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 3 of 36.
“Can the Senior Minister of State share how many infringements of foreigners undertaking platform work were reported by platform workers before July, and separately, how many enforcement actions of this scale reported were carried out prior to July this year? And more generally, does the Senior Minister of State believe that MOM's enforcement capacity may need to be increased in this regard to protect the platform workers in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State for his replies. Sir, my questions are specific to local food delivery riders. Does the Ministry intend to track the number of foreigners who are in the food delivery space, by virtue of MOM allowing platform operators to engage third party entities to fulfil, for example, surge demands? That is one reason why MOM allows some of these companies to operate in this space, as I understand. And if so, is the Ministry intending to track these figures more closely and can it share the number of individuals in this space, compared to Singaporeans and PRs? Secondly, I refer to the recommendations of the Platform Workers Trilateral Group that the Senior Minister of State referred to on 11 September. In one of the recommendations, it advises platform operators to conduct audits of all outsourced workers and to share the work pass documentation of outsourced workers with the Ministry, when the Ministry asks for the information. Does the Minister not believe that this recommendation may be too passive and gives the platform operators too much flexibility, in view of the highly dynamic nature of the platform space? Should platform operators not be required to submit these details more proactively, so that the Government can move swiftly to protect the livelihoods of local workers, should such submissions reveal that platform workers are getting crowded out of the marketplace, as a result of the algorithms and policies of the platform operators? Thirdly, and finally, Mr Speaker, MOM has shared, and as the Senior Minister of State shared, that since July this year, it checked 644 platform workers in more than 30 hotspots and found that only four were working illegally.”
“Just a follow-up question to the Senior Minister of State, with regard to the MediSave limits. I think some years ago, it was suggested by myself, whether the MediSave criteria for certain individuals could be loosened on the basis of how much they have in their MediSave accounts, particularly for seniors who, I am sure Member would appreciate, would visit at the meet-the-people sessions and say, "Look, we have got $40,000, $50,000 in our MediSave accounts and we just need a little bit more assistance", particularly, since these seniors have retired. I am wondering whether the Ministry is prepared to exercise some flexibility in a more purposive way to ensure that some of these seniors can be allowed to use more of their MediSave monies.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the range of replies on this issue. My question pertains to her point in her main answer. I believe Senior Minister of State repeated it in her reply to Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. This pertains to the sublet data. The Senior Minister of State said that HDB will continue to monitor this area. Can I suggest to the Senior Minister of State that publication of this information would give, short of being a canary in the coal mine, a good indication of what is the situation involving some of the cost pressures that affect Singaporeans on the ground? So, rather than just monitor it, perhaps HDB should take a further step forward in line with what she said about IRAS data, for example, and compile it for the general public.”
“So, I would suggest that as much as there is scope for alternatives from the opposition, there is scope for the PAP also to play a part in building a more united Singapore with the opposition in mind.”
“So, my clarification really has been already shared in terms of the Minister's view of whether there was a deliberate decision made to contest fewer seats. Like I said, we are not clairvoyant, we put the best people we can find forward and present what we can in the circumstances, to represent an alternative for Singaporeans. The last clarification that I would like to put forth is with regard to what was shared with the Minister in the podcast, where I think the words were "why can't everyone work together?" The Minister used a very interesting analogy, which I probably would not. "Jaw-jaw and war-war" if I remember, was used by Churchill in a very aggressive way. I would say the question that we face as a society now is a little simpler. We are at a very interesting juncture, an important transition in our history as a country. Are we prepared to accept, is the PAP government prepared to accept for example, an opposition MP who has the mandate from the public welcoming new citizens into Singapore? Is the Government prepared to allow opposition MPs to be present and to welcome these new citizens as part of our society? Because that would reflect a certain maturity that I believe is where Singapore has arrived at, and if I can be so bold, it may well be something that Singaporeans demand of the PAP. So, as much as the PAP wants us to consider alternatives, which I think you are entitled to, I think the PAP should also consider from the WP's perspective, how we can be more united as a people.”
“We had roughly, if I remember correctly, one and a half months from the time the electoral boundaries report was released and Nomination Day – thereabouts. In that time the opposition, specifically the WP, we have got to organise the individuals we have, the members we have, and persuade them to stand for the GE. It is a short period of time, and in that period of time, you also have to deal with the reality of new single member constituencies (SMCs), sometimes new GRCs. So, we are not clairvoyant. Unlike the Government, we do not have the capacity to conduct survey after survey to understand where the population is on certain issues. So, the realities are quite different. But in spite of that, I take the Minister's point that Singaporeans want an alternative and since they want an alternative, we do our best to present it to them. We put together some collaterals for members of the public to review, put together a manifesto, where we differ from the PAP, and put together our ideas for the voter to consider. I disagree with the Minister when he says there is no chance of an opposition wipeout. In the circumstances that the PAP is in, and the opposition are in in Singapore, given the tremendous resources that are available to the PAP to reach out on a day-to-day level in the constituency, through the Peoples Association (PA), for example, it is chalk and cheese.”
“Clarifications for the hon Minister. I must say I never expected a report card of the PAP performance and GE2025, so I will respond as how the Minister delivered his speech in that order as far as I can. The Minister made a point that at the conclusion of the elections, the PAP will work hard for those who did not vote for it as well. I second that position because immediately when the results were announced, when I thanked voters of Aljunied GRC, I made the same point to the voters in Aljunied GRC: you may not have voted the WP – and about 40% of them did not – my commitment to them, as was the commitment I made to them in 2020, was we would serve them equally. Taking that as my preamble, the first point I would like to make is about a point I know the PAP harps on a lot, which is a demand for alternative policies, ideas and so forth. The Minister spoke about mature democracies, he used the example of political systems in the UK, in Germany, real choices. We have to look at both these societies as what they are and how deep the political systems are compared to ours. We have had a one-party dominant system since Independence. These two societies are very different, so it is inevitable that alternatives would be a key function of what each of these parties – be it democratic socialists, christian socialists, labour, conservatives – what they bring to the voter in their societies. Our system is very different. We deal with significant asymmetries of information. I move onto the next point the Minister made. He made it a little bit earlier about the WP in his view, in his opinion, deliberately choosing to contest less than one third of the seats.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is just a clarification on my speech where I should have said that the broad sectoral tariffs would hurt demand for Singaporean products, including semi-conductors, consumer electronics and pharmaceutical goods, which account for 40% of exports to the US. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for correcting my speech and stating that pharmaceutical goods and semi-conductors contribute 7% of our GDP.”
