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 26 of 36.
“I will do that, Minister. The issue is: would there be an objection from the Government, would there be an objection from the Mayors to have this sort of collaboration with an Opposition Town Council? Because if the Minister says that it should not be a problem, I am pretty sure the Mayors would not object, as well.”
“Let me try to be clear. I do apologise if I have not been clear for some reason. It is not an activity that is being organised. It is a banner that is put up to celebrate a festival. It could be Deepavali, it could be Chinese New Year, saying "Best wishes to all residents from the CDC and from the Town Council". This does happen in other wards. And I am just enquiring whether it can be done in the case of an Opposition Town Council. Because there is no political involvement, there is no political activity at all.”
“Chairman, I understand that. But the issue is that the Town Council is not a political entity. It is not using the logo of the political party to celebrate this festival, for example. It is essentially the CDC logo and the Town Council logo. There is no political issue. The Aljunied Town Council reaches out to all residents, regardless of their political affiliation.”
“Chairman, the question is directed to Minister Chan Chun Sing. I did not hear or I may have missed it out, but I do not think I am quite clear on the relationship between the CDC and the Town Council, and the Opposition Town Council, in particular. Is it different from, let us say, the PA grassroots adviser and the Town Council? Maybe I will try to use a more specific example. For example, during a community festival, say, Hari Raya or Chinese New Year, you see banners that are put on lamp posts and there is a CDC logo at the bottom of the lamp post; and sometimes, in other towns, you will see the Town Council logo there as well. Can I just confirm whether there is co-funding involved in the putting up of those banners and can an Opposition Town Council tap on the co-funding from the CDCs?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the scope of what the Community Development Councils (CDCs) have been structured to do has changed significantly over the years. In his speech on the 20th anniversary of the CDCs last year, the Prime Minister identified the issue of worker upgrading as an urgent one. How do the CDCs plan to work with the Future Economy Council to meet this objective? In 2013, the CDCs signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the then-Spring and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to set up five satellite SME centres in each district. While providing job support is a very helpful community function, is there a greater scope to draw more operational efficiencies and productivity by directing residents to proceed straight to the Family Service Centres (FSCs) or even the Community Centres (CCs), in collaboration with Workforce Singapore (WSG), the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) centres and the two foreign career matching providers, particularly for residents who need a job urgently? Is the position of the CDC as an intermediary necessary? Finally, it has been the Government’s position that all Grassroots Advisers must be from the People's Action Party (PAP), the reason being that such individuals are there to support Government policies and it would be incongruous for opposition politicians, even if they are elected, to do the same. Can I clarify what is the nature of the relationship between an opposition MP and the Town Council of which he or she is an elected member on the one hand and the CDC on the other? Does it follow the approach taken by the People’s Association (PA) vis-à-vis Grassroots Advisers? What are the differences, if any?”
“Chairman, Sir, parents who send their children to anchor operator My First Skool were hit by news of another school fee hike this year of between $6 and $33 for childcare; and $5 and $20 for infant care. These hikes this year come hot on the heels of similar hikes by My First Skool in 2013, 2015 and 2016 which, cumulatively, mean that it now costs $100 a month or more, and more than $1,200 a year to enroll a child into My First Skool. Chairman, these hikes hit the middle-income the hardest. It may also be a disincentive to some couples who may want to have more children. Even though the absolute increase is below the fee cap established by the Ministry, four fee hikes since 2013 appear to suggest that the fee cap can operate as a shield to raise prices, particularly when parents do not have a clear idea for the reasons behind the price hikes. In 2015, I asked the Ministry if it would provide a breakdown of the cost components to justify fee hikes at childcare operators, but this was rejected. Ironically, NTUC, which owns My First Skool, recently called for higher childcare subsidies to help middle-income parents. Can the Ministry share details on the cost pressures impacting anchor operators in the child and infant care space? How does the Ministry check on the basis and justification of fee hikes, particularly from anchor operators who would benefit the most from economies of scale? Early Childhood Sector”
“In parallel, COE growth for motorcycles has also been frozen. However, many Singaporeans who own motorcycles are our low-income citizens, some of whom also use motorcycles for business, for example, couriers and delivery personnel. In light of a zero-growth policy for motorcycles as well, would the Ministry explore a cap on the maximum bidding price of a motorcycle COE, particularly if it is to be used to own a Class 2B motorcycle?”
“Chairman, Sir, the move in October last year to remove the car and motorcycle growth rate factor from the supply formula that has been in place since 1990 is a signature transport policy development of this Government. The previous Transport Minister, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, had indicated that some growth in car numbers was required to meet the aspirational needs of car-owning Singaporeans. This position has now changed. In line with the Government’s move towards a car-lite Singapore and the newly implemented zero-growth car and motorcycle policy, these changes have also provided new opportunities to review fundamental assumptions, beliefs and policies towards vehicle ownership in Singapore. Decades ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew revealed that Singapore’s water security made every other policy bend at the knee. Today, raising the total fertility rate (TFR) is important, if not critical for Singapore. To this end, is there scope to significantly tweak the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system to support families with two or more Singaporean children with rebates, for example? Smaller families have added mobility needs that are particularly acute when children are young, from birth to around 12-16 years of age. No doubt, there are some families with young children who may not need a car. But each family's circumstances can be very different. The Government has tried to raise TFR by offering a slew of incentives. However, the zero car-growth policy which kicked in last month also provides opportunities to review the current COE system and to assess how it can be updated to support other national objectives, such as population replacement. Would the Ministry look into this prospect to support families with young children in particular?”
“This query is to do with the spalling concrete issues, particularly post-HIP and whether HDB can consider taking on a larger share of the GRA.”
