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 35 of 36.
“However, putting critical infrastructure in MND's hands would be self-defeating if agencies like HDB are open to political influence in matters concerning local Town Council administration. If such agencies are open to political influence, they would effectively be operating like quasi-Managing Agents, as evidenced by the HDB's decision to lease 26 common properties under the then Aljunied Town Council to the People's Association in the aftermath of the 2011 General Elections, to the exclusion of the incoming Town Council and newly elected MPs. In the AIM context, the larger point is that critical assets, like the Town Council's IT system and its intellectual property, must remain part of the Town Council and cannot be terminated unilaterally. Non-PAP Town Councils must be allowed to effectively manage the town without political interference by HDB or MND, or have its functions compromised by policies that serve a political purpose to the advantage of the ruling party. Mdm Speaker, the findings of the MND report provides a rare opportunity for the Government to look into substantively depoliticising not just Town Councils, but the relationship between TCs and the Government. The MND report at paragraph 59 states that there were some who opined that depoliticising TCs can improve their governance and that MND can "regulate and oversee Town Councils without perception issues." Unfortunately, as I have explained earlier, the historical track record of the PAP is not promising in this regard. Depoliticising Town Councils will not mean anything if political calculations continue to determine how MND or other agencies deal with non-PAP Town Councils.”
“It is for this reason that the remarks of the Permanent Secretary of the MND in his letter of 30 April 2013 to the Prime Minister, which called for a strategic and comprehensive review of Town Councils, ought to be welcomed. Of particular significance is the MND report's recognition of public calls to depoliticise Town Councils, a point that was somewhat reinforced by a Straits Times poll of 7 May 2013 where 41 out of 50 residents called for the same, the main concern for some being the lack of a political level-playing field and its impact on residents. The question of depoliticisation is significant because it raises not just the issue of a review of the Town Councils Act, but the substantive relationship of the Government towards wards which are not run by PAP Town Councils. For the specific purposes of this debate, depoliticisation must mean that companies owned by political parties should not tender for Town Council contracts – a glaring omission from the MND report. In addition to the recommendations called for by the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC Ms Sylvia Lim, the report's call for depoliticisation – if executed as imagined by most Singaporeans – would effectively entail inducting a new brand of politics into Singapore insofar as Government-Town Council relations is concerned, representing a hope and desire that goes far beyond the findings of the MND report, but one that is in line with public expectations. Some members of the public have suggested that certain Town Council functions, like the provision of the TCMS, can be the purview of agencies like HDB and that governance would improve with MND's oversight.”
“The prospects of this reality would explain why the AHTC team worked in the months after May 2011 to stabilise Town Council operations and upscale the former Hougang Town Council's IT management system, instead of allowing the residents of Aljunied GRC to be potentially held at ransom by a one-month termination clause in the hands of fully-owned PAP company. The MND report justified its finding of the absence of any conflict of interest in terms of Town Council members having a pecuniary or direct interest in the AIM transaction, whether the interests of the Town Council's residents were protected or impaired and whether there was any misuse of public funds. However, beyond the contention that the AIM transaction was not in the public interest, if one reflects on the historical context in the aftermath of the passing of the Town Councils Act, a fully-owned PAP company's right to terminate the TCMS was in keeping with the philosophy that has defined the relationship of the PAP Government with Opposition-run Town Councils since 1988, and therein lies the inherent conflict of interest surrounding AIM – a conflict of interest that has been duly recognised by discerning Singaporeans. In the more recent past, the PAP has moved away from denying upgrading to opposition wards, but the political calculations behind this move do not mean that a u-turn can never take place. The historical record shows that the public interest in the non-PAP Town Council context is usually a victim of PAP pressure on voters during parliamentary elections. There is significant opinion outside this House that this is an ethically unacceptable state of affairs.”
“The right of a fully-owned PAP company to terminate a critical piece of the then Aljunied-Hougang Town Council's (AHTC) infrastructure with one month's notice was not in the public interest precisely because even by the PAP's own admission, it would have taken up to two years or even longer to establish a new Town Council Management System (TCMS). The presence of this clause, in the political context of the Town Councils, ought to have raised a conflict of interest red flag because a PAP-owned company and the PAP TCs had defined their rights and obligations by virtue of a contract that ran the real risk of undermining and prejudicing an incoming non-PAP run TC. Many Singaporeans wonder what would happen to a Town Council in the absence of a working and functional TCMS. Beyond managing maintenance records, feedback management amongst other critical day-to-day operational functions, the Town Council would not be able to efficiently manage the collection of S&CC fees from residents. Collection would have been a cumbersome exercise, part-manual, part-electronic, and the Town Council would have been overwhelmed by S&CC collection, leaving little time for other tasks. Until a new TCMS was established, there would have been numerous disputes pertaining to the accurate collection of S&CC fees and, potentially, a whole list of unfulfilled contractual obligations with the Town Council's contractors. While the standing of the elected MP would be compromised, the real losers would be the residents who would be faced with delays with rubbish collection, dysfunctional amenities, and a very unpleasant state of affairs immediately outside their own homes, all unconnected to the competence of the incumbent MPs.”
