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 21 of 36.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. I just have a quick follow-up on the point he made about the reserves and why Singaporeans, including myself, keep asking questions in this House about those numbers. I think, at the start, I have to make a point which is, the Opposition in this House is also is a steward. We are also a steward of the reserves and the expenditure priorities of the Government because these things are something all of us have to take ownership of. But we seek these numbers because when the Government introduces policies where reserves have to be employed, the question we have to ask ourselves is, is it enough or is it too much also, because that is a relevant question too. Or is it too little? I think these are the reasons why some of these numbers, some of these issues keep coming up. Certainly not to make life difficult for the Ministry of Finance and its team in this moment. But that is our duty. I understand the Deputy Prime Minister has made the allusion to the SAF and you do not reveal your deep capabilities but I am pretty sure that we can nuance that position. Two Budgets ago, I brought a Business Times article and showed it to the House; some Singaporeans were wondering whether you could look at some part of the reserves which could be used to improve conditions for Singaporeans, improve the livelihood of Singaporeans while there could be another component which may have to remain secret. So, there are modalities to consider some of these numbers and how we can have a more deeper conversation about them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, rather than focus on the timing of the General Elections, I think public debate will be better focused on the choices before us: whether the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets are the shape of a New Deal for Singapore; a new social compact for Singapore; how are we going to renew, rebuild and reinvigorate our economy and society after the storm has passed and the dust settles. To conclude, Mr Speaker, in 1971, in a speech to his grassroots leaders, the late Foreign Minister S Rajaratnam spoke of a Democracy of Deeds, where our actions ought to speak louder than our words. Mr Rajaratnam was wise enough to share with his grassroots leaders that he was not saying that a one-party Parliament was a good thing. In this likely prolonged state of economic recession, Parliament will have to focus on a Democracy of Needs. Today, we are witnessing the threats of a pandemic to both livelihood and life itself. So, we must question its long-term impacts on the economic and even psycho-social needs of our citizens. Tomorrow, after we defeat COVID-19 – and defeat it we will – we must address the long-term needs of our people in a sustainable and equitable manner. To this end, our reserves and the prospect of taxes should continue to be robustly debated and considered in a detailed manner. The Workers’ Party will play its role in these debates, which is not just a function of talk, but a key purpose of this House – to determine what is best for this country we call home and our fellow Singaporeans. Sir, I support the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets. 3.14 pm”
“And, of course, the disturbing news many of us read this morning in The Straits Times on the living conditions of some foreign workers is a stain on Singapore and Singaporeans. And unless we act decisively in the days, months and years ahead, this stain will not go away and it will eat at our collective conscience, damaging our sense of national unity and solidarity. Sir, a parallel question I have is the timing of the COVID-19 crisis on our fiscal policy and annual Budget exercises. We are nearing the end of the term of Government, and the accumulated surpluses have come in handy to meet public needs. Even so, we are now needing to draw on the reserves, and I support this. But if resilience is going to be a longer term issue lasting perhaps even up to five years, and a major restructuring of the economy and society is required, how is the Government going to balance the Budget in the next term of Government? Would we need to adopt belt-tightening austerity measures to balance the Budget? Can we afford to tighten the belt? And do we need to adopt a different stance towards the reserves, debt financing and deficits? All these considerations are going to affect the lives of Singaporeans and our political system as well. A PAP Government with a fresh five-year mandate given by Singaporeans before the next annual Budget will face an unprecedented problem in recent memory. The initial period of the term of Government would require extra fiscal prudence and it will also mean less fiscal firepower to deal with the mighty storm of the pandemic and its aftermath. A government drawing on the reserves in its first year of the new term is unprecedented, but this may be the case if we are looking at additional support in the coming months.”
“COVID-19 has also exposed sectors of the economy that could perhaps be manned by more Singaporean workers in future for better resilience and national outcomes. A thorough review of what a living wage in Singapore ought to be for Singaporeans who man our critical infrastructure and keep the country’s heart beating would also be appropriate and timely, the same way strengthening our food security and critical supply chains are. And what about our army of cleaners, both local and foreign, and the local SMEs and cleaning companies that operate in this space? Singapore owes them a debt of gratitude in this difficult period and it is time our workers who keep Singapore clean are paid far more respectable wages, with Singaporeans ready to play their part, too. I do not think many of us truly appreciate how much more work they are doing trying to keep our HDB estates clean while continuing to clear garbage and bulky items, and keeping to their daily routines. But that is not all. It is the respect all of us must extend to them and all those who earn an honest living that matters so much in shaping the type of progressive society we aspire to be. Only then can we say we are a people who leave no one behind. After Singapore defeats COVID-19 – and defeat it we will – let us turn our attention, more acutely than ever, back on the Singaporean worker and their families, the reality of inequality and job competition. How can we improve their lot? How can they be better protected and not hamstrung by the insecurity to raise a family in the socio-economic context of Singapore? Sir, the answers to these objectives, I firmly believe, will not erode the Singaporean work ethic but enhance it and enhance our solidarity as Singaporeans.”
“The storm shakes up the very structure of our open economy and threatens its foundation, especially our hub status. Looking ahead, it could derail and damage our aspiration to be a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. NUS Business School Professor Lawrence Loh wrote in a recent commentary that the Resilience Budget is like the New Deal implemented by President Franklin D Roosevelt to rebuild the American economy and society during the Great Depression. The New Deal took more than six years and secured the US as a welfare state with a strong federal government and a perennial national debt problem. The comparison with the New Deal is nonetheless thought-provoking. Indeed, the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets have the features of a New Deal for Singapore. Through the Resilience Budget, we now have a taxpayer-funded unemployment insurance, income support for lower income families, food vouchers for the poor, and protection for the self-employed – albeit temporary. Given the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our economy and society, will these schemes represent a new normal, akin to a multi-year New Deal to help Singaporeans cope and bounce back from economic hardship? For Singaporeans who will continue to see disruption and technology reduce their job prospects, can we expect continued support for them in the nine months after this package expires, particularly for training and wage support, for example? If so, what considerations would determine the Government’s thinking on this matter? To this end, Sir, COVID-19 has thrown up some useful lessons, like all crises do. For example, the implications of a COVID-19 type pandemic must have implications on our population and economic plans and strategies.”