“Secondly, can HDB clarify if it intends to raise the income ceiling criteria of HDB rental flat applications in line with rises in real income as revealed by the Budget so that applicants who are in dire straits are not dissuaded from applying for such rental flats if their situation calls for it? Can the Ministry share how many rental flat applications it has approved for applicants whose gross income has exceeded $1,500? Finally, can the Ministry update the total number of rental flats it intends to construct or if the current stock is envisaged to be sufficient for the foreseeable future?”
“In addition, can the Ministry share whether it is exploring how it can collaborate from a whole-of-Government perspective with agencies like the Smart Nation Office, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and even the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) initiatives under the Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) to incorporate future technologies with its future upgrading programmes? Is there a possibility of pneumatic waste disposal conveyance systems to be part of future upgrading programmes at older HDB estates? Reviewing Criteria for Rental Housing Chairman, public rental housing remains an important feature of our public housing system. HDB recently announced that from May this year, the maximum number of tenants allowed in 4-room and larger HDB flats will be reduced to six, from the current nine. One of the reasons for this is to prevent overcrowding in HDB estates. There are times when rental flat applicants share that crowded conditions at home make family living difficult, complicating already existing problems that are amplified in a low-income setting. Part of the public rental flat assessment process includes an HDB enquiry into whether an applicant has other means of family support. Very often, for rejected cases, HDB seeks the cooperation of the Family Service Centre to address disputes between family members. However, not all cases can be resolved, with some issues particularly intractable. Would HDB, in line with a tacit acknowledgement that overcrowding can affect the living environment, consider the number of individuals residing in a current place of residence for rental flat applicants as a factor for consideration at the point of application?”
“Chairman, many residents look forward to HIP as it addresses long-time gripes, such as pipe leaks, ceiling leaks and spalling concrete, the last of which occurs due to corrosion of steel reinforcement bars over time. While this is a natural wear and tear process, many elderly residents, in particular, are unable to mitigate the problem with regular painting for financial reasons and a relative lack of mobility for some. In the course of house visits to homes where HIP works have already been undertaken, it is not surprising for residents to identify a re-occurrence of spalling concrete or a new occurrence in another area of the flat within a few years after HIP works are concluded. Although residents can request for the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme, the cost for such repairs can come up to a few hundred dollars in some cases. Would the HDB bear a greater part of the repair cost in view of the fact that the spalling concrete is fundamentally caused by the deterioration of the concrete floor slab in question? This view can be correlated with the point that spalling concrete repair is deemed to be an essential improvement under HIP. Would the Ministry look to reduce the residents' component from spalling concrete repairs, particularly for flats that have already completed their HIP? Finally, as the HDB winds down its HIP programme, what are its plans going forward for the next few years? Does it plan to call for a new HIP programme for flats built after 1986?”
“While the initiative is provided free of charge, can we not look at extending such initiatives when major Housing and Development Board (HDB) upgrading exercises, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), are carried out in view of the scale of benefits that can be achieved, potentially resulting in lower water consumption? A significant number of flats, for example, where toilets are completely renovated, can potentially host a variety of new water-saving features. Can the Ministry also consider if there is scope to improve, finetune or incentivise the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) with a view to nudge consumers to choose appliances with the highest number of ticks? Mr Chairman, if every drop is precious, can more be done to alter consumption patterns? The opportunity provided by HDB upgrading may be a very useful entry point. Water Conservation and Water Pressure”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the old mantra of water scarcity and the danger of the tap being turned off as a result of a breakdown in relations with Malaysia are in need of an upgrade. Circumstances have changed, and the desire of earlier generations of leaders to diversify our water sources has proved to be a boon many Singaporeans are thankful for. The development of NEWater and desalination has contributed to this. However, the pricing of such purification methods are not totally transparent to members of the public, unlike raw water. While the costs of these new methods of purification can be significant, I believe there is scope to share more details of pricing both upstream and downstream in order to drive home a message of the preciousness of water. I acknowledge that sharing such information with the public requires accounting for the cost of upgrading and building transmission networks because the price of water is only one component while there are other costs, including research and development (R&D). But that does not mean that it cannot be done. Such an approach will give members of the public greater understanding about why water tariffs need to rise and, hopefully, even moderate in future. Water consumption trends for households are on a downward trend. I believe there is scope to lower our per capita domestic water consumption even further than the 140 litres per person by 2030. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) water closet replacement project for flats built between 1987 and 1992 for residents in small flats on community assistance provides a foretaste of the significant opportunities available for a whole-of-Government approach to water conservation.”
“Chairman, I just have one question for the Second Minister. This is with regard to the $4 billion that the Minister mentioned PUB was investing in for development purposes from the years 2017 to 2021 and that some of these requirements would actually be secured through borrowing which would, in the course of his explanation, explain the fact that Statutory Boards do actually borrow from the markets and they have a different approach vis-à-vis the Ministry. Can I just confirm how much will PUB be borrowing for this purpose, for this $4 billion that it needs to upgrade a number of transmission networks and so on?”