“Denial of upgrading projects -- such as the then Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme – was a ruthless psychological PAP tactic at the polls that pandered to the selfishness of the individual, at the expense of other higher order human instincts, such as fair play and equality. For all practical purposes, the PAP government of the day could jeopardise a candidate's prospects at the ballot box and punish residents without even having to worry about the legal consequences of doing so, as there were none, forget about any protection under the Town Councils Act. So, in spite of the original intent of the Act, even if an MP was honest and effective, the government of the day retained significant powers to cripple him, as it did in Hougang and Potong Pasir. Beyond the determination of the respective MPs in these wards, the thing that held the MPs in esteem was the wisdom, sense of justice and personal sacrifice of the majority of their voters. It is through these historical lenses that many Singaporeans understood the AIM imbroglio that unfolded at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, after coming to terms with the revelation that the PAP incorporated and owned a private company in 1991 that was operating in the public sector. While the MND Report saw a "fundamental tension" between the objectives of delivering good public service and the political accountability of MPs – in the specific case of AIM, unfortunately, it fell short in exploring the source of this tension. Quite simply, the source of the tension was the political profile of AIM.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Town Councils Act of 1989 was passed with reference to Singapore politics of the 1980s, when non-People's Action Party (PAP) MPs were elected to check the Government, ending the one-party rule of the PAP in Parliament. Whatever the stated intent and objectives of the Act, Government entities could make life difficult for elected non-PAP MPs from carrying out their duties. For example, by refusing to allow the non-PAP MP to use the existing Town Council (TC) office after securing the people's mandate at the polls because governing legislation like the Town Councils Act provides no safeguards against direct or indirect actions by a PAP government that is intent on obstructing non-PAP TCs. The MND findings have cleared Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a fully owned PAP company from any wrongdoing. But, in the minds of many Singaporeans, while the MND Report found nothing legally out of place with the AIM transaction, legal legitimacy under the Town Councils Act does not necessarily represent a commitment to good governance and the continuity of public services in the aftermath of general elections. During the reading of the TC Bill, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explained the politicisation of the TCs as giving MPs increased authority and responsibility as a result of which, voters would be more likely to vote "carefully and sincerely" and choose honest and effective MPs. However, the years that followed saw other means used by the Government to lower the standing of a duly elected MP, even if that individual was able to run a TC competently.”
“And more importantly, work towards greater exposure and public awareness of these rules for the Page: 34 community at large. I would also like to ask the Minister: as the National Cycling Plan is rolled out over seven HDB towns by next year, are there any plans of rolling out this initiative to other constituencies? Cycling as a Mode of Transport”
“Mdm Chairperson, cycling remains a popular and convenient means of transport over short distances for many Singaporeans, and even foreign workers near industrial areas. Its popularity as a sport has also increased markedly over the years. The extension of the National Cycling Plan to seven HDB towns in the very near future is also likely to increase ridership. Unfortunately, the popularity of cycling to run chores for work or leisure has also resulted in a larger number of accidents, brushes and near misses both on our roads and in the housing estates. In fact, a Straits Times report last month observed that the general level of safety awareness has not kept up with cycling initiatives. Would the Ministry consider an inter-agency educational campaign covering cycling etiquette and other personal road safety measures for cyclists on our roads as part of a National Safe Cycling framework? In working towards a review of the safety-related aspects of cycling for work or leisure, there would also be scope for cooperation with other Ministries like MND to address ridership patterns on the common property of Town Councils as well. Even though existing Town Councils' bye-laws technically prohibit cycling in some common areas, these are difficult to enforce in practice, and some cyclists and teenagers, in particular, innocuously float this rule, putting children and older Singaporeans who are not able to react quickly at harm. A National Safe Cycling framework can support Town Council's effort in educating cyclists to dismount from one's bicycle and to push it along under HDB void decks in particular. To this end, would the Ministry consider a legislative review of the Road Traffic Bicycles Rules?”
“It will also be helpful if the Minister could update us on the number of annual cases of leptospirosis and murine typhus infections – both being rat transmitted diseases which were reported in 2008 as between 10 and 30. In addition, as many anti-rodent education efforts centre on the proper disposal of waste, there are likely to be other positive public health spinoffs that can buttress the effort to keep Singapore clean. Page: 17”
“Mdm Chairperson, in 1999, the then Ministry of Environment set up a Rodent Eradication and Control Committee after identifying 11 areas in Singapore, which included HDB estates overrun with rats. In 2004, a Straits Times report noted that about 8,631 rat holes had been identified across the island, where separately noting that the Ministry has spent $280,000 to address the problem that year in five estates, with NEA footing 75% of the bill and Town Councils paying the other 25%. In 2009, a Sunday Times report observed that the rat problem in the Orchard Road shopping belt had worsened. In 2010, NEA found 1,687 areas in Singapore populated by rats – three times more than the 443 that were found in 2009. More recently, in November last year, Ang Mo Kio Hub was also hit by the rat problem. With the increased construction activities all over Singapore, there is a growing perception that the rat problem requires greater attention from the Ministry. The Minister only last month noted that 900 mosquito breeding offences were detected in construction sites in 2012, with 626 being first-time offenders. These suggest that there is scope for greater public scrutiny of construction sites in general, especially those located in or close to HDB housing estates. With larger numbers of people on the island anticipated in the years to come and more food sources inevitably available, there is a concern that the number of rats will be on the rise in future. I would like to request the Ministry to step up its anti-rodent enforcement and education efforts, and to consider raising the profile of these efforts to the level of anti-dengue efforts, so as to work towards a cleaner Singapore going forward.”
“Before Singapore reaches this point, the Government should look towards strategies that can substantively deepen the quality of integration between new citizens and Singaporeans. In my view, NS is the national institution that is uniquely suited to play this role. NSmen”
“While it may be operationally and bureaucratically inefficient to get new citizens to serve full-time NS for two years, it is not in the realm of imagination to conceive of new citizens up to the age of 30, serving a 10-year NS cycle till they are 40 years old, which is the current statutory age limit of service for many Singaporean NSmen. Page: 156 Recently, the SAF has raised some battalions specifically for the purposes of protection of key installation duties, with a specific vocation raised for this – the security trooper. These soldiers, amongst other duties, help patrol key installations. Without undermining the importance of such responsibilities, one can conceive the development of a training programme implemented to train new citizens for NS duties over a 10-year NS training cycle with the first three years set aside to train new citizen soldiers on the rules of engagement and specific vocational training relevant to the protection of key installations. When deployed, these new citizens can be envisaged to patrol jointly with Singaporean NSmen vocationally trained as security troopers who have completed their two-year cycle, so no distinction is made between new or old citizens as they perform their duties as Singaporeans. Mdm Chairperson, this is just one example of how the 10-year NS training cycle can be employed to serve both national and social needs. In the event there is concern by some that this requirement would deter foreigners from taking up Singapore citizenship, then an adverse inference should necessarily be drawn against the applicant. The experience of some European countries with immigration already portends the prospects of a nasty reaction to it.”