“As Deputy Prime Minister Heng said, the economic effects of the pandemic are likely to be long lasting. The financial assistance measures in the Resilience Budget, in the main, will be effective for three to nine months. The questions I have are for the longer term. I am of the view that this is rightly called a Resilience Budget, because resilience is about being able to take a hit and recovering to continue like before. But if the pandemic is likely to take at least one year to be resolved, how long would the economic effects last? What is the Government’s assessment of future scenarios? This gives much food for thought, not just on questions the Workers’ Party asked in the past, such as the size and usage of our reserves. These questions will come to the fore again, and I am grateful for the many Singaporeans who have called for the Workers’ Party to keep pressing for a greater discussion of Singapore’s reserves. This remains an eminently reasonable call and embodies the spirit of SG Together with our people seeking information and taking ownership of our society and collective future. Sir, we are already experiencing the prospects of a recession in Singapore, and the world is facing a prolonged recession. A bifurcation of the world between the US and China that this House was warned about may well accelerate as the world remembers the supply chain effects of COVID-19 on their economies. Separately, consumption in the US and Europe, which drive the world economy to a large extent, has dwindled and many remain hopeful for the pandemic to reach its peak and ease off quickly. The rest of the developing world are in a lockdown mode. I believe this mighty storm that we are experiencing is not just something we need to keep safe from by staying at home.”
“It was a Budget which Deputy Prime Minister Heng, with some pride announced, did not draw down past reserves. And since then, yet another package of measures in the shape of the Solidarity Budget has also been introduced. The situation has, indeed, turned quickly. Sir, these supplementary Budgets are anything but supplementary. For the moment, they are a comprehensive response that will save businesses and jobs and help lower and middle income households tide over the difficult short-term effects of the global economic shutdown. It is good that the assistance quantum and timeframes for the various schemes are calibrated according to the different degrees of vulnerability faced by the target groups. For example, heavily impacted industries crucial for our open economy receive higher co-funding under the Jobs Support Scheme until the end of 2020. Self-employed Singaporeans, who are amongst the worst impacted by this crisis, receive nine months of assistance. I acknowledge the support to a group of workers – private-hire bus drivers for whom some specific support and relief was announced by the Resilience Budget. Such measures do play an important part in mitigating cost-of-living concerns. I also wish to acknowledge the diligence of public officers, such as those at Enterprise SG, who have sought to engage financial institutions and banks to withhold the repossession of vehicles that our workers need for their livelihood. The challenge of much of this work – seeking the cooperation of large enterprises and businesses to exercise goodwill can be back-breaking and easily underestimated. Nonetheless, Sir, it is very likely that some businesses will close, more workers will lose their jobs, and many Singaporeans will face or are already facing pay cuts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 outbreak has ground the world economy to a halt and put many health systems all over the globe under significant strain. The Singapore Government has responded in a timely manner and has sought to contain the spread of the virus locally. Its actions have mitigated and kept the situation largely under control. Years of preparation, exercises and training in the healthcare realm, in particular, have borne fruit. However, a second phase of infections marked by, first, returning Singaporeans and now – by the increased community spread of the disease – has proved more challenging and difficult to manage. Our workers fighting in the trenches and workers supporting the fight – from nurses to cleaners, from GP doctors to infectious disease specialists, from medical researchers to delivery persons, and those Singaporeans driving our people to hospitals and quarantine facilities – are our heroes. We should not forget our public officers, too. From civil servants and teachers to those guarding our borders and public spaces, namely, our men and women in uniform, we must honour them for trying to allow Singaporeans to live our lives as normally as possible while keeping us safe. The same goes for every Singaporean involved in this fight. Thank you for your efforts and for the hard work. With the world economy practically shut down, the Government – like many others around the world over the last two to three weeks – has responded swiftly with financial support for its citizenry. To that end, it is mind-boggling that this House is debating a supplementary Budget that draws on the reserves just about one month after we have approved the annual Budget which included a first package of COVID-19 support measures.”
“A point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps, we should give some time for more Members to come in, because I do not believe we have a quorum.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one question for Minister Wong. This pertains to the new and heightened restrictions announced yesterday evening by Minister, which were also the subject of his speech today. Since the release of the Electoral Boundary Review Committee report, I think it is quite apparent to a lot of Singaporeans that political parties have stepped up their political outreach. The concern in view of yesterday's announcements is that some of this these outreach activities can easily lead to the formation of large social gatherings in excess of 10 individuals, in close proximity to each other. Does the Minister not agree that such continued outreach could potentially interfere and contradict the directives of the task force, particularly yesterday's new directives? Because to quote the Minister, there was a concern that the safe distancing measures were not being taken seriously and that the public was generally too slow to respond to the new COVID-19 situation. So, to that end, can I confirm if the task force will be announcing some measures that all political parties can take into cognisance so that everybody is on the same page with regard to the task force's announcements vis-à-vis social distancing in other other measures?”