“It is much harder to take on someone your own size or bigger or engage an issue respectfully regardless the counterparty. But we should all choose the more difficult path of empathy and mutual respect, even if we agree to disagree. In Singapore, we must actively fight the tendency to think tribally on a day-to-day basis. As we negotiate the way forward, let us remember to treat each other as equals. We must persevere and work on this as a responsibility of each generation and leave a better Singapore behind for the next generation. This is even as we hold dear and celebrate our individual mother tongues, traditions, religions and cultures. We do this in an English-speaking environment, one that goes a long way to create an accessible and welcoming global city for trade and investment, and an accessible and expansive public space for all Singaporeans. If we succeed in building on this foundation, we will not just shine but survive and thrive well beyond SG60. To conclude, Sir, Singaporeans should be proud of our diversity, including our political diversity, and yet, be united as one people. The WP will continue to play its part. On behalf of all the WP MPs, I wish the Government and all civil servants well in this term of Parliament. We look forward to serving as the loyal opposition for all Singaporeans and working for Singapore.”
“Increasingly, however, there is a sense that being a member of a racial and religious group, on the one hand, and our identity as Singaporeans are both equally important. For some, like myself and those of my generation, being Singaporean and a part of the country and something larger, edges in importance compared to one's cultural rootedness and sense of loyalty to our individual communities. For some younger people, the Singapore identity can be said to have even transcended race. The former Chief of Government Communications was recently quoted in a podcast as saying that his younger colleagues did not make much of the fact that the squadron commander who led the flypast at this year's National Day Parade was Malay. I would suggest that this shows that, for a younger generation of Singaporeans, at least some Singaporeans, a democratic society based on justice and equality ought not to be declared just in words but must be manifested in deeds. It may well be that the aspiration of the pledge has morphed, at least for some, into an expectation. We should acknowledge and even celebrate such expectations as the ultimate reflection of a more united people than ever before. It portends a bright future for Singapore. At the same time, we must be aware that our multiracial reality can be a soft underbelly that malicious actors may exploit to divide us. Hybrid conflicts are already a reality and we can see how misinformation and disinformation, especially online, have been employed by some to fuel narratives that divide communities. In speech, be it online or offline, it is easy to bully and intimidate others with rank, popularity and labels, and by punching down at those who may not have the full facts or see the world differently.”
“However, what ranked at the top were national identity, and shared values and social support. The issues encompassed under national identity and shared values included protecting our vulnerable, support for volunteerism and how we might build a more compassionate and cohesive society. So, it is clear that the idea of "we" is important to Singaporeans. But I would assert that it certainly does not mean suppressing or minifying the importance and central role of the individual and his or her place in Singapore. I would instead argue that "we" and "me" are perspectives that exist on a continuum. Both "we" and "me" matter to Singaporeans. A binary treatment is limiting, while an over-emphasis on one is not consistent with our lived experiences. We should aim for excellence as individuals and venture forth with confidence as individuals and be respected by society as individuals, regardless of race, language, religion and backgrounds. At the same time, an awareness of "we" beyond our comfort zones opens opportunities for us not just to be better, but to be the best versions of ourselves. A sense of personal fulfilment and purpose are more likely to be achieved when we contribute to something larger than ourselves and aim beyond self-enrichment and personal outcomes. Perhaps the most important point to be made here is that Singaporeans are well and truly in the driver's seat of shaping the Singapore they wish to see. While Singaporeans may struggle today to list the five shared values of 1991, as naturally as they say the pledge or national anthem, the importance of living harmoniously in a multiracial and multi-religious society is not lost on many.”
“Is it necessary for Government to try to push yet another load of sanctimony down our throats?" The public reaction and the qualified cynicism aside, the vision of the White Paper itself was not objectionable. Despite references to Singapore as an Asian society, the White Paper acknowledged that not everything Asian was good and not everything Western was bad. The Senior Minister of State, Dr Tay Eng Soon, sought to clarify that the Government neither wanted, and I quote, "blind conformity and compliance in the name of nation or of consensus", which he alluded to as a disease that, I quote, is "not unknown in the East and that tyranny of the majority may be even worse than individualism". He argued that the shared values must never be an excuse to stamp out individual ideas and aspirations that can lead to new achievements. His view was that we must always encourage individual excellence. Are the shared values important today? I believe there is a wisdom to them, because they foment and advance a unifying ethos. And there is evidence that many of us care deeply about what it means to be Singaporean. In June 2020, the Government published some information on the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations. That was a conversation series on Singapore's COVID-19 experience and Singaporeans' aspirations for a more resilient post-COVID-19 society. At that time, I filed a Parliamentary Question seeking details about the feedback given by about 17,000 Singaporeans from those conversations. In our political system, where it is sometimes assumed that the proverbial bread-and-butter issues would dominate, one might have thought that the topics of jobs and the economy and separately, digitalisation and technology would rank highest among the topics discussed.”