“Three years later, with a perceptibly strong and negative undercurrent to the Government's population policies today, a reassessment of NS' utility as a tool of integration is necessary. At its heart is the question of public buy-in towards the Government's immigration policies – buy-in which has so far remained very fitful. As MINDEF takes up the largest chunk of the country's Budget, it would be worthwhile looking at the role NS can play in the integration of new citizens, especially since it can equally be argued that integration is not just a social objective, but that it serves – especially with the passing of the Population White Paper – a critical national purpose too. The pace of integration between citizens and new citizens is slow. Taken on its own, there is nothing wrong with this, since integration should not be hurried. It is also quite difficult to have an absolute fix on the depth and quality of integration so far, except the visceral outbursts against foreigners that many in this House have come to know of. But integration can be enhanced and deepened by common experiences and shared values – and in this regard, NS presents itself as a ready platform. Today, Singaporean males have accepted that they can be called up for NS for up to 40 days a year for 10 years, and that is after they have completed their two-year full-time NS stint. The point about NS is that Singaporean males do not just serve two years of NS, they serve a 10-year NS training cycle when they enter the workforce as well.”
“Mdm Chairperson, NS has remained the bedrock of nation-building since 1967. With the Government opening the door to large numbers of foreigners in a short space of time over the last decade, foreigners and new citizens have, to varying degrees, been accused of enjoying a security umbrella without the need to do NS. In addition, Government data released through parliamentary questioning revealed that about 25% of all who give up their citizenship each year from 2007 to 2011 were naturalised citizens. These perceptions and realities should prompt us to look at ways to increase the prospects of integration, at least between Singaporeans and new citizens, for nation-building purposes. The unique role of NS as a social adhesive boasts a generational track record. So far, the Government's efforts have been tailored towards putting the contribution of NSmen into distinct relief by sharpening the difference between Singaporeans and foreigners through a monetary approach. In 2010, the Government announced details of the NS Recognition Award which saw every Singaporean NSman getting up to either $9,000 or $10,500 deposited into their Post-Secondary Education and CPF accounts over 10 years. Page: 155 Even then, the limits of monetary incentives and monetary solutions were aptly put by a Straits Times reporter who addressed the issue succinctly, "money cannot be the only language Singaporeans speak. People want to feel proud of being Singaporean." Earlier in 2010, in response to proposals that new citizens should be made to serve some form of NS, the Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen came out to say that NS was meant to serve a critical national need, not fulfil social goals.”
“Mr Chairman, last year, MND announced its plans to build lifts for all HDB multi-storey carparks, with the project expected to be completed by 2017. The Minister also stated that priority will be accorded to multi-storey carparks with high parking demand and that HDB will dovetail the lift installations with upcoming improvement works in the precinct, so as to minimise inconvenience for residents. Some of the blocks in my ward, specifically those at Jalan Damai between Block 650 and Block 672, are less than 20 years old. As it stands, they are not likely to be eligible for major upgrading, as there are other older blocks in the town that are in more urgent need of upgrading. As the precinct I mentioned is only by multi-storey car parks and not open car parks like in older HDB estates, it is inevitable that the parking demand is very high – a point that is repeatedly made to me by residents during house visits. Can I ask the Minister if HDB has a plan or a schedule when the multi-storey car parks in such precincts throughout Singapore will get their lifts? 7.00 pm Greenprint Initiative”
“Finally, I would be much obliged if the Minister could give us an update on the Government's plan on the DBSS scheme, in light of the suspension of the DBSS land sales for the last six months. Future of Public Housing”
“As most BTO flat applicants today are younger couples and smaller families, it may be argued that there is a risk of oversupply if larger flats are built again. But in light of modern construction techniques, it will be helpful if BTO flats could be designed in such a way that two adjoining flats can be easily converted, as it were, to form an executive apartment and for allowance for this to be made prior to construction. For example, the HDB can set aside a percentage of any new launches for such flats, let us say, 10%, and in the event that demand is not Page: 132 met, then the flats can be easily converted to 3-room flats without significant cost implications. Sir, it is also quite common to hear of middle-aged Singaporeans talking about how small new 3-, 4- or 5-room HDB flats are. This is an old issue, but it still requires the Government to say not too long ago that the size of HDB flats has not shrunk since 1997. Nonetheless, the Government's commitment to plan for a 6.9 million population in future does bring this issue back to the fore. The Government has previously said that smaller flats do not have to mean a lower quality of living because the living space per person has actually increased over time due to smaller families. But after the passing of the White Paper, there is an irony in this position. In light of our urgent need to raise our TFR and encourage families to have more children and, separately, the Government's stated intention for a larger population, would there not be an argument for the Government to consider building flats which are of the size of those built prior to 1997 so as to plan for flat sizes that anticipate and even encourage a rise in TFR?”