“Individuals with $20,000 or more in their MediSave account will be allowed to use $200 each month or $2,400 per year from MediSave for long-term care. Singaporeans with balances of between $15,000 and above are allowed to $150 per month, and so forth. Apart from increasing the Flexi-MediSave limits for outpatient treatment, the additional flexibility in the form of a differentiated ceiling should also be considered to allow for inpatient co-payments that have to be paid in cash after MediSave deductions, particularly as our seniors grow older. While MediShield Life and existing MediSave withdrawals can be utilised for inpatient bills, many patients are still required to make out-of-pocket payments in cash because of existing MediSave limits. Sir, seniors should not be prevented from relying on their MediSave again to settle the cash component of their bills provided their MediSave amounts are healthy. Just this Monday at my Meet-the-People Session (MPS), I saw a resident who asked me to write to the authorities to allow his 75-year-old brother – unemployed and living alone – to utilise around $1,400 from his MediSave to settle his hospitalisation bills. He showed me his brother's CPF statement and the amount stood in excess of $51,000. Sir, this is a man in his mid-70s and unemployed. Surely, there is further scope to further assist our seniors and reduce their out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare-related expenditure. This is not a call for additional subsidies that impact the healthcare budget but a better calibrated MediSave regime that allows our seniors to better manage their cost of living concerns and give them a greater peace of mind. MediFund for Transportation Fee”
“Out-of-pocket expenses for medical care when our seniors enter their 60s can be a source of significant insecurity. Sir, I have previously called for the Ministry to consider a differentiated ceiling for MediSave withdrawals. In 2018, about 16% of individuals fully utilised their Flexi-Medisave limits. Sir, this percentage appears small but it translates to about 136,000 Singaporeans who have fully utilised their yearly $200 limit. We also know from previous Parliamentary replies over the years that elderly patients above 60 years of age with chronic conditions visited polyclinics and CHAS clinics an average of six times a year, with an average annual bill of $200 after subsidies. Those without chronic illnesses visited these healthcare facilities on average about three times a year, with an average annual bill of about $60 after subsidies. I believe there is scope to increase the Flexi-MediSave limits, particularly those who have larger outpatient bills. 12.45 pm Sir, calls for greater liberalisation of MediSave withdrawals have been made by my colleagues including Mr Faisal Manap. The Workers' Party acknowledges that higher withdrawal limits based on MediSave balances must be carefully considered as it may result in some Singaporeans having less MediSave savings through retirement. However, each senior Singaporean's situation is different, particularly in view of differing MediSave balances across seniors in the population. In addition, Sir, a differentiated ceiling for seniors has been replicated for other MediSave schemes. For example, from this year, a differentiated MediSave withdrawal scheme has been introduced for Singaporeans with long-term care needs.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just two questions for the MOT office-holders. The first question pertains to a point I raised in my Budget debate speech about private bus drivers in Singapore and some of their concerns arising out of the COVID-19 situation. Does MOT have a perspective or position on how they can be helped and reached out to, in this time of need? The second clarification arises from Senior Minister of State Janil's sharing on the purchase of public buses. I think 60 buses were purchased. What initiatives does the Ministry have in mind for the earlier adaptation for electric buses for the private sector? There are a lot of buses that are used to transport workers in Singapore, for example, and that can only support the Government's mission of the transit to electric vehicles in general.”
“Sir, the HDB's Façade Finishes Repairs Co-Payment Scheme allows Town Councils to claim for co-funding on a 50-50 basis for repairs to HDB block façades finished with materials, such as bricks, tiles, cladding boards and so on. I seek to enquire under what circumstances the HDB will pay in full for such repairs. In my ward of Eunos in Aljunied GRC, there have been repeat episodes of failing block facades in a specific group of blocks at Jalan Tenaga. The Professional Engineer appointed by the Town Council whose report is available to the Ministry has suggested that the underlying cause of the failing façade is down to shortcomings during the construction phase of the blocks. These blocks were constructed less than 30 years ago. As the façade of similar blocks in the precinct have failed in an identical or almost identical manner over the last few years, should not the HDB, as building owner, undertake to fully cover and reimburse the costs of the façade damage, repair and pre-emptive investigation of other similarly constructed blocks?”
“Thank you, Sir, just following up some points I made in my Budget debate speech about the recycling and a charge on plastic bags so as to reduce our waste signature. On that note, I acknowledge the points made by Senior Minister of State on studies done and workgroups to be formed to look into that prospect. My question relates to point I made in the Budget debate speech about waste in general and the amount of waste that we dispose. I understand last year, MEWR had a target to reduce the amount of waste that is sent to Pulau Semakau by 30%. What is the progress of that? How is that coming along, by 2030, I believe was the timeline? On that note, what is the Minister's assessment of Pulau Semakau as a continued area where we dispose our waste? Do we not need to reduce our waste signature even further?”
“Mr Chairman, thank you. I do not mean to open the debate that we had on POFMA again but the position as far as the Workers' Party is concerned, is still the same. Indeed, you have instances of fake news in the case of epidemics, even pandemics; certainly, they have to be taken down swiftly. But there are different modalities that swift action can manifest itself in. And the Workers' Party position is that there are still other options, apart from Executive orders, that can eventuate in that outcome.”