“Singapore has wrestled with the ambit of such communitarian concepts in the past, but one can understand the significance of reiterating this call in light of present times. In the late 1980s, the Government introduced what was originally referred to as a "national ideology", with the purpose of gradually developing a national identity. This led to the Government white paper on shared values, listing five propositions of what these shared values ought to be. The White Paper on Shared Values was subject to intense debate over two days in this House. Former Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi argued that two values, first, "Nation before community and society above self” and second, "Regard and community support for the individual", slanted too heavily towards society and community, with not enough premium placed on the individual. He said, and I quote, "People are afraid that these values would lead to a stifling of the individual. While individualism, per se, is not a good value to promote, over-emphasis on the community could lead to a stifling of innovation and creativity and hence reduce our competitiveness. The line between the two has to be carefully drawn." Another PAP MP, Dr Ong Chit Chung, shared that the most problematic of all values appeared to be "Consensus instead of Contention", as there was a fear or suspicion that the Government would use this call for consensus to browbeat critics, stifle creativity and muzzle opponents. Yet another PAP MP asserted that his conversations with students, grassroots leaders and business colleagues gave him, and I quote, "the distinct impression that many people scoff at the idea of a paper on Shared Values. Most of these things are obvious, they say.”
“If our fellow Singaporean workers and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) wish to suggest matters for us to raise in this House, please contact us. We welcome inputs which are backed by evidence. We also welcome organisations, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and corporates to engage with us with a view towards better policies for our economy and our people. We believe that the prospect of the opposition raising issues in Parliament has a strong nudging effect in getting the issues recognised and addressed by the Government. We thank all parties for their good faith and engagement, most recently over the issues faced by platform workers. On this, I have filed a Parliamentary Question to delve more deeply into this issue. All Singaporeans are collectively interested in the betterment of our people. Engagement with the opposition and the WP, in particular, reflects a society that treasures, supports and makes effective use of a balanced political system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all voters who supported the WP at the last General Elections (GE), regardless of constituency. A Singapore that understands that it is both government MPs and opposition MPs who contribute to make Singapore worth fighting for, puts Singapore on a stronger footing for the challenges to come. Mr Speaker, a united society is, however, ultimately rooted in justice and fairness. The individual must feel a sense of belonging to Singapore and an affinity to the community around him or her. This brings me to the President's call to put "we" before "me". This is a theme that continues from the Prime Minister's National Day Rally. It is a simple idea, but a timeless one too.”
“Every question we ask is one that needs asking, especially since the opposition does not receive any special Government briefings, unlike the People's Action Party (PAP) MPs; and neither are there Parliamentary Select Committees to scrutinise the work of the various Ministries when Parliament is not in session. For example, over the last three months, as we heard during Parliamentary Question Time today, there has been a spade of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdowns from July. To date, there have been, at last count, 15 disruptions, some more significant than others. Like anything mechanical, breakdowns do occur and this in and of itself is not the issue. However, many Singaporeans find this quick succession of breakdowns to be highly unusual, particularly after significant taxpayer resources have been expended to raise rail reliability over the last decade. This will have to be scrutinised in Parliament, including the findings and recommendations of the recently established task force under the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) purview. Some Singaporeans think that when we ask questions, we are trying to embarrass the Government. The WP does not see it that way. Checking the Government is a function of system design. This is something our early leaders understood and is an essential feature of the Westminster system we adopted from the British. To borrow an old technological phrase, questioning the Government in Parliament is a feature, not a bug. Embracing this feature will be an important priority for the WP in this term of Parliament. Where alternative proposals and improvements to existing policies need to be raised, we will raise them accordingly.”
“We must try to preserve as much of the different strands of our cultural tapestry in our national interest instead of resigning ourselves to the inevitability of change. Just as there is value in learning new things, there is value in remembering the past and the wisdom it endows. At this critical junction in our nation's journey, how does the WP define its Parliamentary role? Five years ago, at the Opening of Parliament then, I said that the WP will chart an independent path and fulfil its duty as a loyal opposition. Our loyalty is the people and to the nation and, this term, fidelity to the three key functions of Parliament: to make laws, to check on the Government and to scrutinise the state's finances, will come into distinct focus. On the back of the Opening of Parliament in our first Sitting today, the WP's Members of Parliament (MPs), in line with our critical and inquisitorial rule to hold the Government accountable, have asked topical Parliamentary Questions covering housing and specifically, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS), jobs, education and specifically, bullying in schools, employment, foreign affairs and transport – to name a few. With so much happening domestically and internationally, the opposition will primarily focus on the function that Parliament demands of us, checking the Government's policies and actions. Mr Speaker, I wish to assure you that the WP will not file Parliamentary Questions to rack up numbers.”
“The current strategic environment is yet another reminder of how critical the Singapore Armed Forces, the Home Team agencies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are. It also reinforces the importance of National Service. The security that our people in uniform provide is an important strength of Singapore. I repeat this call today in light of the President's address. Domestically, SG60 comes at a unique inflection point for us. In the next few years, one in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 and labour force participation is not likely to rise. This is part of a long-anticipated transition. In fact, the first Ministerial Committee on Ageing was set up decades ago. However, living through a transition and being on the cusp of it hit differently. The job front is unpredictable, technology is rendering jobs obsolete quicker than ever before, middle-aged workers who change jobs report being unable to command the same salaries and anecdotally, young people are finding it tougher to secure good jobs. In addition, more employers prefer to offer short-term contract jobs rather than permanent positions. Cost of living continues to dominate as business profit margins get squeezed, particularly for smaller businesses that face steep rental hikes. Even our cultural capital is being hollowed out and in transition to something unfamiliar. From the slow demise of traditional foods to the closing down of cinemas and the downsizing of bookstores, all these contribute to a sense of loss that weighs heavily on many Singaporeans. These emotions are not unexpected, because Singaporeans do not want to become a people who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.”