“Sir, the gist of this cut is to understand the HDB's plans for larger BTO flats going forward and, separately, the size of flats for Singaporeans in future. The latter issue continues to be discussed even more so in the aftermath of the discussion covering the Population White Paper and with the high cost of private housing in mind. Parliament has also seen a similar range of queries dealing with Executive Condominiums (ECs) and HDB's Executive Maisonettes (EMs), amongst others, in this session of Parliament. In October 2012, the Minister stated in a Parliamentary reply that the HDB stopped building EMs in 1995 and that ECs have effectively replaced this segment of flats that seek to accommodate buyers who want to purchase other flats. While the old HDB EMs range from 138 to 243 sqm, ECs have unit sizes ranging from 69 to over 300 sqm, but this was reduced to 260 because of ECs that were priced closer to the $2 million mark. The Minister also said not too long ago that ECs are better placed to meet the diverse needs of Singaporeans and there is no need to introduce executive flats even though the idea of ECs, as mooted in 1995, was a means to shorten the queue for HDB executive flats and to meet Singaporeans' demand for affordable private property. In view of the high cost of executive flat size apartments in new EC launches, can the HDB consider a pilot scheme, in fact, building a small number of larger apartments in new BTO launches built in mature or non-mature estates? So, second- or even first-timers who want to purchase apartments larger than 5-room flats are not restricted from doing so by the price deferential that comes with ECs of the same size.”
“Should there be a prospect for appeal? Instinctively, a transparent and accountable system should invest in such an avenue. In this case, the judicial branch may well be one such avenue by virtue of a citizenship hearing. Population and Immigration Data”
“Mdm Chairperson, are there downsides to an open and more transparent PR or citizenship approval regime? Can a more open system be gamed? While this cannot be ruled out, the prospects of this can be significantly mitigated by a well-defined application system. A system that corresponds with the experience of Commonwealth countries with modifications that suit the Singapore context will lay out the Government's criteria for all applicants. This, in turn, can calm fears in some quarters of any ulterior motive for the Government's immigration policy. Even so, the bigger point is that the current system adopted by this Government is too opague. The benefits of a more open system will also put to rest many unsubstantiated myths about the immigration system, rather than the status quo which provides maximum discretion to the Executive. Second, who sets the criteria? A points system is bound to attract controversy, regardless of how high or how broad it may be. How do we ensure that such a system is fair and that the public buys into the system, knowing that it may be impossible to please everyone? In this event, a Committee that consists of civil servants, members of the general public and other relevant interest groups can be formed to determine the pass mark and criteria. It would be imperative for the proceedings of such a Committee to be made public and Page: 87 published to ensure greater transparency with regard to the pass mark and criteria. Thirdly, who has the final say? This is really about the balance between discretion and fixed criteria. There may be instances where even though an applicant achieves the pass mark, a reasonable reading of the entire picture of his or her application renders him or her to be an undesirable immigrant.”
“For example, under the skilled workers and professionals category, the eligibility rules are very clearly stated. There are basic rules, work experience rules and six selection factors in the skilled workers' points grid. Anyone can take this test and you are informed of your score immediately. The test also Page: 86 specifies what is meant by adaptability by requiring the applicant to state the education level or his or her spouse, whether one's spouse has studied or worked in Canada, whether the applicant has family in Canada and whether the applicant has arranged employment. A somewhat similar system operates in the Australian case with six different visa categories. The British experience is also noteworthy. The United Kingdom Border Agency under the auspices of the Home Office introduced a test in 2005 known as the "Life in the UK" test comprising 24 questions that have to be answered in 45 minutes. These cover a wide variety of areas, not particularly onerous, matters concerning electoral and parliamentary matters, to others like food, sport, council matters and even movie classifications – questions that are essentially synonymous with the functioning of a participatory democracy. One sentence stood out on the UK government website that hosted information on this test: "Being a British citizen does not mean that you have to lose your own identity. There will, however, be things about life in the UK that you should know about before making a long-term commitment to the country." In effect, the test is a real reminder of the obligations and requirements of PR and/or citizenship and, in the Singapore context, a similar test could present a useful opportunity to highlight the importance of multiracialism, amongst other shared values that Singaporeans stand for.”
“The gist of this cut, therefore, is to query the PMO as to why the ICA does not give reasons for rejection, to call for a change of this policy, and for the Ministry to explore the prospects of introducing a more transparent system so that applicants are well informed of their PR and citizenship prospects before application. Such a system would also streamline not just the selection process but the appeal process as well, and reduce insecurity, especially for Singaporeans married to foreign spouses, and applicants in general. On the Government side, a transparent PR and citizenship application regime could greatly assist with the Government's effort to support integration and would build trust between citizens and the Government on population policy. On the citizen end, it is my belief that a more open and accountable system that would allow Singaporeans to better appreciate who our neighbours are, where they are from and on what basis they were selected, would in turn contribute to a more inclusive Singapore and ease the emotional and visceral worries many Singaporeans have to contend with – an emotion which we usually see with remarks like, "I do not recognise Singapore anymore." To this end, I would suggest that the PMO look at other immigrant-destination countries like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom that assess applicants for permanent residence and citizenship amongst others. In the Canadian case, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website is the main portal where new immigrants, PRs or citizens can get specific information like checking on the status of their application, looking at different programmes that allow them to immigrate to Canada permanently and to understand the eligibility rules for each category of applications.”
“Mdm Chairperson, two parallel concerns are the reasons behind the filing of this cut. Firstly, in my Parliament speech on the Population White Paper, I made reference to Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's observations a few months ago where the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications. Secondly, many in this House would have come across the experience of meeting residents at their Meet-the-People sessions requesting to re-appeal a decision made by the ICA to reject their spouses' or family members' PR or citizenship application. Members of Parliament would also have come across other cases which appear on the surface at least to be an inexplicable rejection for an appropriately qualified applicant. A consistent gripe of affected Singaporeans and some of my residents with foreign spouses in particular, is that the ICA does not reveal the reasons why their spouses have been rejected even though complete applications may have been submitted. In the recent debate on the Population White Paper, Minister Grace Fu stated that when assessing applications, the Government considers a holistic Page: 85 set of criteria to evaluate applicants, not only their economic contributions but also the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages and their family ties. But as it stands, Singaporeans do not have any idea of how each of these factors is evaluated, or whether one is weighted more heavily than the other, to say nothing of subjective criteria like ability to integrate, especially since our recent experience has suggested that integration cannot happen overnight.”
