye on the future and the transformation to a post-COVID-19-ready Singapore economy. On jobs, Mr Speaker, the headline numbers vis-a-vis initiatives like the new SGUnited Mid-Career Traineeships scheme of 4,000 openings may not appear large next to the size of the Singaporean workforce, but they are an important source of hope for those Singaporeans who have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs. Today, some Singaporeans would be downcast at the thought of how to finance or how to continue financing their mortgage and other commitments, or the opportunities they can or cannot provide to their school-going children when their own paychecks have dwindled or, in other cases, evaporated. On mid-career workers, I hope the Government considers and incentivises more companies and businesses, through either rebates or reliefs, to offer more of such traineeships and opportunities to mid-career Singaporeans, so that they can learn new skills and embark on new careers. Mr Speaker, more than $50 billion has been committed from the Reserves to fight COVID-19 in the matter of a few short months, more than 10 times the amount drawn from the Reserves during the Global Financial Crisis about a decade ago. Unlike the Resilience Budget, I noticed the Fortitude Budget did not include a line to say that the Government would be prepared to make further draws on past Reserves to deal with COVID-19, if necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, when I spoke on the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets in April, my speech focused on the future. What would happen after the deployment of significant reserves to support lives and livelihoods? I also spoke about how COVID-19 had exposed inequalities – how the wages of some Singaporeans working in essential services need to go up – and what opportunities the COVID-19 crisis had engendered to reimagine a better Singapore. For this Fortitude Budget debate, which once again calls for a draw on the reserves, I will focus on three "E"s – the economy, engagement and empathy. First, the economy. While the central focus of this Budget was jobs, Deputy Prime Minister Heng's speech was instructive in my view for the restatement of three hard truths in the coming months. First, Singapore can expect some tough times ahead. On the day the Deputy Prime Minister delivered this Budget, MTI announced a downward adjustment of our growth forecast of -1% to -4%, to -4% to -7%. Second, the Deputy Prime Minister reminded Singaporeans that life will not return to pre-COVID-19 days, with the global economy unlikely to recover quickly. Finally, the Deputy Prime Minister's speech also reminded Singaporeans, "that Government cannot carry businesses forever." On the limit of Government being able to carry business forever, it is clear that companies and businesses will soon have to underwrite their employees' wages. This has hitherto been significantly supported by the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). With poor economic growth at the door, some business owners have shared with me that they have retained workers as long as they could, thanks to the JSS, even as other workers were emplaced on no-pay leave and have had to take pay cuts.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and also the reply from Second Minister for Finance earlier on to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question. They were quite helpful for members of the public to understand what emergency procurement is about, including the answer given by the Second Minister for Finance on audit, which explained that it is not as if audit has been done away with. My question is on non-emergency procurement, going forward, with regard to perhaps quarantine facilities, stay-at-home facilities, whether the Task Force – as alluded to by the Second Minister for Finance – is considering more open tender processes, so Singaporean companies, other companies can participate, in light of the economic situation.”
“And by when can we expect 40,000 tests to be conducted on a daily basis? Finally, there is the question I had of the SafeEntry app, which I believe was shared by Minister Wong. By when does the task force expect all commercial establishments to institute or to ensure that the SafeEntry app is used before Singaporeans can enter the those premises?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one question for Minister Josephine and four questions for Minister Gan. The first question is to Minister Josephine Teo. This is with regard to MOM's efforts on the economic front, the first half of her statement. The key objective of the JSS was to encourage companies to retain workers. However, some employers are indicating that the COVID-19 circuit breaker measures have made their businesses are no longer viable and retrenchments for Singapore workers are inevitable. There has also been some evidence of residents coming up to us and saying employers have instituted wage cuts, no pay leave. This is even amongst established companies. Does the Ministry have any estimate of the retrenchment numbers it is anticipating. What is it working with? And is the Government planning additional support measures, particularly for the low- and middle income. The next questions are for Minister Gan. The first pertains to COVID-19 testing for foreign workers, which number up to 1.1 million in Singapore as of December 2019, excluding foreign domestic workers. Does the Government have a roadmap to potentially test all the foreign workers progressively, starting with construction workers? And is there a timeline for this? Secondly, how many foreign workers specifically have been tested so far out of the, I believe, 140,000 figure that Minister shared. The third question pertains to the impediments to widespread testing early on in early April when the task force said that about 1,500 to 2,500 tests were conducted daily. This number is potentially to be scaled up to 40,000, as the Minister just shared. Can the Minister share what were the impediments and how these impediments were overcome to reach this number?”