“For example, in September last year, Water Watch Penang raised concerns about the neighbouring state of Perak offering to sell its treated water to Penang at 70 sen per 1,000 litres. The matter is coming to head because Penang draws water from Sungei Muda, a river shared with the state of Kedah and it is estimated that the river can only cater to Penang's demand until 2025. In Johor, senior Malaysian leaders also shared last year that by the second half of this year, Johor's water reserve threshold will drop down to zero, and alluded that Malaysia would have to look after the interests of Malaysians first. More broadly, the Malaysian National Water Services Commission has proposed that Malaysian states should look to increase water tariffs by 10% to 20%. Sir, these developments, and the matter of greater water insecurity in Malaysia is likely to bring the headline figure we purchase raw water from Johor for 3 sen for every 1,000 gallons – in the political spotlight, more so than ever before. The fact that Singapore has in turn locked the low price of treated water sold to around 11 sen per 1,000 litres and supplied more water to Malaysia than required under the existing water agreement – is likely remain a footnote. Singapore has a lot of experience in water collection, treatment, supply and separately, waste management, including the discharge of effluents. The rising water security issues in Malaysia provides an opportunity to consider how both Singapore and Malaysia can look to reduce the prospect of our water agreement as a potential source of strain in our relationship. For Singapore, water from Malaysia is cheaper to treat than desalinated water. Is there scope for greater cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia in this regard? Relationship with Indonesia”
“Sir, like all Members of this House, I had to file my Committee of Supply cuts before the onset of the political imbroglio that unfolded in Malaysia over the course of the last week. I filed this cut amongst other reasons, in view of the comments made over the course of the last year both in Singapore and Malaysia about pollution and water security issues surrounding the abstraction of raw water in Johor, an issue that affects not just Singapore but Malaysia too. On pollution, since 2017, there have been seven incidents affecting the Johor River which shut down the PUB's Johor waterworks, disrupting the supply of raw water to Singapore. That arose because of illegal discharges within the water catchment area from industries such as chicken farms and palm oil mills in particular and pollution in general. Separately, Singaporeans and Malaysians would also recall the shutting down of schools in Malaysia arising from pollution in Sungei Kim Kim in Johor last year. Questions have also been raised in this Parliament about the safety of water supply and air quality, questions which would be far more immediate and pressing for our friends in Malaysia and specifically, Johor. Separately, the issue of the price of water sold to Singapore has also come to the fore strongly over the course of the year with the matter discussed on Malaysian talk shows and unsurprisingly, in the Malaysian parliament too. 3.30 pm Sir, this matter of the price of raw water is a genie that is not going back into its bottle anytime soon. This is especially so since various Malaysian states already charge more for raw water to their own fellow Malaysians.”
“Mr Chairman, I have two clarifications for Minister Shanmugam. These pertain to the cut that I filed on traffic summons. The first clarification I have is on instalment payment plans by Traffic Police. I am not aware that Traffic Police offers instalment plans for fines. So I just want the Minister to confirm that because it has not been my experience when I write in to the authorities, that residents have the option of paying those summons by way of instalments. I have had that experience with ICA and LTA but not Traffic Police. The second question I have pertains to the Minister's point about the suggestion I had on potentially halving the fine. It is not just halving the fine for the sake of it. In other jurisdictions, they halve a fine for different policy purposes, mainly to make sure people pay their fines. But there are other policy objectives that can be considered, for example, in the case of beating a red light, which is a very serious offence; I concede that point. What you can potentially have is, halving of a fine, but also making sure that that offender goes to the Traffic Police. If it has to be a programme where he sees what the potential impact can be of these offences, people dying, there also could be some possible policy benefits insofar as greater awareness of road safety, as an example.”
“This approach seeks to retain the deterrence and policy objective of higher fines. Some jurisdictions around the world even offer to halve a fine provided it is paid forthwith. Such a proposal can be modified for better policy outcomes, for example, with a requirement for some retraining or refresher defensive driving courses. For first-time offenders only, I hope the Ministry can consider such alternatives that achieve the objective of increased road safety awareness and deterrence on the one hand and reasonable consideration for the financial consequences on frequent – usually low-income – road users on the other. Spam SMSes from Illegal Syndicates”
“Sir, in April last year, the Ministry increased composition sums for a wide range of traffic offences in response to an uptrend in road traffic incidents generally. For example, the fines for illegal u-turns, while attracting zero demerit points, were raised from $70 to $100 while heavy vehicle drivers saw the composition sum for the same offence increased from $100 to $150. In fact, there was an increase in the composition fines for all offences that attracted fines up to 12 demerit points. For offences that attracted at least 12 demerit points which could manifest, for example, in a failure to conform to a red light signal, the composition fine has been doubled from $200 to $400 while heavy vehicle drivers have seen a jump in the same offence from $230 to $500 in so far as the fine amount is concerned. Sir, I agree that road safety is something we cannot compromise upon and the need for deterrence is obvious. However, many of the residents I see who are on the receiving end of these new fines admit to their offences and are usually contrite. In most cases, there is no question of actual harm caused – because that would attract more severe penalties anyway. Those most heavily affected by the higher fines are taxi and private-hire car drivers, motorcycle couriers and the low-income who may not have the ability to pay up such a large sum of money at one go. In the appropriate case, I would like to request the Ministry to consider the option of offering an automatic instalment plan for comparatively minor offences that do not attract a custodial sentence on the condition that the offender undertake not to commit a similar offence, failing which no instalment plan would be offered as of right.”
“While the tech-related outcomes in our march towards digitalisation may more appropriately come under GovTech or the Smart Nation office, legal design inputs can help many other Ministries and Statutory Boards improve the delivery and quality of services, and ultimately, outcomes for Singaporeans. I hope the Ministry plays a part with legal design tools to make the law more easily understandable and understood by the layman.”
“Sir, legal design is the application of human centred design to the world of law to make legal systems and services more human-centred, usable and satisfying. By its very nature, the law can be intimidating to navigate for the common man. To many, it can dense or verbose and inflexible and jargon lead. How many of us have blindly clicked on compliance boxes or lengthy forms when we download the latest version of whatever software we need or even signed PDPA forms without reading them? To that end, does the way companies and commercial entities and even the Government seek consent in today's digitalised world, ensure that our people are informed about their rights, the rights they are giving up or responsibilities and obligations they are signing up to. Sir, I believe there is room for better legal design in view of the digital tools available today. One Ministry whose website and mobile site has caught the eye for excellent legal design and user friendliness is that of MOM. Their mobile site is intuitive and captures all the critical information citizens will access in a simple and easy to read format. I was made to understand from a public officer at MOM that there is a team that analyses user behaviour with a view to improve online interaction and how to make online services easily understandable and easily understood. Chairman, Sir, the Budget book lists the key performance indicators of the Ministry some of which include a sound and progressive legal framework and access to justice for the low-income.”