“In addition, as some SME owners, particularly hawkers and sundry store owners, work with narrow margins, it may be helpful to look into allowing Category C COE holders to extend their COEs every 30 months or two-and-a-half years, rather than every five years, as the Budget has announced. Such a move would allow for even greater flexibility for SME owners and nudge them to consider pulling an older vehicle off the road since the decision-making cycle of renewing of COE would be shorter. Mdm Speaker, post Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance acknowledged that the country continues to be in an unhappy part of Page: 57 the property cycle, following up from the Budget speech that reiterates that the Government will spend more efforts in resolving the present challenges facing housing and transport. While I look forward to the resolution of these problems, it would be equally important for the Government to explain the reasons behind significant policy shifts instead of leaving Singaporeans to second guess the Government's real purpose, as has been the feedback for MAS' changes to the car ownership policy. Such engagement will help reduce unpredictability and encourage a more participatory democracy and allow Singaporeans to plan for their future with more certainty. 2.28 pm”
“This may entail a deeper look into the COE system or even larger national considerations, such as the future population size of Singapore, so that the policy fear of a more crowded Singapore does not operate to scuttle the aspirations of Singaporeans to own the car of their dreams, unless of course the Government's intention – be it directly or directly – is to remove the dream of car ownership for middle-class Singaporeans. On the flip side, I am encouraged by tweaks to the COE policy that give greater business flexibility to SMEs. In January 2013, I asked the Minister for Transport in a Parliamentary Question whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the COE bidding system for goods vehicles and buses to alleviate the costs of doing business for SMEs. While the Minister replied that there were no plans to review the COE system for the said category, he did say that, as part of Budget 2013, his Ministry would carefully consider if more help was needed. To this extent, I welcome the flexibility granted to commercial vehicle owners whose vehicles have reached the end of their 10-year COE, as they can now choose to renew their COEs for five years in the first instance, and a further five years later. Likewise, the granting of a one-year 30% road tax rebate for goods vehicles, buses and taxis is also welcomed. It would be helpful if the Government could make the extension of such road tax grants permanent, especially for the "mom-and-pop" SMEs with a headcount of five or less, when COE prices reach astronomically high levels as they have been in the recent past for Category C COEs.”
“But the effect of the new LTV ratios is likely to be most acutely felt by families with two or more children and those with elderly family members or the disabled who need the mobility provided by a car but are unable to cough up the down-payments since the larger household size necessarily entails a lower disposable income set aside for the higher down-payment required now. There is also the tangential concern about the inability of larger families to purchase a vehicle which, from a policy perspective, may well indirectly stymie efforts to promote our TFR, since the lack of mobility for family, leisure, travel and support will well factor into a person's decision to have fewer children and prejudice those who already have large families. It would be imperative for the Government to look at possible tweaks to the system if indeed larger families and families that include disabled Singaporeans or elderly parents are genuinely affected, as the effects of the new policy kick in over the next few months. One specific way could be to raise the LTV ratio for cars back to 70% as it was previously, but only for families with two or more children so as to buttress and incentivise the Government's efforts to raise TFR. Page: 56 Mdm Speaker, it would be a tragedy if younger Singaporeans included the inability to purchase a car as a reason for wanting to look abroad for greener pastures, in addition to the visceral insecurity of a more crowded Singapore in the future. It may be helpful for the Government to solicit feedback from Singaporeans about our car ownership policy going forward, particularly on the aspirations of owning a car, even if the stated objective of this policy is to discourage Singaporeans from over leveraging.”
“It was telling that as the Minister spoke about the tiered ARF for his Budget speech, an MAS circular about a cap on loan-to-valuation (LTV) ratios also started making its rounds. Page: 55 The circular established that the new loan quantum for a car with an OMV of less than $20,000 would be 60% of the car price and 50% if the OMV was higher. Significantly, the maximum loan repayment is now only five years, from the 10 years previously. On one level, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance's Budget speech on tiered Additional Registration Fees (ARF) appeared to continue with the theme of progressive taxation, but the possible effects of the Budget announcement and the MAS circular taken together lead me to conclude the opposite: that the rich will benefit from the latest changes to our car ownership policy as the changes do not address the high disposable income of the rich. In the context of the Budget statement, it would have been helpful if the Minister had addressed the changes to the ARF with the policy intent of the MAS circular, especially since the two are so inextricably linked. If these changes were implemented to force Singaporeans to use public transport, the system, as it stands, leaves much to be desired, especially during peak hours. I am not sure what the effects of these latest changes to our car ownership policy will be, as there are differing views on the impact of the latest policy changes on COE prices and, as a result, the price of cars.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister's Budget speech noted that meritocracy alone will not assure Singaporeans of social mobility and that Government policies seek to level up children that come from poorer and less stable families. This is a significant statement as it appears to premonition a shift in the state discourse. Equally noteworthy, the Budget speech established that while overall healthcare expenditure will go up, Government policies envisage a reduction in Singaporeans' out-of-pocket share of medical costs, with the Government taking on a larger share. Whatever the reasons for these shifts to the left, they are in line with the long-held belief of the Workers' Party and many Singaporeans that for a country with a per capita income of about US$45,000, the Government can do much more on the social front for Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, one subject covered in the Budget that affects many middle-class Singaporeans are changes to the Government's policy on car ownership. The significance of the Budget and associated changes to the Government's car ownership policy led the executive director of a leading car dealership to say, "In my 28 years in this trade, this is the most serious development I have seen." An accounting partner of a Big Four firm was quoted as saying, "The Minister is riding through Singapore's Sherwood Forest to tax the rich who own high-end properties and drive luxury cars." While I would not take it as far as the accounting partner did – as there is much more room for greater progressivity in our tax system – I am in favour of higher taxes paid by those who drive luxury vehicles.”