“Mr Chairman, public communication on the way water is priced can be significantly improved. At last year's Budget Debate, the Minister in charge of the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) shared that the numbers in the books of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) do not lend themselves to a straightforward understanding of what they mean. The Minister observed that while PUB's books are in accruals, the Ministry's Budget is in cash. The Minister also said that he would ask the Minister of Finance to look at a whole-of-Government approach to funding Singapore's water infrastructure because things do not add up if one looks at the books separately. In light of these remarks, can I clarify what progress has been made on this? Many Singaporeans note that PUB's books record significant surpluses after Government grants and that any increase in water prices should take into account the size of such surpluses. More fundamentally, there is a greater desire to understand the variables and assumptions that go into calculating Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC), which forms the basis of determining water prices. The Government should attempt to explain this in a simple manner so that the public can appreciate the basis of raising water prices by 15% in 2017, with another hike scheduled for 2018. Budget Spending”
“I understand from previous PQs that for foreign spouses who were granted PR from 2009 to 2015, around 45% had a monthly income of less than $4,000. Can the Ministry provide specific details on the number of successful applications for the same period for applicants who had a monthly income of less than $3,500, $3,000 and $2,500 and confirm if there has been any change to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) evaluation criteria from 2016? The details would provide some degree of certainty for foreign spouses married to Singaporeans when they apply for PR. Thirdly, can the Government share how many foreigners who are married to Singapore Citizens do not meet the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP-Plus (LTVP+) criteria but are granted short-term visit passes instead? What are the main reasons for the rejection of their LTVP or LTVP+ applications, and what criteria does the Government use to reassess or review such applications? More Protection for Vulnerable Groups”
“Mr Chairman, as a country that extends Singapore citizenship to an average 20,000 foreigners each year and partly relies extensively on immigration to replace and increase the overall population, it remains an anomaly that there are no official statistics detailing the country of origin of new citizens who live among us and who have to integrate together with us as one people. The Government's long-standing position has been that it does not officially reveal the countries from where these new citizens originate on the grounds of sensitivity of the country of origin of our new citizens and the implications and sensitivities for specific groups of persons. Previously, it was revealed that about 50% of new citizens originate from Southeast Asian countries, with another 40% from other Asian countries. However, in a similar reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2016, the Government did not give any percentages but to say that the majority came from Southeast Asian countries. Can the Ministry please elaborate on what sensitivities the Government is concerned about, particularly since Singapore's need for immigration is publicly well-known, along with the Government's stated position of keeping the racial percentages as close to their current levels as far as possible? Secondly, the Government has stated that it would be a plus factor when it assesses whether the spouses of foreigners married to Singapore Citizens who apply for Permanent Residence have children. However, in my discussion with some residents in my Meet-the-People sessions (MPS), there is some residual concern amongst such residents that their monthly household income explains why they are having trouble securing Permanent Resident status.”
“My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I understand, Sir, there was an announcement made of the deployment of SAF troops to Iraq. I have four questions in that regard. Firstly, what is MINDEF's assessment of the threat to our troops there? Secondly, in view of the inherent instability in Iraq and of particular concern being sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, in addition to the presence of ISIS and its other various incarnations, what is being done to prepare our servicemen and their families for the deployment? Thirdly, how long does the Ministry envisage the deployment to last and what is the SAF's mission and objectives with respect to this deployment, and is MINDEF concerned about the prospect of mission creep? Fourthly, and this is the final question, Singapore deployed about 470 servicemen to Afghanistan from 2007 to 2013. They assisted the Afghan National Army Artillery training, improvised explosive device (IED) detection, construction and imagery analysis. Can the Minister share more details on the size and nature of our deployment to Iraq, what tasks our troops would undertake, and what and whose resources they can call upon to assure their security there? 12.30 pm”
“Finally, Minister, in view of the importance of the ADMM-Plus frameworks and the reality of a more multipolar world, is there any prospect for making the ADMM-Plus a yearly meeting instead of once every two years, as it is currently? What has been the reception to this proposal by the ADMM and ADMM-Plus partners? ADMM-Plus”
“Chairman, Sir, good progress is being made through the ADMM and ADMM-Plus frameworks to increase confidence among member countries and which lower but not eliminate the possibility and prospect of outright hostilities in the region, particularly over flashpoints, such as the South China Sea. The upcoming ASEAN-China maritime exercise is a good example of the work that goes on to build confidence amongst each of the partner nations. In particular, the adoption of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) has raised hopes of its implementation even if an agreement amongst all the ADMM-Plus partners may prove to be harder to secure than the agreement of the ASEAN nations. 10.30 am Is there any realistic prospect for a CUES framework for unplanned encounters in the air, as intimated by the Defence Minister last month, in view of fatal incidents in the past? As ADMM Chair, it was reported that Singapore plans to strengthen cooperation and build resilience among the ASEAN member states and eight ADMM-Plus countries. These include plans to increase counterterrorism collaboration and raising capabilities to combat chemical, biological and radiological threats. Separately, under the "Our Eyes" initiative, senior officials from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei will meet every two weeks to swap information on militant groups and develop a common database of violent extremists. Can the Minister clarify if there is any scope for such cooperation to create economies of scale for SAF and achieve some savings for MINDEF?”
“What more can Singapore do to smooth over the concerns China has about the South China Sea and secure a stable future between ASEAN and China going forward?”
“ASEAN has also committed to the ambitious objective under the aegis of the ASEAN Economic Community of doubling intra-ASEAN trade between 2017 and 2025. Last year, Singapore announced that it was focusing on steps to enhance e-commerce through its National Trade Platform, a one-stop trade information platform for customs clearance, trade logistics and trade finance. Alongside this specific initiative, it would also appear that the prospect of the ASEAN Single Window would allow local Singaporean businesses to connect to more customers throughout ASEAN. Mr Chairman, all foreign policy begins at home and I request some information from the Minister on the roles the Ministry plays from a whole-of-Government perspective in translating foreign policy initiatives into economic outcomes for enterprises in Singapore in view of our economic transformation plans. Finally, the Minister has gone on record in the aftermath of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting earlier this month to say that discussions on the Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea are likely to be very complicated even as the situation is a lot calmer. Mr Chairman, one of ASEAN’s interests in COC is to ensure that trade and freedom of movement of sea traffic, particularly commercial traffic, is unimpeded. It would appear that China’s interests in the South China Sea are territorial to the extent that it wants a high degree of control of its immediate backyard, behaviour which does not appear to be primarily driven by a desire to bully ASEAN, but rather is consistent with modern big power behaviour in regions adjacent to its immediate borders, regardless of whether such a power is an Anglo-Saxon one or not.”