“Sure. I will put the clarification. Minister Wong, following up on the question on the NIRC, I remember when we had the debate in this House in July 2015 on the amendment to the Constitution. We confirmed that the formula that was derived – the figures the NIRC reflects – is very conservative. Even more so when the broader economic environment is poor. It could be structurally or cyclically poor. Can I confirm then that the prospects of a "famine and feast" of NIRC, as a budget line item, actually is very, very minimal. That is the first clarification. The second clarification is pertaining to the question I had put in my Budget speech about the formula that the Government was proceeding with insofar debt financing was concerned and the implications that has on some sort of fiscal room in subsequent budgets. Is there any clarity on that particular point, because the repayment period is stretched instead of a lumpy one-time or two-time payments. Thank you for the indulgence, Mr Chairman.”
“I am going to ask a question but I did not speak during for this Head, Mr Chairman, so I feel that those who had filed cuts should have first priority.”
“Mr Chairman, I did not file a cut for this Head, but if there are questions, I am prepared to give way. I am assuming that there is no one behind me who has raised his or her hand. If it is fine, I will just proceed to ask my question.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have two questions and one clarification. The two questions are for Minister Josephine Teo. I thank the Minister for her speech at the PMO COS covering population issues. Two points I raised in my cut. The first was the number of PRs that do not transition to citizenship. I think there was some very helpful data that was released in the Population in Brief document from September last year, that tells you at what age group these PRs are at. But what about those that do not transit to citizenship? What are those numbers like? The second clarification pertains to the question I had on integration. I think the Minister also re-stated the point that new immigrants have to play their part and get involved. But on the flip side, we have two or three decades now of immigration experience. What are some of the points that the immigrants themselves raised? What are the issues that they had in integrating with the community? The third point is a clarification for Minister Vivian. I think Minister Vivian said that Senior Minister of State Janil was going to say something about smart lamp posts but I do not believe the Senior Minister of State said anything about that. So, I am just clarifying that point.”
“What have been the results of the pilot so far not just from the technical data acquisition perspective but the processing, handling and control perspective? Is it the PMO's view that our data protection laws are fit for purpose to accommodate the advent of these new technologies which have significant repercussions on individual privacy? Smart Nation and Data Security”
“Sir, it was previously reported in the media that in the last quarter of 2018 that Singapore Technologies Engineering had won a $7.5 million tender for the "Lamp Posts as Platform" project to "fit lamp posts here with sensors and cameras that can collect a wide range of citizen surveillance data". The new camera system was able to analyse faces down the race, gender and age, and a trial was to be held at one-north and Geylang before the project could potentially be extended to more than 100,000 lamp posts in Singapore. Sir, there has been a wide range of feedback, both on the upside and downside potential of the Smart Nation Sensor Platform with different countries and jurisdictions taking different views of the problem. In fact, some jurisdictions, like San Francisco, have banned such smart technologies. Other than seriously looking at how best to balance and manage the privacy concerns that accompany such platforms. On the flipside, in light of manpower constraints and the prospect for effective monitoring and deterrence – the public's difficult relationship with some users of PMDs come to mind – the benefits of these new technologies are readily apparent. We have also read about rogue public officers, including Police officers, illegally accessing Government information in our newspapers in the past. While these numbers are very small, new technologies and smart platforms host so much more information and data of a personal nature that people can lose confidence and trust in public service very quickly should an untoward incident occur. There is also the attendant risk of cybersecurity incidents. It has been two-and-a-half years since the Prime Minister announced details on the Smart Nation digital platform at the 2017 National Day Rally.”
“What shifts in our population strategies is the Government planning so as to deal with the new challenges in supplementing our population through immigration? Has the Government conducted surveys of new citizens over the last 10 to 20 years, for us to have a better perspective on how we can improve integration. Finally, Sir, can the Government share how many PRs have transited to become citizens over the last 10 years and 20 years respectively, and how many choose to remain PRs? What are the their main reasons for not transiting to citizenship? Supporting Marriage and Parenthood (M&P)”
“While the decision to have children or no children is a deeply personal one and one that we must respect, what new strategies and plans does the PMO have to push couples or encourage couples to have at least two or more children? Has the Government engaged couples who have only one child to find out what their key concerns are? I believe work-life balance, costs of living concerns have been raised previously as major impediments. It would be important to see what more can be done in this area with buy-in from private sector employers. After all, without a thriving Singapore Core, it is hard to foresee a thriving and confident Singapore. Sir, as previously announced by the Government, our population plans and policies are due for review this year. Numbers aside, the Government needs to take a re-look at our integration efforts. Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners who we hope will take up citizenship are connected through technology to their motherlands more so than earlier generation of immigrants. And therefore, integration may not just take more time, but may not be as linear as previously imagined with schools and institutions such as National Service our major agents of adhesion. In addition, as alluded to by Minister Chan recently, unlike in the past, even in the economic realm, Singapore may not be able to attract the quality of individuals it seeks. Does this anticipate some changes to our population plans with a desire to attract immigrants from further afield, specifically non-traditional countries classified as others, which currently account for about 6.3% of Singapore citizenships and PRs granted in 2018, as compared to 62.5% from Southeast Asian countries and 31.2% from Asian countries.”