“Mdm Speaker, my speech today is divided into two parts – the first assesses the Budget's attempts to create a more inclusive Singapore, with the second focus on changes to our car ownership policy as a result of the Budget announcement on the same. Mdm Speaker, a simple "control F" of the Budget speech, and a search for the words "do more" reveal seven matches. According to the Budget, the Government will do more for retirees, Singaporeans who need help with their medical expenses, seniors so that they have a sense of economic security and fulfilment in their retirement years, and also for children in the pre-school and Primary school levels. The Government also wants to do more against rising inequality to tilt the balance in favour of the lower and middle income, and for older Singaporeans, with enhancements in Workfare and CPF. The timing of these changes are significant, too – three years before the next General Elections with enough lead time for the proposals to take effect. Page: 54 Be that as it may, the Government's efforts to improve social mobility and reduce inequality are necessary steps, especially in view of how the global economy and, more importantly, forces beyond this Government's control, are shaping up. Chiefly among which are inequality and economic insecurity. For the longest time, the state discourse in Singapore has eschewed any reference to welfare. Similarly, the state has tended to place meritocracy on a pedestal. In fact, the political leadership has tended to frame both issues in the extreme, with welfare representing the bad and meritocracy representing the good. However, this Budget was noteworthy because meritocracy came with a caveat.”
“I have pressed "no", Mdm Speaker, it is an unequivocal "no".”
“Mdm Speaker, I will take that into account. Thank you very much for your indulgence.”
“My point of clarification is just that, in future, it will be helpful if all these information has been put together.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply. I think then all that had to be done was to have included that paper as an annex also, and all the other information which is relevant to the White Paper so that everybody can see it holistically. This is a long-time grievance that many Singaporeans have raised about Government policies – it is all over the place.”
“I thank the Acting Minister for that clarification but I think my initial point still remains that the White Paper could have put all these information out very clearly, in particular, estimates that the Government has, but are not included in the White Paper. We have Members like Mr Lim who expect an alternative proposal. But a lot of these information, if it is not in the hands of the common man, how are these proposals going to come to the fore? So, it is important when the Government raises a White Paper that this information be provided in the White Paper itself.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have a clarification for the Acting Minister for Manpower. During his speech, he made a reference about between now and 2020, that MOM's estimates are that there is a requirement for another 100,000 foreign domestic workers to look after the elderly. Can I just confirm whether that is the correct estimation? And if it is, I would like to know why these estimations are not included in the White Paper and additional estimations which would have been helpful for Singaporeans to try and understand what sort of future we are looking at? I did mention in my speech that the White Paper is very, very thin on detail and this is exactly that sort of detail that I think would have been very useful for Singaporeans to Page: 136 actually look at and consider.”
“Mdm Speaker, I can see what Mr Ang Wei Neng is trying to do but I think we need to be quite intellectually honest with ourselves in this debate. What Mr Chen Show Mao has been saying has been quite clearly relevant to what was said in the Budget about one year ago. Now we are talking about productivity, we are talking about wanting to increase productivity. There are some industries which have to work harder at that and what we are saying to the Government is that you can look at construction, as an example, and that is one industry where the Government should do more to ensure that the businesses in construction do not suffer so much because we do acknowledge, and the Government also acknowledges, that in construction, productivity needs to go up, probably more than many other industries.”
“So, it should be no surprise that a backbencher has introduced an amendment to the Motion and a Minister has endorsed the same. But the amendment still does not alter the substance of the White Paper and the lacuna therein. Given the urgency of the issue, the White Paper needs to be reworked with more aggressive measures to raise TFR as a start and it has to be populated with more detail about the quality of life Singaporeans should anticipate when the projected figure is reached. The public cynicism surrounding the White Paper remains high. It is an emotion the Government cannot afford to ignore to achieve a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.”
“Companies are answerable to shareholders, not the people of Singapore. But the White Paper needs to take the views of Page: 54 Singaporeans first and get that aspect of the equation right. The Workers' Party is ultimately answerable to the people of Singapore first. Nimble businesses and intelligent business folk will adjust and restructure businesses taking advantage of the workforce that is currently unemployed, especially since the Government has announced the foreign worker tightening strategies for some time already. Some companies may well relocate to Iskandar, but is that not what the Government has been subtly encouraging? Far from throwing SMEs under the bus with our proposal, we envisage the Government significantly reducing the prospects of unpredictability for SMEs with our proposals, not just with productivity and tax incentives, but also with rental grants, and other costs indicia that severely affect SMEs. But industries like construction need to appreciate that the old days of massive foreign labour influx are well and truly over. They have to make do with what they have and Singaporeans must accept a slower pace of construction as a result. Some businesses may well be spooked by the prospects of this, but this is one bullet we are better off biting now because of our strong fiscal position. When the bosses of these SMEs appreciate that the Singapore of the future will be a more sustainable one, they would have understood this turn was one that we have to negotiate as a country, in spite of the turbulence it causes. We will stand with SMEs by pressing the Government to do more for them especially on rentals, so they can devote more resources to productivity. Mdm Speaker, this White Paper has jarred the average Singaporean.”
“In the words of the authors, Singaporeans had achieved quite a lot but Singaporeans did not necessarily feel happier or enjoy life more. Apart from calling for a more inclusive growth model, the future Singapore would be one where its citizens feel that they have a stake in and where their voices are heard and appreciated. There should have been a big section in the White Paper for such details and in the accompanying land use paper – these omissions are stark and incongruous especially since the Government promises a high quality of life going forward. Derek Bok, the long-time President of Harvard University, wrote a seminal book in 2010 titled "The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn From the New Research on Well-being". He too identifies the evolution of social science research and the doubts researchers have raised about the value of growth and how it should not necessarily override other aspects of life that can contribute importantly to well-being. He calls on government officials to draw upon new research to rethink priorities and make a more balanced effort to promote well-being. How is this to be done? Bok identifies strengthening the family and marriage, encouraging active forms of leisure, cushioning the shock of unemployment, universal healthcare and a more secure retirement, improvements in childcare and pre-school education, treatment of mental illnesses, focus of education policy and other broader goals. Such a progressive approach, in line with raising the quality of life as defined in the land use supplement to the White Paper is, sorely missing. Mdm Speaker, we have heard many local and foreign business federations and chambers of commerce raise their objections to the White Paper. This should not be surprising.”