“China demonstrated that it is ready to take its place as a leading power in the world. China, a hugely successful economic power, is fast becoming a military juggernaut. It can no longer bide its time nor hide its strength. To many, this must mean a diminution of US influence in the Asia Pacific. But China appears to have considered that it need not behave like a hegemon and displace Pax Americana. China seems intent on deepening friendships and collaboration, thereby representing itself as a force for stability and cooperation even as it stands up to America whenever it deems necessary. As for the US, its current administration is recalibrating the norms and values that traditionally underpinned its pre-eminent position in the Asia Pacific and beyond. However, the US still retains significant goodwill from many Asia Pacific countries. Its historical actions at the cost of American blood arrested the advance of Communism in the region. It provided an effective security umbrella that allowed Southeast Asian nations, including Singapore, to grow and prosper. There may well be enough space for the US and China to coexist in the region even as flashpoints, such as Taiwan, and possible nuclear weapons proliferation in East Asia remain known unknowns. What is clear is that defence spending is rising all around. We must brace for turbulence, even as we hope that the turbulence remains only that, while we look to secure our future in a new strategic environment. Sir, I ended my Budget speeches in 2024 and 2025 with calls to strengthen our national unity – a multiracial national unity in an uncertain world. A strong SAF, Home Team and a first-rate diplomatic corps give us the agency to think for ourselves and our own national interests.”
“Sir, I thank the President for his address. While the Workers' Party (WP) is in opposition, we call on Singaporeans to heed the call to build a better Singapore for ourselves and our future generations. Today, I will highlight what the WP sees as the international and domestic pressures facing us. After that, I will focus on the President's call for a "we first" society, a term that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also used at his National Day Rally last month. First, the international situation. I entered politics in 2011. I remember at the time, a newly-retired Minister shed tears at a press conference over what "globalisation had done to Singaporean workers." This year, US President Donald Trump has challenged globalisation more directly than ever before. His Liberation Day tariffs in April put the brakes on several decades of an economic era that Singapore had ridden successfully, albeit not without its discontents for some Singaporeans. For the foreseeable future, nearshoring, friendshoring and protectionism are the order of the day. We enter an uncertain and unpredictable post-SG60 world. Of great concern to us is what sectoral tariffs could be imposed on Singapore, especially for two industries that, together, contribute 40% of our GDP – pharmaceuticals and semi-conductors. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.] To use the parlance of the late US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the imposition of additional tariffs on Singapore exports to the US are more of a known unknown rather than an unknown unknown. In the Asia Pacific, we are in the throes of a geostrategic transition. Recently, China showcased both its ambition as well as its alliances at a spectacular military parade commemorating 80 years since the end of World War II.”
“Also, if you look at the profile of the different individuals who have been so called radicalised and are at the early stage or even at the advance stage of radicalisation, there are various factors that account for them. To pin down to just our policy stance will not be accurate. I am happy that the Leader of the Opposition has clarified his position.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not suggesting that. My query to the Senior Minister of State pertains to the threat landscape and the environment. And the question is not something new. In 2013, I shared with this House that there is a concern if Singapore's position may have an impact on the way people think about this particular issue, if we are seen as too close to the Israeli position. Is there any evidence that MHA has that the close relationship contributes to a heightened environment of radicalisation faced by Singapore? I think that is the point. Because we have had episodes in the past, and the MHA had announced it, where certain individuals are held under the Internal Security Act and they cite this issue as one reason for their thoughts and actions insofar as planning violence in Singapore. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for clarifying. What is key is that the security agencies will look at all the different areas. Certain things may have an effect or perceived effect. Nevertheless, in Singapore, I am sure you are familiar about how we build our nation and what we do, we understand there are various things that affect how a person thinks; how that will evoke emotion. What we do is we work with community partners and agencies, and if you read what the religious rehabilitation groups are doing, they not only look at the Malay/Muslim issues, but they look at how they can play a part in building a peaceful, harmonious and progressive Singapore. So, at the end of the day, looking at Singapore's interests, linking back to what Minister Vivian has said earlier, I want to reiterate that the issue of radicalisation comes from various factors.”
“Does the Government see a direct link to threats to Singapore, given close Singapore-Israel ties in the immediate to medium term? Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.”
“Should recognising the state of Palestine not be in our national interest and more weight placed instead on Israel's flagrant violations of international law and commitment to continue doing the same? Would not doing so send a clear message that as a matter of clear principle, Singapore's foreign policy stands for the foundational role of the UN in maintaining peace and security, and does not stand for breaches of international law, particularly in view of the Government's public comments on UNSC Resolution 242, and separately, UNSC Resolution 2334? The third question pertains to the Government and the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF's) extensive military-to-military links with the state of Israel, the most recent example of this being the joint development of a surface-to-surface missile Blue Spear by Singapore Technologies and the Israel Aerospace Industries. Has the Government, and this was a part of my PQ, reviewed whether close ties with Israel, particularly in the military domain going forward, continue to be in our national interest? And has the Government assessed whether Singapore is relatively over-invested in the Israel-Singapore relationship, and is it not time to diversify in our national interest? The Minister spoke of sanctions and announced that more details would be announced later. Do the sanctions that the Minister is foreseeing have any impact on current military-to-military relationship with Israel? My last question is to the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs. What is the current threat assessment to Singapore and Singapore interests arising from a perception of close Singapore-Israel ties from radicalised individuals abroad and self-radicalised individuals locally?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Workers' Party's position on the formal recognition of the state of Palestine is clear in our manifesto, the same manifesto we took to voters before the elections. That has not changed. I note the earlier remarks by the Minister, going through what had happened in the past. Thirty-seven years ago, Singapore formally welcomed the proclamation of the state of Palestine and an important trigger for that was the explicit recognition by Yasser Arafat that the PLO would reject terrorism. Similarly, with regard to the New York declaration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) also welcomed the Palestinian Authority's continued rejection of violence and terrorism. With that as a preamble, does the Minister not agree that the prospects of having an effective Palestinian government in place, which is a precondition to Singapore recognising the state of Palestine is not a realistic precondition anymore, given the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that there will not be a Palestinian state, and one can assume that he will work overtime to make sure that does not happen, and that is separate to the signing of an expanded settlement agreement that would bisect the occupied West Bank. Secondly, does the Minister not agree that with many of our major trade and defence partners like France, Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and our Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) neighbours, and the overwhelming majority of the international community of nations recognising the state of Palestine, does our foreign policy position not risk being seen as anachronistic? And in this regard, what specific principles are we upholding by not recognising the state of Palestine forthwith?”