“Chairman, Sir, ASEAN commemorated its 50th anniversary last year. As a pioneer founder of ASEAN and as a respected and constructive diplomatic stakeholder, it is apposite that Singapore finds itself as the first Chair of ASEAN after the celebration of its golden jubilee in 2017. It is apposite because Singapore is seen as an important thought leader, both within and outside ASEAN. Singapore has the potential to shape and determine the substance of the discussions that take precedence among our regional partners because of our reputation as an honest broker. Singapore has chosen the themes of resilience and innovation as its Chairmanship tagline with a view to building a future-ready ASEAN which is adaptable and forward-looking. In addition to a variety of issues that Singapore would be pursuing under its Chairmanship, is the Model ASEAN Extradition Treaty. The prospect of such a treaty is potentially an important development in addressing some of Singapore’s bilateral flashpoints that have reared their ugly head in the past, at times, with certain political leaders in Indonesia. Such an extradition treaty could inject a newfound trust and confidence into the Singapore-Indonesia relationship which, like ASEAN, also celebrated its golden jubilee last year. Singapore’s chairmanship of ASEAN this year presents a signature opportunity for MFA to showcase strong thought leadership to push for an early agreement on the Model Extradition treaty that would support the rule of law within ASEAN and catalyse the signing of bilateral extradition treaties between neighbouring countries. Does the Minister have any preliminary timeline with regard to discussions on the Model Extradition Treaty?”
“This would free up more of the Government's Budget in the respective financial years for recurrent spending and this was one suggestion I put forward to stave off the GST hike, and I am not sure whether the Minister replied to that. The third question is with reference to the NIRC portion of this year's Budget: how much in dollar terms of the $15.8 billion originated from the Net Investment Income (NII) component of NIRC, and NIR component respectively? Fourthly, how does the Government determine which investment entity – MAS, Temasek or GIC – gets a larger component of land sales revenue for investment, in view of the different risk thresholds that each entity assumes? Finally, is there a mechanism or basis by which the Government determines how much of the Reserves it requires to maintain the strength of the Singapore dollar? Is there a mechanism for that?”
“I would like to thank the Finance Minister for his round-up speech and the additional figures that the Finance Minister gave. Sir, I have some questions for the Finance Minister. One of the hardest things I had to do with this Budget actually was to try and assess how a GST hike can be staved off, given the Government's Budget. Just as a matter of perspective on the question of using our Reserves as a source of income, the Government's reliance on Reserves has quadrupled from 2006 to 2011, from about $2 billion to about $8 billion. Since then, to the upcoming financial year, it has doubled from that. So, when the Minister says that the Workers' Party is irresponsible and dishonest, I respectfully have to disagree with him on that account. With that as a preamble, I have five questions for the Minister. First, in his Second Reading speech, when the Constitution was amended in 2015 to include Temasek in the NIRC framework, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that Temasek's inclusion would increase the NIRC’s share of GDP from 2% to about 3% on average over five years. But today it stands at 3.4%. Does this tentatively suggest that the Government actually has more income from NIRC than it originally planned to have, with more likely to be realised in the future, in view of the fact that the NIR formula tends to smoothen out investment cycles? That is the first question. The second question has to do with the point I raised in my Budget speech, which is whether there is any scope for raising NIRC from 60% to 70% for a short period of time to oversee large infrastructure spending, with the view to return this back to 50% on the condition that the revenues from such infrastructure must be returned to the past Reserves.”
“A secure economy will provide the foundation for strengthening social programmes, supporting the needy and expanding opportunities for future generations. Sir, in a world that is facing significant disruption, the early steps that this and previous Budgets represent in gaining early traction on the future economy will enable Singaporeans to anticipate a future with richer opportunities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Budget. 12.34 pm”
“But as the experiences of several countries have shown, a strong response with a decisive and sufficiently large package of measures meant that the cost of the responses could usually be recovered if the intervention successfully revived asset valuations that had been downgraded by the crisis. In order for this to occur, the resources needed to mount the rescue packages had to be available in the first place. At a critical point of the crisis, for example, the United States mounted a massively expensive rescue programme for its financial sector by assigning US$700 billion, to what was then known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. As it turned out, all the amounts spent in the purchase of what had been toxic assets were subsequently recovered in full as the assets regained values. Singapore is much smaller. Our role in financial markets is not small and these examples are not irrelevant. Our own experience during that crisis was no less informative. The sums assigned to the Resilience Package of 2009 by then-Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam included an unprecedented withdrawal of $4.9 billion from the reserves. The full amount of that was returned as a result of the strong recovery. If those reserves had not been readily available, the consequences would have been unimaginable. This is why there is a need to protect and grow the reserves through a disciplined fiscal approach that includes responsible taxation. This Budget is a cogent demonstration of these principles of forward thinking and responsible planning. It recognises, for example, that taxing undesirable behaviour is necessary, but not a constructive approach to funding long-term needs.”
“Even advanced economies, Sir, have to continue to defend their vulnerabilities against unforeseen national security threats as well as sudden external economic upheavals. The competition to prioritise certain areas of spending should not lead to a softening of emphasis on areas of basic necessity, such as defence spending and the shoring up of our economic defences. At any point in time, there are security threats in various parts of the world which may have an impact on shipping lanes and flight routes vital to our trade linkages. As a sovereign developed nation, it is our responsibility to be prepared to bear the burden of maintaining these vital connections. The building of national defence capabilities is a fundamental priority that cannot be ignored. The experiences of other advanced economies show that the failure to maintain up-to-date defence capabilities could lead to a diminished capacity to play a full role in defence partnerships. Just as with our national infrastructure, ensuring that our defence capabilities are continually upgraded to meet future needs is critical. In recent years, there has been growing criticism from a vocal minority about the growth in Singapore’s reserves and what the reserves are needed for. Sir, Singapore has achieved advanced economy status in the space of half a century. As demonstrated by the last crisis, however, developed economies could actually be more exposed to certain types of crises than less developed ones. The cost of confronting that crisis, Sir, was a costly affair for many governments.”