“A very telling sentence stated that there are ample opportunities for those wishing to learn English, such as courses run by PA and NTUC. Why not encourage the economically inactive like the former teachers in our population to teach English and get them in the workforce, with the appropriate regulatory standards in place? Surely, the Government can take the lead in and encourage greater labour force participation through simple initiatives that promote private sector business participation instead of relying on quasi-government entities. Where the White Paper and the land use paper have been sorely lacking has been in academic rigour on quality of life indicia. Over the years, many advances have been made in this field of social science. Page: 53 Mdm Speaker, I refer to a 2013 publication by two Singaporean academics at the NUS Business School, Siok Kuan Tambyah and Tan Soo Jiuan titled "Happiness and Wellbeing: The Singaporean Experience". Their research covers a large scale survey of 1,500 citizens conducted between May and June 2011 that provides insights into Singaporeans' satisfaction with life and living in Singapore, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, emotional well-being, psychological flourishing, economic well-being, overall well-being, personal values, spirituality, value orientations, national identity, rights, and the role of government. The survey also dovetails with similar work done in 1996 and 2001 and is part of a field of study known as subjective well-being research, which focuses on measuring an individual's cognitive and affective reactions to his or her whole life as well as to specific domains of life. Their 2011 survey showed that Singaporeans were generally satisfied with their lives, but less so with living in Singapore.”
“This brings me to the point about how successful the Government has been so far at integrating new citizens. On this account, the jury is still out but Singaporeans remain uncomfortable at the thought of more foreigners coming on board even as new citizens slowly integrate into our society. This slow pace of integration should not come as a surprise to anyone. It is not the fault of Singaporeans or new citizens. Integration takes time and if we have not been able to do it over the last 20 years with our population rising from 3 million to 5 million, it is inevitable that this Government will only increase the insecurity to Singaporeans if it proceeds with the population projection numbers set out in this White Paper. Some months ago, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman noted that the Government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications. This would be of great benefit as Singaporeans would be able to understand who our neighbours are, where they are from and on what basis they were selected – akin to the transparency standards of immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada. Again, this was another odd omission from the White Paper, even though a Deputy Prime Minister, no less, spoke of the need for greater transparency on the selection criterion for PRs. Probably the most obvious proof of the how underwhelming the White Paper has been was highlighted on page 28. While mention was made of communication in a common language to better ingrate new arrivals, no real direction was made to ensure new immigrants can effectively communicate in English, even though this feedback has been repeatedly put to the Government in light of our previously liberal immigration policy.”
“Numerous calls have been made for work-life balance but the work culture remains a problem and the softly-softly approach of the Government will not make much headway. Private employees are bound by shareholders and the structural reality of unlocking shareholder value making the call for work-life balance in Singapore a shallow one. It is time for the Government to step in aggressively. Let us consider going back to basics – would the Government consider legislating the eight-hour workday after which an employer is expected to pay OT across all professions, and not just limited to those earning below $4,500 as under the Employment Act currently? It is a radical proposal, deserves deeper study for sure, but it is the sort of radical thinking insofar as employer and employee attitudes at the workplace that the Government should be proposing, to raise the quality of life of Singaporeans with a view to boost TFR rates aggressively. Along with more productivity incentives and wage and rental grants for companies, especially SMEs and exempt private companies that hire Singaporean workers, we need to think out of the box to ensure that Singaporeans do not end up becoming a minority in their own country of birth. There will be those who will ask where the money for more productivity incentives and measures to help SMEs will come from. In light of the existential challenge ahead of us, we should not rule out a deliberate and planned drawn-down of our reserves. Mdm Speaker, the rainy day is upon us and we need to really address the TFR problem far more aggressively than we have ever done Page: 52 before especially since our future of the Singapore, as we know it, is on the line.”
“A regional mall in Seletar, Tampines North or Tengah will probably look exactly like Tampines Mall and Jurong Point today, including the brands on show. Housing estates are likely to be crammed, in line with the higher plot ratios in newer HDB estates and, yes, the rooms in our flats will continue to be small. On this account, I would like to ask if the Government had factored in the future size of our flats in this White Paper, as these increases are likely to go some way to creating a better sense of home and promoting larger families especially since the justification for smaller flats has been smaller families. Page: 51 Another central plank of a relook at the Government's TFR strategies should have been at the workplace. It is a well-known fact that, culturally, many Singaporeans work late hours, effectively ridiculing the notion of an eight-hour workday. Shirley Sun, an academic at NTU in a 2013 publication titled "Population Policy and Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens", opined that "encouraging childbirth among citizens is not solely a matter of providing economic resources or parental leave from work but in the construction of ideal citizens, and that if 'individual competitiveness' reigns, particularly in the face of scarce resources, parents and prospective parents are likely to limit childbearing". Employers and middle-managers, being businessmen and careerists, are unlikely to have an overriding reason to ask their staff to go home on time. Far from becoming productive, these employees, in the national schema, are singularly unproductive, spending time that could have been better spent with family. I know of many in various professions who fear they will receive an adverse grade if they leave before the boss.”