“With transition upon us, Parliament is likely to be a very busy place, with both the opposition and government backbenchers expected to play greater roles in scrutinising Government policy and speaking up for Singaporeans. Sir, the Parliament you preside over will have to ensure that the voices of Singaporeans are heard in this Chamber, so as to serve the country we all call home. Throughout this Parliamentary term, Singaporeans will have concerns and questions about the nation's direction. More conversation, debate, openness and transparency will be the order of the day. Five years ago, during my tribute speech for the former Speaker, I advocated for more Select Committees so the public could be better informed about the choices and trade-offs that shape our policies. In light of the challenges upon us, Select Committees, if organised effectively with a non-partisan purpose, represent a valuable means for Parliament to address, communicate with and assuage Singaporeans over national priorities and concerns. Such public facing Parliamentary committees can play a vital role in forging unity in difficult and challenging times like the transition Singapore will traverse in the years to come. Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I wish you every success in your new role and pledge our fullest support in ensuring that the voices of all Singaporeans are represented in Parliament. On behalf of the Workers' Party, MPs and NCMPs, we wish you a successful term as Speaker of the House. We will play our part and continue to support your efforts to raise the standing of our Parliament and our country, both within and beyond this Chamber. Thank you very much. [Applause.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the opposition MPs, I extend our warmest congratulations to you on your election as Speaker of the House. The Parliament website lists three main functions of Parliament, to make laws, to undertake a critical and inquisitorial role to check on the actions and policies of Government and finally, to scrutinise the state's finances. Sir, this session of Parliament opens amid both significant external uncertainty and pressing domestic concerns. There is a thread consistent to both milieus, domestic and external. It is transition. Yet the word "transition", though seemingly neutral and inert, belies the significant uncertainties and uncharted waters that Singapore faces in the near term. Amidst transition – issues such as job security, youth unemployment and underemployment, opportunities for senior workers, skills upgrading amid an artificial intelligence (AI) age, challenges of doing business in Singapore for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in particular, and high rentals for local businesses, among other social concerns, such as integration and an ageing society – are regular subjects of conversation among Singaporeans outside of this House. A few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of the potential prospect of 5% growth in Singapore, prompting questions from the public about how such growth would be achieved, whether through productivity gains or increases in labour. The question of where growth is going to come from becomes more significant when seen in the context of Singapore's already serious constraints in land, manpower and carbon.”
“Sir, thank you for the opportunity to seek some clarifications from the Minister. Sir, I confirm, as the Minister shared, that there is no change to the Government's position on presumptions. And I believe the Minister of State for Home Affairs in March 2023, in his Second Reading speech, restated the Government's position on presumptions. I did not hear anything new from the Minister, so I am trying to understand the reason why the Minister has to restate the position, because it is the existing position. I looked at some earlier Parliamentary Questions that were filed. In 2019, after the Court of Appeals judgment in Adili, there was a statement from the Government stating that it would be studying the observations made by the Court of Appeal and would set out its position in due course and as to whether any legislative amendments are necessary. This was with respect to the presumptions and specifically on the position of the Court of Appeal on wilful blindness. So, can I just confirm that the Government actually is continuing to review that particular judgment from the Court of Appeal? Because that is the closest I think we have come to the Government saying that it is reviewing something on presumptions, but I am not sure whether that is the case that the Minister is referring to.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his Ministerial Statement, which expands on the video message that he shared with Singaporeans on 4 April 2025. I refer to that video message and the Prime Minister's Statement today that referenced vigilance and building up capabilities. Even though I accept it is early days and there are a lot of moving parts at the moment and how world economies are assessing their own positions and pivoting to a new reality, there have been references to de-risking and decoupling that have been in the global economy lexicon for some years now. I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could share, when he refers to building up capabilities, is the Prime Minister looking at improving local consumption, notwithstanding our small market, and measures to boost productivity? Earlier on during Parliamentary Questions, the Senior Minister of State for Manpower suggested that companies should reduce their reliance on cheap foreign labour, do we foresee major structural changes in the way the Singapore economy is shaped, to deal with the new future that we see, which, in the Prime Minister's words, is far more unpredictable than before? Secondly, the Prime Minister spoke of a task force. I think similar announcements have been made by the Malaysian government. I would like to confirm whether there is going to be a period of time before the Prime Minister makes more announcements, with regard to exchanges that he has had with stakeholders in both the private and public sectors so that Singaporeans can better understand the way forward, and which industries will be more affected.”
“Sir, following up on my cut and the Minister's response to my cut, I mean, if you compare the two titles that I referred to in my cut, CNA and Straits Times, both serious mainstream English publications, it would be inevitable that members of the public would have a view about which they would opine is of a higher quality. I do not think there is anything untoward about that. The question that was the nub of the issue I was seeking to raise was on KPIs, which is the title of the cut. If I heard the Minister correctly, Minister said that reach is an important KPI, but not the only KPI. And I stand corrected if I am wrong, Minister then said that trust and satisfaction levels are KPIs that the Ministry was looking to introduce. So, can I confirm that those KPIs actually are not KPIs that are considered currently?”
“And if so, how does it make the decision to deploy taxpayer dollars to those media outlets that rank less satisfactorily in the public eye? How often are such surveys undertaken? What other objective KPIs does the Ministry keep track of to ensure that the taxpayer dollars for SPH Media is purposefully spent?”