“Sir, Singapore's economic circumstances and multiracial meritocracy are unique features of our country. While Finance Minister's Budget speeches in this term of government focused consistently on security, economy, society and Singaporeans, we know that our evolving population policies are existential to the future of the Singapore Core. The vast majority of residents are permanently invested in this country and do not have the luxury of imagining a home away from Singapore and nor would we have it that way. Sir, the total fertility numbers are weakening with the Budget book estimating the number for FY2020 to hover around 1.1 to 1.2. However, the population in brief 2019 data released by the PMO Strategy Group reveals that the TFR number for the Chinese and Indian residents has fallen to around 0.98 and 1 respectively, compared to 1.14 and 1.19 a decade ago. The same document, however, records an encouraging rise in the TFR for the Malay community. From a high of 1.91 in 2008, the number fell to 1.66 in 2013, before steadily and consistently moving up to 1.85 in 2018. Has the PMO team assessed the policy reasons behind this upturn for the Malay community and are there insights that can be highlighted or even ported to the other communities? Similarly, the latest data also records a rise in the number of citizen ever married females deciding to have no children, or only one child compared to 10 years ago. Likewise, the proportion of married females with three children or more has fallen considerably over the same period. Fortunately, most ever married citizen females who have two children has hovered around the 43% mark similar to 10 years ago.”
“Finally, the regional and global consequences of climate change provide a unique opportunity to look into further ASEAN wide collaborations that promote green policies. In view of easier access to the markets and our R&D sector, how can Singapore contribute to addressing regional climate change challenges and imagining commercial solutions in view of the active interest in addressing climate change – a top policy priority for younger Singaporeans in particular? Climate Change”
“Sir, it came as welcome news late last year to read of the Government-owned company, SP Power, looking to decarbonise our electricity sector in favour of renewables, by potentially working with neighbours such as Malaysia and Indonesia. With spare land to install solar panels or wind turbines, something practically impossible to undertake on a large enough scale in land-scare Singapore, building transmission lines to connect to our neighbours would allow Singapore to readily tap on clean power and significantly reduce our reliance for fossil fuels for electricity generation. It would also significantly enlarge our green footprint and boost our contribution to reduce the debilitating effects of climate change. In addition, on the prospects of a pan-ASEAN electricity grid, an SP official was quoted as saying that Malaysia already has connections to Thailand which in turn has connections to Laos. Hypothetically therefore, Singapore could invest in clean energy projects in neighbouring countries beyond our immediate neighbours and use renewable energy credits to receive the same amount of electricity from Malaysia, for example. Sir, could PMO share more details about these initiatives and confirm the timeline of these projects that look at tapping electricity from regional power grids? What does this mean for the consumer and power generators in Singapore, not to mention the price of electricity? I understand some discussions have already taken place with Malaysia for greater cooperation in this regard. What risk does the Government anticipate in reducing our carbon footprint by diversifying and tapping on regional electricity grids and how can these be overcome?”
“For the first time in his Budget speech in this term of Government, the Minister has spoken about the democracy of deeds. But whatever deeds our people underwrite, they take place within the context of our democracy, a democracy where alternative views, criticisms and disagreements shape the outcomes that give meaning to the phrase one united people – united in a vision for better and more confident Singapore, no matter what our political beliefs. It is like that anthem that was referred to in this House, during the course of this Budget debate, "You Will Never Walk Alone". But how many of us know that it is not just the anthem of one club but others too, like Glasgow Celtic, Borussia Dortmund and many others. Sir, Singapore's diversity is its strength. As long as our people – youth, businesses, individuals – engage the issues of the day civilly in our democracy and treat their fellow Singaporeans and foreigners within our midst with dignity and empathy, and endeavour for a more caring society, the best years of Singapore – a Singapore for all – are ahead of us.”
“Lastly, Mr Speaker, I expected some strong incentives or subsidies in this year's Budget on climate change outcomes, particularly in the aftermath of MEWR's efforts towards greater climate change awareness over the last few years, including designating one year, a year of climate action. To this end, I would urge the Government to move more decisively to incentivise changing behavioural norms to reduce the overuse of plastic bags. For example, a transitional subsidy amounting to $20 for households to subsidise the purchase of plastic bags at supermarkets could be considered as a bridge for Singaporeans before a charge is levied for every bag by all retailers. Mr Speaker, incentivising the reduced usage of plastic bags is not just about our over-consumption of plastic bags per se. It is also about the amount of waste we generate and dispose which usually ends up in a plastic bag that is thrown down our bin chutes. A plastic bag charges far from representing mere climate change symbolism. It is a clarion call to us all and to alter social norms to equally, if not more importantly, reduce the amount of waste we generate. This is a pressing issue as there are infrastructural constraints on the amount of space we have to dispose our incinerated waste on Pulau Semakau which is expected to be full by 2035 or thereabouts. That is only a mere 15 years from now. Correct as of Monday, there were 342,304 pledges on the MEWR website to fight climate change. There is a window to move more decisively and we should move fast. To conclude, Mr Speaker, the Finance Minister is correct to say that many Singaporeans are coming up with and acting on ideas to make Singapore a better place on their own initiative.”
“I believe this openness would contribute to a more substantive conversation and understanding of our fiscal trade-offs. This can only advance and mature conversations that take place in Singapore. Until this clarity is provided, the Workers' Party position has not changed. We cannot support a GST hike, especially since this is to be raised in advance and before the Government's projections have been put to this House. The third segment of my speech is a short one, Mr Speaker. I refer to the Government's call for special SkillsFuture Credit top-ups for Singaporeans between the ages of 40 and 60. The Workers' Party supports this move, but urges the Government to track the use of these credits for this age group to job and employability related outcomes closely. More generally, while SkillsFuture subsidised courses can range from, in the words of the Finance Minister, "cooking to coding", it does not bode well if taxpayers' money are expended on courses that are under-weighted with regard to real improvements of skills, job prospects and employability of our workers, in view of the workplace disruptions to come. We know from previous Parliamentary replies that there is an upper limit to certain entrepreneurial prospects in Singapore, such as the opening of cafes. An audit of the courses our people are taking up, particularly younger and middle-aged Singaporeans, must be reviewed every so often in consultation with inputs from the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) stakeholders, so as to evince the best outcomes possible for our workers in the medium term.”