“In Tuesday's Straits Times, there was a piece about some Punggol residents fighting to save a small knoll from development. Last month, another group of residents in Pasir Ris were fighting to save a wooded area, two football fields in size, from being chopped down for the construction of an international school. Think about it, not a big cemetery like Bukit Brown or the Railway Corridor, but we are talking of small knolls and football fields. And this sort of bottom-up citizen-driven campaigns are already taking place with 5.3 million people in Singapore. Singapore is already a very small place. Ordinary Singaporeans have seen their flats shrink over the years. Now their public spaces for recreation and, more importantly, rejuvenation will also shrink whatever promises are made about the quality of life. There is a heart-warming picture of a family having a picnic on page 17 of the White Paper. I wonder how the family will come to the beach in 2030, picnic basket and a happy family in tow. Did they take the MRT? Perhaps some will. Whatever the case, I hope they do not choose to go to the beach over the weekend for it is simply too crowded today. Be that as it may, it is an inescapable reality that if one has a big family, one needs a car or some form of transport in Singapore – to bring kids to and from childcare, to take them out over the weekends, to meet their extended family, and for little excursions around the island. The MND Minister has come out to say that cycling should be encouraged. But it still does not change the fact that most families need a vehicle. It is my belief that the quality of life that is outlined in the White Paper with 6.5 million to 6.9 million Singaporeans will not deliver the high quality of life promised.”
“This will give Singaporeans a better idea and feel of the future, and what the PAP Government means by a high quality of living in 2030 and what Singapore will be like with another 1.6 million people. A critical plank of the White Paper deals with raising our TFR. But in this regard, the White Paper has not gone far enough to ask why Singaporeans are having fewer children. Mdm Speaker, in my view, a large part of this is down to a compendium of factors linked to our work culture, cost of living especially for the low- and middle income, and the sense of reducing physical space in Singapore. In the final reckoning, there is a confluence of factors, but rather than just look at more paternity leave and financial incentives, the White Paper was an opportunity for the Government to bite the bullet and introduce far-reaching changes to address our TFR problem for the long run. Like both the property cooling measures, which are in their seventh instalment with no moderation of prices in sight, and the Marriage and Parenthood package, which is now into its fourth instalment, I am sceptical about the likely effects of these policy changes as they are not radical enough and do not address the root cause of our low TFR. What the Government should do is to table a comprehensive White Paper on increasing our TFR with a corollary plan on getting our non-working population into the workforce. Instead, by introducing a narrow set of measures, the Government has gone for a half-hearted approach, one that ultimately threatens a self-fulfilling prophecy. A less than vigorous attempt at raising TFR like what is currently presented in the White Paper will lead the Government to Page: 50 open the tap to immigration, on the grounds that measures to raise TFR have obviously failed.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Government's Population White Paper has been met by a barrage of criticism from ordinary Singaporeans. The Government in the last week and the Deputy Prime Minister in his opening speech on this Motion have been at pains to stress that 6.5 million to 6.9 million is not a target. I, like many Singaporeans who have grown up with the PAP, find this very hard to believe. It is hard to conceive of a PAP Government resisting the temptation of opening the door to immigration, and then turning back at Singaporeans to say that the PAP has brought high economic growth to Singapore and that Singaporeans should be thankful. As the last few years have shown us, GDP growth means little if Singaporeans are not the ones that benefit from it. GDP growth means little if Singaporeans cannot afford cars and if houses are out of reach. What this Population White Paper ultimately highlights and what it will Page: 49 be remembered for, is how out of touch the PAP Government has become with ordinary Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Motion and urge the Deputy Prime Minister to take this White Paper back to the drawing board, but only after the views of ordinary Singaporeans are prominently represented in it. But before that, I would like to present some perspectives for the Government to consider as it ruminates over the overwhelmingly negative public feedback on this White Paper. The Government has already admitted that it did not plan ahead to prepare infrastructure for a larger population. As we have 5.3 million people on our island today, the Government should make clear how many more MRT lines, hospital beds and housing units, amongst other indicators, have to come on-stream to bring infrastructure in line with our current population size.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. My issue here is not so much the medical examination when the work permit is given out but when the work permit is renewed after two years. Right now, from the regulations, as I understand them, only HIV is the infectious disease that the doctor has to ensure that the worker whose work permit is being renewed has to be free of. I do not believe there is something specific in the current regulations when a work permit is renewed which states that the doctor has to physically certify or sign off that this worker is fit for work. All that has to be done is just to ensure that the worker is not HIV-positive. I think it is important that when the work permit is renewed that at least there has to be some note that the doctor puts in there that this worker is actually fit to work. I do not believe that is the case right now.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I would like to follow up on medical examinations when work permits are renewed. I understand when a work permit is renewed for a foreign worker, the disease that he is required to ensure that he is free of with the doctor is just HIV. There is no regulation to ensure that the worker is actually fit to work. The only hurdle that has to be crossed is to ensure that the worker is not HIV-positive. Can I confirm whether the Ministry is thinking of ensuring at least the doctor that certifies the renewal of a work Page: 24 permit has to sign off on the ability of this worker to be fit for work?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, just following up on the issue of the resale levy, like the hon Member Dr Lim, I have residents who find the resale levy a significant barrier to a subsequent purchase. Can the Minister consider the resale levy, because it is a cash component, to be paid in instalments, for instance? I have residents, the low-income in particular, who just cannot afford to stump up the $30,000 to $40,000 in resale levy. This is quite common in quite a few low-income cases.”
“It also reduces my own concern that Singapore's decision to abstain made us insecure. In future, it would be propitious for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to consider profiling Singapore's stand on Palestinian issues and other controversial issues in front and centre not only to solicit public feedback, but before the public raises concerns on the matter lest our position be misunderstood, especially in view of our immediate geopolitical realities. This approach is likely to secure greater consensus for our foreign policy and the realities that determine it, for after all, foreign policy is an extension of domestic Page: 44 politics. Thank you, Mdm Speaker!”