“Sir, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) shared at last year's Budget that $260 million was earmarked for SPH Media Trust for the FY2024/2025. We were also told that the Ministry had established key performance indicators (KPIs) for SPH Media Trust. The Minister said that while SPH Media Trust had maintained its overall reach and achieved a modest increase in its digital subscriptions, it did not meet all its KPIs on digital reach, youth reach, vernacular reach and average time spent on its websites and apps. Accordingly, it did not receive the full funding that was committed. For FY2024/2025, what objective criteria did the Ministry set for these KPIs that were not reached? More specifically, were these KPIs lowered or were they increased? Has SPH Media Trust fared any better since last year? Can the Minister share data on print and digital subscriptions to its English and vernacular titles, respectively, over the last two years? I had also asked the Minister about the way the Ministry presented its subsidies to SPH Media Trust in the Budget book, and whether there was a simpler way for the public to track and understand the KPIs the Ministry had set for SPH Media Trust. This point is important given the size of the subsidy granted to the mainstream media. After all, as the Minister would agree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would like to share anecdotal feedback from those who follow local English news closely, for example, that CNA's reporting and commentary on local issues, in terms of depth, has overtaken that of The Straits Times. Does the Ministry conduct local surveys to gauge the public response to our local media outlets?”
“Sir, maybe then, I can take this offline with the Minister. Then, we can move on.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister of State may have misunderstood my first supplementary question. It was not on polytechnic graduates per se. It was about the longer-term structural trends with regard to university graduates. I referenced polytechnic graduates because the reply that Minister gave earlier in February also include the reference, not just to polytechnic graduates, but ITE graduates, university graduates as well. So, the first supplementary question was essentially about the longer-term secular trend given the numbers coming out of the Graduate Employment Survey since 2022. Does the Minister of State or the Ministry see it as a longer-term structure, secular trend in a particular direction?”
“So, my point is, can we foresee at the MOE level for there to be a review of course curriculum, course structure to develop these adjacent competencies in a more structured and directed manner? So, it is not a question of doing one extra module or two extra modules in an adjacent subject, for example, like human resources (HR), but more directed courses to ensure that in the event a graduate cannot find a place in his primary course of study, there is something parallel, which potentially could provide good job opportunities for that graduate.”
“Obliged, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister of State for the reply. My two clarifications will really be a follow-on from the question I asked last month on the Polytechnic Graduate Employment Survey 2024, which also showed fewer graduates securing full-time permanent jobs. The Minister for Education gave an extensive reply in response to that PQ. My first clarification for the Minister of State is whether the Minister of State sees the latest Graduate Employment Survey as reflective of a perhaps longer-term secular trend of graduates at the university level finding it harder to get jobs? With reference to the Graduate Employment Survey, if we look at course clusters such as Art, Design and Media, post-COVID, 2022 to 2024, Art, Design and Media, a 11.3% drop to 60.9%; Engineering was 91.6%, dropped to 79.3%, and that is a 12.3% drop; and so forth. So, the concern is, does the Ministry assess this potentially to be a secular issue, going forward? The second point is with regard to the reply that the Minister for Education gave vis-a-vis the earlier PQ that I filed in February on polytechnic graduates. The Minister also made reference to university graduates and the things that are required to ensure that they get not just a good salary and a fulfilling job at the point of entry post graduation, but also through their careers. And the two points he made was first closer industry university collaboration. I think the Minister of State referred to that. But the second point he made also was about developing adjacent competencies for these graduates, and this includes those university graduates.”
“So, it would appear that the new Bizfile portal already was going to continue what the old Bizfile portal was providing to the public: masked NRIC numbers in the People Search function. So, it would be helpful to understand what clarifications were sought, because at this point it seems like MDDI confirming to ACRA that it can continue to display masked NRIC numbers in the People Search function "for now", but that it should be prepared for eventual unmasking at a point when MDDI was going to issue future guidance. So, at that point, 30 July, it would seem everybody is ad idem on the way forward. So, this I think is the point which begs further questions – what went wrong after this point? Once again, there is emphasis in the report on paragraph 7 of the CM and the confusion, and Senior Minister has explained how new business processes were misunderstood by ACRA. But paragraph 9, as I alluded to, makes it quite clear that ACRA, in this case, was supposed to provide MDDI a list of their existing correspondence with members of the public using masked NRIC numbers. So, that really is the subject of my question: when was that done? The final question is, at what point did the senior leadership of ACRA fully reviewed the new Bizfile portal before it went public? Was there any independent assessment done about the full unmasking of NRIC numbers on the People Search function? I ask this question because in the conclusion of the report, it states that ACRA did not first assess the proper balance between sharing full NRIC numbers and ensuring that they were not too readily accessible. So, did they assess this balance at any point in time?”
“Mr Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister. The questions are follow-ups from my Parliamentary Question filed for the 7 January 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to "Explanation and Impact of Policy Change on Full NRIC Number and Further Measures on Public Education and Protection of Sensitive Identifiable Information", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Oral Answers to Questions section.] The first pertains to the CM of 5 July and this is found at pages 20 and 21 of the report. It is not clear from the report whether ACRA provided a list of all existing communication and correspondence with members of the public that used masked NRIC numbers. Did ACRA send this list to MDDI? When did they send it and what was MDDI's response? This is vis-à-vis paragraph 9 of CM. The second question is on ACRA's conversation with MDDI. It started in February 2024 and it concerned the People Profile function, not the People Search function. At page 15 of the report, it states that from 5 July – that was the point in time when the CM was distributed – to early August, ACRA had, "sought clarification from MDDI on how the July CM should apply to ACRA's new Bizfile portal," which was the one launched on 9 December. It begs the question: what clarification was sought by ACRA and what was MDDI's response? In the report, I note at paragraph 48, it states that on 30 July, an ACRA officer, who had not gone for the MDDI briefing and did not see the FAQ document that MDDI had emailed; and this officer asked MDDI if ACRA needed to cater system enhancements to remove the masking of NRIC numbers in the People Search function.”