“The concern was that high net-worth individuals would be able to structure and move their assets to avoid higher tax obligations. What is the impact of BEPS on this prospect and the Government's assessment of the impact of BEPS' developments on our tax policies? Is there an upside, nonetheless, by way of other taxes on the ultra-rich to maintain our progressive tax system? What are the best and worst case scenarios to the developments in BEPS on our revenue position? Mr Speaker, the Finance Minister's Budget speech confirmed that GST will not be going up next year. Notwithstanding the offsets announced, the GST is a regressive tax that will hit the low and middle income, retirees, seniors, particularly hard as they would have to manage their expenditures more frugally because offsets do not last forever, particularly for the middle class. At this year's Budget, the Finance Minister said that the Government put off the rise in GST after considering the state of the economy, but more critically, I quote, "...after reviewing our revenue and expenditure projections". Sir, when the Workers' Party objected to the rise in GST in 2018, amongst other things, it was on account of a lack of information about alternate revenue streams. The Finance Minister's position then was that one did not need to have information on everything to make a decision on anything. But from the Minister's speech this year and the announcement not to raise GST next year, it is obvious that the Government relies on revenue and expenditure projections to make these decisions. Would the Government make public these projections so that Singaporeans can critically evaluate the necessity of a GST hike?”
“This prospect of borrowing was raised again by Finance Minister in his 2019 Budget speech where the Finance Minister confirmed that the Government is studying the option of using Government debt as part of the financing mix for long-term infrastructure projects. Mr Speaker, it has been two years since these plans on debt-financing were raised. Can the Government share more details on these plans, as this year's Budget does not communicate the results of the Government studies on the borrowing or debt-financing framework and their fiscal consequences on future Budgets? This year's Budget also saw the Finance Minister once again making reference to the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, an initiative that seeks to ensure companies are taxed where substantive economic activities are performed. The Finance Minister first raised BEPS in his 2017 Budget speech. Then the House was informed that the Government was in consultation with businesses on scheme refinement and implementation of the relevant standards. What has been the results of these consultations from three years ago? BEPS was raised again in the Finance Minister's speech this year and the Minister shared that there are discussions to revise international tax rules and that Singapore was actively participating in them. However, reference to BEPS this year was in the context of a sub-point of another sentence, which warned there were uncertainties and downside risks to the Government's revenue position – a matter which should be of interest to all Singaporeans. I have a query with respect to BEPS. Before that, it is useful to recap the Government's argument on proposals by Singaporeans to raise taxes of higher income earners, who do enjoy the safety and security offered by Singapore.”
“Compared to 2015 when the NIRC component of the Government's revenue was about $9 billion dollars, today, the figure is almost double. Separately, the package to support the economy in light of COVID-19 was not funded from a draw on the reserves, unlike the support package during the Global Financial Crisis about a decade ago. Sir, when the Workers' Party made inquiries on the reserves over the course of a few Budgets in this term of Government, it was to explore and consider different approaches and prospects to improve the lives of our people, particularly the low and middle class. At the last Budget, Finance Minister provided a lengthy reply on why the dollar value of the reserves could not be disclosed. But the answer remains unsatisfactory, particularly when the same argument could apply to the overwhelming majority of other democratic societies, who nonetheless err on the side of fiscal scrutiny and accountability. At last year's Budget, I brought along a Business Times article that saw Singaporeans calling for a greater discussion on the reserves. These calls for greater transparency are not out of place and they will continue in years to come. They run in parallel with the Singapore Together spirit with Singaporeans taking ownership, exploring fiscal solutions, seeking to co-create not just today's Singapore but a sustainable and equitable tomorrow that future generations of Singaporeans will inherit. More specifically, in Finance Minister's 2018 speech, the prospect of borrowing by Statutory Boards and Government-owned companies to build infrastructure was first raised to help spread the cost of larger investments over many years.”
“I understand that an industry briefing was held on the 21 February by the Singapore Tourism Board on a relief package for travel agents and tour operators. While the briefing was appreciated, private bus companies feel the Budget support package is not targeted enough, in view of the nature of their business. I thank Minister Josephine Teo for her speech during the course of the Budget debate, explaining the policy reasons why foreign worker levies were not reduced or waived. Nonetheless, I hope the Government reconsiders this and extends some support by way of a one-month or partial waiver of the levies for companies that have no choice but to hire foreign manpower, on the condition that these companies consciously seek to increase their local headcount, by way of job redesign going forward. Some conditional support and consideration for them in these difficult times, may provide greater impetus on all our companies overly reliant on foreign manpower today to make a greater effort to hire locals – including senior citizens, and even those on a part-time basis – tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I move on to the second part of my speech on fiscal prudence and sustainability, a subject which is a feature of practically every one of Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Budget speeches. One hard truth that we do not hear in this house, notwithstanding greater demands on expenditure, is that the current Government has had the privilege of far more budgetary elbow room, both political and fiscal, than any previous government in Singapore's history. Just think about it. After the inclusion of Temasek in the NIRC component of the Budget from 2016, monies for GST offset package can be set aside for the introduction of higher taxes for the next term of Government.”
“More so than before, shaky US-China relations are threatening to force invidious choices upon Singapore, choices which the political leadership not just within the PAP but all political parties and citizens in Singapore would have to negotiate with greater judiciousness and sensibility without compromising an absolute commitment and loyalty to Singapore. However, this circumspection does not just extend to the superpowers. We must also resist the urge to engage in gloating when our closest economic partners like Malaysia and competitors like Hong Kong negotiate their own unique political circumstances; circumstances which are historically apart, completely different and in many cases take place in a more complex and significantly larger country, many times our population size. My brief discussions after the Budget was announced with a few members of the various local Chambers of Commerce informed me that there has been a general acknowledgement of the relief provided by the Stabilisation and Support Package in the Budget. Separately, I understand Chamber Members are also continuing the work on longer term efforts at internationalisation and bringing businesses up to speed with new initiatives, particularly training and growth opportunities. Sir, one specific group of Singaporean businesses and individuals reached out to me in the aftermath of the Budget. They are our private hire bus companies and drivers who are bearing the brunt of cancelled trips and tours arising from the COVID-19 outbreak. These are the bus drivers who bring our residents to Malaysia for durian trips and even National Servicemen around Singapore for local tours or training.”