“Despite criticisms about the extent of social spending, the incontrovertible fact remains that Social Development expenditures in Singapore account for the largest share of the Budget and has done so with rare exception in recent years. Sir, in 1997, expenditures on Social Development amounted to over $8.7 billion. Of the four main areas of spending, Social Development accounted for the largest share of 38%, above the other areas, namely Security and External Relations, Economic Development and Government Administration. By 2017, its share had risen to nearly half of total Government spending, more than twice that of the share of expenditures on Economic Development. I pointed out before that we should not ignore the fact that the pace of increase in social spending must be managed in order to ensure the competition with other areas of spending does not drive up costs of limited resources. From 1997 to 2005, Social Development expenditures grew at an annual rate of 3.7% per annum, below that of expenditures of Security and External Relations. From 2005 to 2017, however, the rate of growth of Social Development expenditures jumped to 10% a year. This is a rate of growth that will double spending every seven years or so and this is way in excess of the rates of growth that we see in economies, like Sweden, which have taken a long time to reach the point that they are at, at this point in time. Such spending increases are an improvement that have been made possible by Singapore's continuing economic progress. There are many areas of Social Development, no doubt, that require urgent attention. New areas of needs arise as society develops and the economy matures. Sustainable solutions to such challenges require a focused and targeted approach.”
“In industry competition, what we find is that businesses are beginning to rationalise their dependence on foreign manpower. In productivity performance, the situation is certainly something we have to continue to watch out for, but the recent uptick in productivity performance is something that we should be able to link to the efforts over the last few Budgets to improve the productivity situation. However, the situation remains tentative. The main question is: what have we to continue to do in order to sustain these gains? Hence, against these positive signs, there are accelerating effects of long-term challenges, especially demographic shifts and national security, which are continuing reminders of our vulnerabilities as a small, open economy. In this Budget, the programmes that are already well-funded continue to be so, with increases in social spending and infrastructure expected to continue in the years to come. But in the longer term, as spending needs grow, we will have to decide how to meet those needs in a responsible manner. Depending on potentially volatile and unanticipated increases in Budget surpluses is not ideal. The unusual Budget surplus that we saw in last year's Budget is a welcome surprise in this case because of currency movements that had gone unexpectedly in MAS’ favour. But market movements which present large upside surprises in one year could also contain the potential to do the opposite. With sufficient diversification and vigilance, the chances of a downside surprise can be minimised but not eliminated. This is not a reliable recipe for funding long-term national commitments.”
“Mr Speaker, we must never be done making Singapore an even better home for all Singaporeans. 12.25 pm Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join this debate. This Budget is of tremendous importance because it adds further strength and connectivity to the efforts that had already begun in previous Budgets to pave the way for Singapore to embark upon the future economy. In that sense, Budget 2018 cannot be looked at in isolation. It is clear to anyone who has followed the sustained efforts of the last few Budgets that the determinants of where to apply the limited resources in order to maximise the benefits of the fiscal impulse are long-run social and economic objectives rather than short-term relief. The economy’s transformation is based on ensuring greater efficiency in the use of resources, and a crude fiscal push with only short-term gains should be avoided. At best, such a move could crowd out the private sector in the competition for resources already in short supply, especially manpower. At worst, it could detract from the careful efforts already under way in each of the industry transformation maps and accompanying skills frameworks to deepen the push for future readiness. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the launch of the Industry Transformation Programme in Budget 2016, the economy has displayed tentative but encouraging signs of change. These include evidence of fortified strength in the labour market situation, the continuing improvement in competitiveness in external-oriented sectors and the revival in productivity performance. In the labour market for instance, redundancies have stabilised, unemployment continues to be low and re-employment is encouraging.”
“This prospect will become less probable with the advent of more electronic transactions and, in turn, is likely to have a positive effect on tax revenues. Furthermore, with borrowing backed by Government guarantees proposed for large infrastructure projects, more spending for such projects can potentially be allocated elsewhere for recurrent spending. In view of the absence of such details, the Workers' Party is unable to support the announcement of the GST hike at this moment in time. This is because of the lack of clarity surrounding projected expenditure when the Government raises GST in future and the relative lack of information on whether there is scope for the reserves to better support Singaporeans. In addition, as the Prime Minister told the media some years ago when the GST was raised from 3% in response to initial objections from the Workers' Party, we would also need some understanding of the Government's offset package for the low-income and middle-income should the GST be raised ─ information which the Government has not released thus far. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Government has made significant investments in placing Singapore to take advantage of initiatives like Belt and Road, and tapping on the potential of the ASEAN region. These are necessary investments to keep the Singapore economy humming along. However, the people who keep it humming must be equipped to succeed in tomorrow's economy. Equally, the security of elderly Singaporeans, each generation a pioneer generation of an improbable country in its own right, should not be made to feel insecure in their old age, particularly when it comes to healthcare. Instead, they should be respected for what they have done for Singapore and looked after in their golden years.”
“The importance and willingness to prepare for the future cannot be underestimated, especially since the very technological disruption the Finance Minister spoke of will, like globalisation in the past, have its discontents – those who cannot be readily retrained to assume higher-value jobs, those who may not be able to build new capabilities, those who, for example, cannot stand for too long and for whom job redesign is only a catchphrase, and those who may not be able to adapt to what they fear is a brave new world. GST may not have to rise but Singaporeans could be more likely to accept it if the Government considers the pros and cons of moving from the established orthodoxy and considers new approaches that improve social protection thresholds for all, and elderly Singaporeans in particular. As expected, the Budget drew much attention on the Government's plan to raise GST from 7% to 9% sometime in the future. However, there was inconsistency in the treatment of some additional taxes that will no doubt add to the Government's coffers before that. For example, the Government was able to confirm that the imposition of the carbon tax would bring an additional $1 billion a year of revenue after implementation. However, no estimates were provided on the likely additional revenue that would be added to the Government's income with the inclusion of the GST on imported services. In addition, the journey to become a Smart Nation – another plank of this year's Budget – is likely to make Singapore more efficient in tax collection. There is also the question on the move to become a cashless society and the impact this will have on sectors which have traditionally been thought to under-declare their income, such as self-employed hawkers and taxi drivers.”
“Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party is open-minded about looking at different modalities of funding future Budgets with the view to strengthening social protection frameworks. This also promotes a healthier discussion of fiscal issues amongst our population. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. But there are two ways of framing this conversation. One, is to say that proposals that seek to improve and suggest better social protection for Singaporeans are tantamount to raiding the reserves. The other is to take a strategic perspective of our reserves position – something only the Government can holistically do in view of the significant information asymmetries – look at how quickly the world is changing and always assess how Singaporeans can be better protected ahead of time. To reiterate, allowing a portion of the revenue for land sales will also not stop the reserves from growing. They will continue to grow and disproportionately benefit future generations. But looking at using land sales also gives the Government of the day more flexibility to ensure that current generations of elderly Singaporeans' healthcare needs, for example, are adequately budgeted for, leaving more scope for the Government to strengthen social protection for the current generation of Singaporeans. Inter-generational equity is a subject that deserves greater discussion.”
“As much as the development of the port in Tuas will cost money, the move of port facilities from Tanjong Pagar will free up prime and valuable waterfront land adjacent to Shenton Way. After 2035, a massive tract of land where the current Paya Lebar airport sits, massive by Singapore's standards at least, will be available for sale to the Government of the day. In between, the Government, as the largest landowner, has many sites open for development that will ensure steady growth of the reserves for the foreseeable future. On the Government's "Factually" website, the argument against including land sales for budgetary spending is two-pronged, apart from constitutional restrictions. Firstly, excluding land sales prevents the Government from unnecessarily selling land to meet expenditure needs. However, this argument can potentially be addressed with a cap on spending revenue from land sales, for example, not more than 20% of the value of average land sales over 20 years, or 20% of land sales for that year, whichever is lower. This would give no good reason for an ill-advised government to ramp up land sales when in government to increase its own income. The second argument on the "Factually" website posits that income from land sales is invested and is already available to the Government for spending through the NIRC framework. While this is a stronger argument and certainly true, not co-mingling the income from land sales with other reserves for investment also brings with it the prospect of greater transparency to the public and of mitigating the consequences of poor investment decisions most dramatically highlighted by GIC's partial divestment of its stake in UBS and losing billions in the process, as reported last year.”
“In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister made a fundamental distinction to set out the Government's thinking on recurrent spending which directly benefits current generations and that the responsible way to pay for such expenditure is through taxation. However, it is no secret that Singapore's approach to budgeting is highly conservative, with land sales excluded from the Government's income, even as more resources are required to take care of our elderly population through to 2030 and beyond. Reasonable Singaporeans take the view that there is scope to consider how elderly Singaporeans can be better protected in their twilight years, with the burden of additional taxes like the GST held off for as long as possible. One novel, if not relatively radical approach in view of the current orthodoxy, is to reconsider the role land sales can play in recurrent spending. The Government is, by far and away, the largest landowner in Singapore. The majority of all land here comprises 99-year or less than 99-year leasehold properties. Seen in this light, should not the current generations be allowed to benefit from some percentage of today's land sales with the knowledge that such land regenerates itself in value for future generations, providing successive Governments with the recurring source of income? Should Singaporeans, who are now expected to live well into their 80s, reap more benefit from land sales so as to justify better social protection for them? Even as land is scarce in Singapore, it is also highly valued, with land sales likely to be very healthy in the decades to come right until our HDB flats run down their leases and well into the second half of the century.”
“Alex’s plans to become a successful entrepreneur with an appetite for risk – and for his story and Singapore’s economic future not to be a fictional one – depend on it. Mr Speaker, from a citizen perspective, making deeper enquiries of the Government's Budget is no less important than acquiring deep skills for the future economy. Some very important and healthy conversations are taking place within our society about social protection and the size and use of our reserves, estimated in The Straits Times last week to be in excess of a trillion dollars – I will say that again in excess of a trillion dollars. How much of it do we need to protect the Singapore dollar from currency speculators is a valid question, given that yearly revenue from land sales alone ensures that our reserves continue to grow in size. Some arguments have been made in public for the NIRC to be increased to 60% to stave off the GST hike. Similarly, there have been calls to consider only a temporary increase in NIRC to fund non-recurrent, lumpy infrastructure investments, such as the high-speed rail, new MRT lines and Changi T5 terminal. After such infrastructure has been completed, the NIRC can return to 50% and some portion of the revenue earned from such infrastructure can also be returned to the reserves. Such proposals leave more scope for the Government to hold back from increasing regressive taxes like the GST, which also hit middle-income Singaporeans with young children and elderly parents the hardest, mainly because offset packages announced by the Government inherently target the low-income and needy more, and correctly so.”