“With Aljunied Hougang Town Council having received little to no CIPC funding from 2011 to 2021, one can understand why this source of funding is important for Town Councils. I appreciate the funding that has been extended after 2021 and I note Senior Minister of State's reply in terms of how MND will look at some of the projects that have been put up. For Aljunied Hougang Town Council, we will put up projects subsequently with a focus on recreational upgrades and upgrades for seniors in our town, because it is a more mature town. So, just to record my appreciation for that reply.”
“Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the MND office holders for responding to the cuts. Just a few clarifications from me. First on Minister Lee's speech, the Minister spoke about a number of new initiatives, new scanning technology for flats which have a persistent facade-related leakages. Minister identified 70 flats. Just some clarity on that pilot, whether it covers a specific cluster or Town Council, or is it more general to some of the more problematic flats, and whether other Town Councils can request for the extension of this technology to persistent facade-related problems for flats in their Town Councils. I thank the Minister for responding to the cut on retirement adequacy. The Minister referred to the Silver Housing slew of policies that MND has and how those are going to be improved. I would just seek clarification on the Community Care Apartments. There was an announcement, I believe sometime in late 2023, about the total number of Community Care Apartments that were being earmarked for construction until the end of the decade. Is there a change to that number? I think the number was 30. Is there is any change to that? My final clarification for the Minister pertains to a point I made in my Budget debate speech with regard to the number of ultimate dwelling units that were reflected in the HDB Annual Report in the year 2019-2020 and how that number increased in the latest HDB Annual Report. What was the basis of that increase? If the Minister does not have the reply, I can always file a Parliamentary Question for that clarification. He can just let me know whether I need to do that. Finally, to Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, thank you for that extensive reply on CIPC. I think it is well appreciated.”
“In 2021, MND correctly changed the process for making CIPC nominations and Town Councils, in addition to CCCs, were allowed to propose projects for funding. Opposition Town Councils need not get the buy-in and support from CCCs that work exclusively with PA grassroots advisors anymore. In view of the change of approach since 2021, may I ask the Minister to answer these questions relating to all new CIPC proposals from 2021 to date? Could the Minister please name the top five Town Councils in terms of CIPC funds granted and the quantum extended to each Town Council respectively? Please also name the bottom five Town Councils and the quantum of CIPC funds granted to each respectively over the same period. Please include projects regardless of whether they came from the Town Councils directly or through the CCCs. How does the Committee decide which project proposals are approved and which are rejected by the CIPC committee? And finally, in this regard, would MND meet with elected opposition Town Councillors to discuss projects which it rejects? Dedicated EASE-like Scheme for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)”
“Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding is an important source of Government grants for improving HDB estates. CIPC projects cover basic infrastructure, recreational facilities and communal amenities, including playgrounds, fitness areas and linkways. For example, on multiple occasions in this House, I have asked about the quantum of CIPC funds given to each Town Council, so there is a clear quantifiable data point to indicate how much taxpayer money has been given to each Town Council. In 2017, the then Minister for National Development said that MND did not prescribe any standardised way for Town Councils to present the CIPC quantum. When I asked the same substantive question last year, the Minister replied that the amount of CIPC funding disbursed to each Town Council each year is based on the works completed by the Town Council as the implementing agent. The disbursement is reported in the respective Town Council's annual financial statements. The annual disbursement to the Town Councils includes CIPC projects approved over multiple years, as projects may take years and exclude CIPC projects implemented by the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs). Even though the disbursement is reported in the annual financial statements of all Town Councils, without a standardised way of presenting the information, tracking the absolute amount of CIPC funding channelled to each Town Council can be challenging and inaccurate, particularly if one compares the amounts disbursed by MND to PAP and opposition Town Councils. Prior to 2021, opposition Town Councils had to seek the agreement of the various Citizens' Consultative Committees under the charge of unelected People's Association (PA) advisors, including losing PAP candidates.”
“For the immediate term and given how complex HDB housing policy has become, any changes and alternatives with respect to HDB policy will have to be explored at the margins. To this end, I would suggest there could be some policy space to better protect first-time buyers of older resale HDB properties from the reality of the 99-year lease decay countdown clock.”
“But this policy can have the perverse effect of sellers raising prices even more and new buyers chasing ever-increasing resale prices. We need to see how we can strengthen the retirement adequacy of resale flat buyers who buy flats with a significant chunk of their leases already expended. A renewed focus on building the retirement incomes of first-time resale flat buyers would ensure that resale flat buyers consider their resale flat purchases carefully, with an eye on the 99-year lease countdown clock and their retirement planning considerations in mind. For resale flat buyers who qualify for resale flat grants, would the Government consider giving resale flat buyers the option of putting aside a portion of the CPF resale grant, to top up their CPF Special Accounts, instead of allowing the entire grant to be deployed for the resale flat purchase? To illustrate, a first-time couple aged 35 years of age, deploys $25,000 of the grant directly into their CPF accounts and assuming each party tops up just $200 a month to their accounts from the ages of 35 to 55, at a 4% interest in the Special Account, each of them would see this grant compound to slightly more than $125,000 by the time they reach 55 years of age. The HDB Home Ownership Scheme, which allowed the use of CPF money in 1968 and the sale of HDB flats on the resale market in 1971, have become an increasingly significant factor when it comes to retirement adequacy. The objective of home ownership in and of itself is not the problem. However, with the 99-year lease decay looming over Singaporeans and far more foreseeable than it was from the vantage point of 1968 and 1971, the fundamental objective of CPF for retirement needs must come back into focus.”