“Next, I will talk about our fiscal position, with some points on our revenue and expenditure position before finally concluding with my views on the enhanced SkillsFuture Credits and the climate change-related announcements. Sir, the Finance Minister's Budget speeches on the external environment and developments that affect Singapore's geopolitical developments over this term of government have been prescient, illuminating not just upon the challenges but imperatives ahead for Singapore. In his 2018 Budget speech, the Finance Minister outline three major shifts in the coming decade: the shift in global economic weight to Asia; the emergence of new technologies that will change the way we live, work and play; and finally, ageing. Themes which were repeated in the Minister's 2019 Budget speech as well. Sir, the last few years have witnessed tectonic geopolitical shifts. US Attorney General William Barr's speech at the Department of Justice earlier this month captured the mood of the times ahead, at least from Washington's perspective. In reminiscing about the days of the Cold War, Barr remarked, "Russia wants to conquer the world. We can deal with that. China wants to own the world. That is going to be more challenging to deal with." American policy towards China is on a very different course and with a bifurcation of the world looking like an almost foregone conclusion, not just a technological decoupling, but with differences in values and norms at the heart of things.”
“Mr Speaker, we are the tail end of this Government's term. From 2016, all the titles of each Budget emphasised "unity" – partnering for the future, moving forward together, together a better future, building a strong and united Singapore, and finally, this year, advancing as one Singapore. But unity in the context of a democracy, along with the 4G leadership seeking to engender a Singapore Together movement, must also encounter varied, diverse, edgy and even contradictory views in the effort to find common cause. This is to be encouraged not discouraged. It is that process of embracing diversity and accommodating political differences that give meaning to a democracy of deeds for the 21st century and not for a one-party parliament of decades past. Mr Speaker, Parliament is an august forum which is one manifestation of Singapore Together. My colleagues in the Workers' Party and I thank all Singaporeans for sharing their views and coming to us to bring up issues to Parliament over this term of government, particularly, those that Government Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be expected to raise, not out of an inability of their own but because of the nature of politics and political contestation. WP MPs 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 backseat, like during this current COVID-19 outbreak. My speech will be divided into three parts. I will first speak of the geopolitical environment and the response of some businesses to the Budget announcements.”
“I thank the Minister. Just a quick clarification. Beyond just an extension of time to sell the flat for the affected minority – it does not matter what race that individual or that household is classified under – has it been the Ministry's experience that these households have had to reduce the selling price of their unit vis-a-vis the valuation of their neighbouring units so as to secure a buyer, given the extension of time that the Ministry allows?”
“Mr Speaker, I just have a few follow-up questions on the announcement yesterday with respect to the transition from the Leave of Absence regime to the new Stay-Home Notice for individuals, residents, long-term pass holders returning from mainland China. That takes effect tonight, at midnight. My first question is how many individuals does the Government expect to be transitioning into this Stay-Home Notice regime? Because a lot of these individuals, as Members know, would be living in the community, in households, in Housing and Development Board flats and so forth. The second question is, there would ostensibly be a higher chance of community spread, in view of these returnees. To that end, what are the enforcement resources that the Government has at its disposal to ensure that returnees actually comply with the requirements of the Stay-Home Notice?”
“Deputy Speaker, you have put me in a bit of a bind here. The first reply, I do not have that information offhand, I will have to check the facts. I believe the Senior Minister of State is not one just to speak without having the facts at the back of his hand, so he must have the manifesto in front of him. If it is there, it is there. The second question was about supporting the balance. This is something we have to look at very carefully. All the time we ask for data, it is not data for the sake of data. I think it is to understand the Government's perspective because it is not a case of throwing whatever the Government is saying out of the window or turning up our noses at it. But, certainly, we have to look at it very carefully. If the Government makes a compelling case, then there is no reason for us to be objectionable about it. But it is, certainly, something we have to look at. And that is why my initial question was about when are we reviewing the overall population plan, which was discussed in 2013 that the timeline is at the end of the decade when we will review where we are going and what the future is going to look like. So, we will be in a better position to answer the questions and provide another perspective to the Government's plans at that point.”
“No, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is just we have had episodes where Question and Answer time goes on to a pretty substantive issue. And I think we, perhaps, should deal with it in another way.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just a few points. Firstly, on the point that Minister Chan Chun Sing raised about the Workers' Party proposal, I believe that was in the context of the 2013 debate we had on population, the overall population policy. The position then was keeping the foreign workforce numbers constant, as the Minister shared, but if a 1% resident workforce growth target was achieved, there was a caveat to that. So, that is just as a matter of clarification, notwithstanding the Minister's reasoning as to how difficult that balancing act will be and the situation as the numbers peak in this decade. There was another point that came out of that debate, if I remember, and I do apologise if I get my facts wrong here, but I do believe that the entire population policy and the way we are moving forward would be up for review at the end of the decade. Those were the terms – end of the decade. So, the debate happened in 2013. We are in 2020 now. My question really is are we going to have a debate, a Motion on this matter, on the population issue, very much because the Minister raises an important point about how significant the upcoming decade will be for overall strategy. Finally, I think this is a Point of Order more than anything. I think for Question and Answer time, the Standing Orders do say that it should not be a pretext for a debate. That is the word in the Standing Orders, but I think we probably need a longer and more extensive discussion in Parliament about this matter.”
“Sir, if that is the case, then for the 60,000 local jobs, how many were for Singaporeans and how many went to PRs?”