“This is particularly since our educational culture is weighted in favour of parents with means, and naturally so, and those who can pile on enrichment classes and tuition, and even consider paying educational professionals to work out long-term strategies to game Direct School Admission exercises. The Government has previously looked at broad-based schemes like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) to drive productivity, only to shift now to more targeted measures for specific industries through the ITMs. In similar vein, the Government should start identifying the specific policy changes needed to alter behaviour and drive cultural change in favour of learning. The time has come to squarely look at our tuition culture and, ironically, how it may actually be holding us back rather than spurring and motivating our students in a healthy manner. The tuition industry is an important stakeholder in this undertaking. Rather than spend time and money on tuition, would our students not be better served by an education in various regional languages, more debates, better communication skills, financial literacy, problem-solving and negotiation, and on field trips rather than cramming model answers and methodologies for exam-based outcomes only for them to be forgotten very quickly thereafter? How critical is streaming and even the PSLE examinations for success in life in the future economy? If it is not critical, are there persuasive arguments that remain for their continued existence? The need of the hour today is different from that of the past. A radical shift in direction needs to take place to set up our future generations of workers and employees for the future economy.”
“With our people as the only natural resource, we must begin from the starting point that each and every one of our students, each and every one of them, regardless of race, language or religion, can not just succeed, but excel in the economy of tomorrow. The focus cannot be on acing examinations alone as a means of securing a child's future, as is overwhelmingly the case today. Even as our education system has correctly made adjustments to allow for a minority of students to benefit from aptitude-based entry points across the education system, this may not be enough. In fact, we continue to have a tuition culture which is alleged to be a billion-dollar industry in Singapore. There are no evident signs of this tuition culture abating. Even PAP Members have raised questions in this House about stress and anxiety levels in our students. Parents naturally equate poor PSLE results with relatively poorer opportunities and outcomes for their children in Secondary school. They fear that poor PSLE results will evince a bleak future, with their children condemned to schools dominated by problematic students who, in their estimation, do not like to study or cannot communicate well, hence, setting their own children up for mediocrity. Such fears, amongst others, correct or not, drive the tuition industry and the stress both in parents and, by extension, in students. Mr Speaker, it will take a radical move to energise the cultural shift needed to change mindsets about tuition and early streaming among all stakeholders, particularly parents. But there is another downside – and a very important one – that requires us to hasten educational transformation. Streaming and ranking serve to reinforce the inequality the Finance Minister warned about in his Budget speech.”
“In a second equally compelling and parallel anecdote, Mr Lim spoke about how Israeli mothers in the past wished their children to be doctors and lawyers. Fast forward 20 years and this scenario has apparently changed completely, with Israeli mothers wishing their children to be CEOs of start-ups. The situation is similar in Estonia and Finland. In Mr Lim's words, "Singapore has to get there and be exceptional in our own way". I have my doubts about whether Alex’s parents are ready for him to forget how they changed addresses to get him enrolled into a better school before he entered Primary 1 and how they spent thousands of dollars in tuition fees so that he would be streamed for the best outcomes to secure a stable and lucrative career. More pointedly, unless Alex comes from a rich family, I am not sure he would be in a position to give up an education in accountancy in favour of entrepreneurship, given our cultural biases to what qualifies as a good job, school, university or career. Mr Speaker, ensuring the readiness of the education system to drive future economic growth is a critical strategy that we cannot afford to overlook. Only last month, the Minister for Education in charge of Higher Education shared that the Government is examining how it can better design the learning landscape so as to ensure that opportunities are available for Singaporeans to succeed in life. However, the Minister said that this endeavour may take a generation. Without a doubt, the education system has progressively evolved for the better, but do we have the luxury of time to undertake its transformation for the new economy, a transformation that is arguably as urgent as the economic transformation we desire?”
“Mr Speaker, as much as we seek to encourage workers of today to embrace the future economy through the Industry Transformation Programmes, the Tech Skills Accelerator and the Go Digital Programme, amongst other initiatives, there is another segment of our population for whom the new economy is one they must fit into seamlessly. They are our younger Singaporeans – many of whom are still in school today. On 19 February 2018, The Straits Times carried a fictional article that sought to imagine what Singapore would look like in 2030 for one young Singaporean. It spoke of the story of Alex, whose life was transformed by the Committee of the Future Economy (CFE) report of 2017. Alex interpreted the report to mean that entrepreneurship was the way of the future. By 2023, his fictitious company was awarded a contract to supply MOH with mechanical parts for robot-assisted surgery. With a local foothold, he expanded his business into Southeast Asia. Alex’s story was fascinating to me particularly when I contrasted it against the speech of the former Head of Civil Service, Mr Lim Siong Guan, who gave a series of lectures as part of the IPS-SR Nathan Lecture Series on Singapore late last year. Most striking was Mr Lim’s observation of how we in Singapore pile accolades on those who reach the pinnacle of success, with others often remaining unnoticed and unmentioned. The call for innovation, a central pillar in this year’s Budget, requires – in Mr Lim's view – for our people to try more and fail; and to be recognised not only for their success but their effort, and to be proud of trying their best in exercising their talents and abilities.”
“In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister spoke of three major shifts in the coming decade. The rise of Asia was observed some years ago but the colossal scale of the change only became apparent to many with the conception of China's global One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. Technological disruption is mind-blowing, if not downright terrifying for some. The sight of agile robots from Boston Dynamics on our Facebook feeds, driverless vehicles and news of medical initiatives in cloning herald a world that was considered to be fictional only one generation ago. The prospect of an ageing society, however, was not sudden. Successive Governments have identified it, with the second generation PAP leadership establishing the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ageing which published its report in 1999 and with at least four other high-level committees on ageing since 1982, putting the issue squarely in the public imagination. The Workers’ Party notes that this year’s Budget is one that seeks to prepare Singapore and establish strong foundations for economic growth for the next 10 years. Singapore's situation is unique. Economic growth is at the centre of our existence and an economy that exhibits a certain verve and vitality is critical to the well-being of our people. While the Government has got the headline issues right, as it had with identifying ageing almost 20 years ago, what will matter most is how its vision of looking after Singapore and Singaporeans is translated operationally and executed on the ground. My speech will cover education, fiscal sustainability and taxes. In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister spoke of Industry 4.0, a reference to the technological shift from computer systems to integrated cyber, physical, biological and intelligent systems.”