“HDB resale flat buyers are offered more grants than buyers of BTO flats, as BTOs are already subsidised by the HDB, whereas resale flats are priced at the market rate. As Singaporeans know, resale flat prices can be very high. Even flats with 60 years left on their lease can cost well in excess of half a million dollars. A significant number of resale flats are purchased by first-time married couples who must devote a significant chunk of their Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds on servicing mortgage payments. By the time retirement comes along, they may have to downgrade to unlock the equity in their HDB flat, equity which is likely to have depleted significantly because of the reality of the 99-year lease decay countdown. With the days of iron rice bowls, lifetime job security and pensions no longer the norm for Singaporeans, retirement adequacy for the current and later generations is a more significant issue today. Another reality is that current generations of Singaporeans will not ride the same property escalator as their parents did, from which many ascended from public housing to private homes and, in some cases, to buying a landed property within a single lifetime. More pertinently, when compared to their peers who purchase a new BTO flat to live in, those who buy an older resale flat, say, with 60 years left on the lease, all other things being equal, will have less money to buy a smaller flat when they retire and, by extension, will have less for their CPF life payouts as well. The policy of increasing CPF grants for resale flat buyers was last revisited in August last year and it seeks to make HDB resale flats more affordable for resale flat buyers.”
“More than 10 years ago, in a 2013 publication, a National Heritage Board (NHB) Community Heritage e-resource on wet markets identified the numerous challenges facing wet market stall-owners, such as competition from hypermarkets, changing consumer profiles, unwillingness of children to take over stalls, significant physical labour and long hours. Over the last few years, wet market stall-owners have cited very high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices for commercial vehicles as another reason to fold up their businesses. Despite challenges, some wet markets remain relatively more popular, with Tekka Market and Geylang Serai being good examples. What is the Ministry's long-term plan for wet markets in smaller and localised neighbourhoods which do not command the footfall they once did, and for wet markets where stalls have seen poor take-ups over the last few years? Upgrade of Hawker Centres”
“And if there are indeed excessive, exaggerated fake reports then the pilot can be reviewed accordingly. And if the pilot is successful, then perhaps it can be expanded more generally to the most vulnerable of our road users and reporting unsafe road behaviour against them, specifically elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. For the second supplementary question, as I shared in my answer, we have the current levers which we feel are more effective in managing speeding and some of these aspects of enforcement actions that we are undertaking. So, we still feel that having speed cameras and also, our different aspects of reporting that are in place will help us to manage the traffic situation better today. And with regard to the first supplementary question, we feel that the current setting is sufficiently available to the community in making or contributing to this effort of reporting. The majority of people who report do not ask what happened or the actions being undertaken. So, we feel that this is a good balance, whereby what is key is about how we can play a part and getting the community to work with us to see how we can report such offences. I want to assure the Member that the TP will do their best to look through all the evidence. Today, when we have certain things happening, we not only get evidence from one road user, we sometimes get thousands of reports and the eyeballs there. In some instances, where many people are able to see, they use our system to share the incidents. So, essentially, we will continue to monitor the situation and how we can better navigate this to enhance community participation.”
“I thank the Minister of State for responding to my cut. I have two clarifications. The first pertains to the online feedback portal on road users that the Minister of State referred to. It states on the site, and I quote: "that it receives a large number of reports" and therefore, the Traffic Police will not provide any updates on its findings, unless the feedback provider is required to testify in Court. 12.45 pm I would like to enquire what is the policy reason behind this? Just informing a feedback provider that the feedback has been received, enforcement action has been taken, or there is insufficient evidence, does not seem to be too much of a requirement on the end of the Ministry. Because that feedback provider has taken the effort to download the video from ostensibly their recording devices and submitted that information to the authorities through the portal. Perhaps there is a policy reason which we are unware of or the public is unaware of as to why the TP cannot provide an update to the feedback provider. I think it would be helpful and would encourage greater civic consciousness. The second point pertains to the blinking amber light suggestion that I give. I thank the Minister of State for sharing the history behind the introduction of that light and the reason why it was eventually removed. In view of the Ministry of Transport's position last week in Parliament that banning the transport of foreign workers by lorries is not practical, in my view, there should be a stronger and renewed focus on ensuring their safe transport instead. And in that context, I hope MHA can reconsider my proposal more narrowly to incentivise the reporting of the unsafe transport of foreign workers as a pilot.”
“To this end, can the Minister tell us whether the Traffic Police would consider reintroducing the blinking amber light that used to be commonly seen on the top of cabins of commercial vehicles, so that road users can be alerted to commercial vehicles carrying goods and foreign workers more easily? Driving Licence Renewals for Seniors”
“According to the Singapore Police Forces Annual Road Traffic Situation 2023 and 2024 reports, the number of traffic accidents is on an upward trend. Who are the most vulnerable on our roads? They are motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians. While motorcycles make up about 14.7% of the vehicle population, motorcyclists or pillion riders were involved in 55.2% of traffic accidents and close to 60% of all traffic fatalities. The elderly made up close to 12.5% of the population, but were involved in 44% of all pedestrian fatalities. Separately, accidents involving foreign workers on lorries have seen three fatalities a year, from 2020 to 2022. I propose greater public participation with incentives to nudge road users to drive safely. Would the Ministry consider encouraging road users to report to the Traffic Police, with video evidence, unsafe, negligent or rash road behaviour committed against motorcyclists and elderly pedestrians? If summonses are issued to and paid by errant road users, a percentage of the summons amount, after accounting for administrative costs, can be given to the person who first reported the incident to incentivise the reporting of unsafe road practises. Such an approach will significantly supplement Traffic Police enforcement operations, particularly in view of the national manpower challenge. A similar approach can be taken towards drivers who transport foreign workers in lorries. Should they speed or drive in an unsafe manner, road users should be encouraged to report such behaviour and should expect to receive some percentage of the fine amount for their act of civic consciousness. This is for the act of reporting on these episodes.”