“I thank the Minister for that. I do understand what the Minister is saying. But the point is: in the case of judicial review, because the common law continually develops, is this the appropriate time for us to legislatively say, "Okay, this is where we are closing off certain matters in so far as the facts of the GD are concerned"? If the judiciary moves judicial review along, should we not then come to Parliament, with the view, as the Minister suggested, to change the law even?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, on the finality clause, does it not crystalise the position in law today in Dan Tan such that the Courts will be closed to consider new heads of judicial review in the future, particularly if the high watermark of not displacing the Executive's decision with their own, requires some nuance. Does the finality clause not close that off for the Courts?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order, when I made my speech just now, I did not declare that I was a lawyer in practice.”
“The third point I wish to make extends to the inclusion of clause 8 which covers section 48(1) of the Organised Crime Act (OCA) in Schedule 4 of the Bill extends the reach of CLTPA, by way of legislation, to individuals who participate or facilitate a serious crime overseas. This is a significant shift in the reach and ambit of CLTPA and I do have some questions in this regard. What is the threshold of participation or facilitation in a serious crime overseas as defined by section 48(1) of the OCA before the CLTPA can be employed against an individual? Does the Minister have any examples of criminals having facilitated or participated in crimes overseas only for the Government to be bereft of any legal options to bring such individuals to justice? More narrowly, would the detention of an individual arising from section 48(1) of the OCA under CLTPA require the Minister to include evidence or the results of investigations from a foreign counterpart in his GD or would some other standard apply and, if so, what would that standard be? Or would it be up to the Minister, in step with the amendment proposed in clause 3 that his decision is final and there is, for all practical purposes, very little scope for any enquiry into this matter, if any at all? Finally, and in this context, does the Minister foresee the CLTPA to be employed against foreigners who commit crimes overseas and who may be members of or in the employ of a Singaporean or local criminal syndicate? Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill.”
“This plainly runs counter to any suggestion that the Court is confined to so narrow a role. Indeed, this recognises that a Court may and, indeed, should examine whether the power that is vested in the Minister is being properly invoked." On clause 3 per se, the explanatory note to the Bill states that the Minister’s decision being final applies in any of these three instances: (a) that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature; (b) that it is necessary for a person to be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; and (c) that it is necessary that a person be subject to the supervision of the Police. Mr Speaker, all three instances operate to narrow the Judiciary's role with respect to judicial review. To this end, I would like to ask the Minister, in the event the Courts require the Minister to reveal detailed information on the background facts on any of the three instances to determine and assist the Court to decide on the lawfulness of a CLTPA detention for the purposes of judicial review, can the Minister confirm if the Courts will be able to do so? More fundamentally, would it not be more propitious for Parliament to extend real scope to the Judiciary to review the Minister's decision in the case of CLTPA detentions, particularly since detainees cannot challenge the evidence against them in an open Court, notwithstanding the Executive check available by way of the Advisory Committee under the Act? I understand the Minister spoke about the constitution of the Advisory Committee in his Second Reading speech and the idea of including judges as part of the Advisory Committee. Just as a matter of clarification, does this not conflate the role of the Executive and the Judiciary? I would like the Minister's views on that.”
“Justice must be seen to be done, and the evolution of the law on judicial review has required judges to make more, not less, enquiries on the facts and circumstances of a matter at hand so as to be able to decide whether the Government has made a lawful or unlawful decision. In and of itself, it would appear intuitively logical for judges to have maximum access to the Minister or the Executive's thought processes even if they cannot replace it with their own. However, clause 3 appears to be going against the grain, closing the door and further limiting the Judiciary’s scope for judicial review for CLTPA cases. At this juncture, it would be useful for me to recite a short paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgment in Tan Seet Eng which buttresses the point that even though the ambit of judicial review only covers the process and legality of how a decision is made, the role of the Courts is far from routine and administrative. "In our judgment, while it is one thing to say that the Court must not substitute its view as to the way in which the discretion that is vested in the Minister should be exercised, it is quite another to say that the Minister's exercise of discretion may not be scrutinised by the Court at all. We asked (the Government’s lawyer) if he was contending that the function of the Court was confined to verifying, as a clerical matter, that the paperwork was in order and included at least a bare recitation by or on behalf of the Minister that formally complied with the statutory formula. The (Government’s lawyer) said that was not his position and, in our judgment, rightly so. We have already referred to the decision of this Court in Chng Suan Tze where an objective approach was laid down.”
“Mr Speaker, in a speech delivered at the American Law Institute in 2016, the Chief Justice referred to judicial review as, and I quote, "the sharp edge that keeps government action within the form and substance of the law." However, it is well established under Singapore law that judicial review only covers the process and legality of Government decisions, not the merits of a decision which are properly empowered to the Executive, who, having been lawfully voted in by Singaporeans at each General Election, make decisions by virtue of their electoral mandate. To that end, a policy question or decision of the government of the day can only be overturned by the Courts on grounds of irrationality, illegality or impropriety, thresholds which are exceedingly high to begin with. However, the law covering judicial review has not stood still even if Singapore law does not recognise some of the newer heads and principles that define judicial review in the United Kingdom (UK), such as the proportionality principle, ostensibly because some of these new approaches risk substituting the Executive's decision for the Judiciary's, a concern which, in light of our separation of powers schema, is a legitimate one. But even so, the Chief Justice, in his speech to the American Law Institute which I referred to earlier, found it appropriate to share the Singapore experience with regard to a new head of judicial review recognised under Singapore law – that of substantive legitimate expectation – which concerns Government action that is contrary to a promise or an expectation that it has created or encouraged. For the man on the street and the average Singaporean, the knowledge of a continual evolution of the law on judicial review is a welcome development.”