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 4 of 36.
“Just a quick follow-up to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. MSF released a report just two-odd months ago, "Supporting Low-income Household Trends report", I think there is some data. But again, the data is, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said, at the national level. There is some discrepancy between the data of SMTA and the amount of money that has been extended to Singaporeans who apply for that, the SMTA, through the years. So, for example, the annual report in 2022, reported that number that was disbursed comes up to $119 million. That is for SMTA. It is at page six of the report. But in the trends report, that number comes down to $112 million, and the number of households increases for 2022. So, I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify that, perhaps if not at this session, but perhaps during the Committee of Supply.”
“Thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I just enquire, for the geographical areas covered by these SSOs that showed the highest number of households requiring SMTA and LTA, does the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) publish this SSO-specific information on its website, and is there any reason why it does not do so? The second question is with regard to the assistance, I understand there is income guideline which is $800 per capita. And I understand even if the individual who comes to the SSO exceeds this guideline, SSO will still make an assessment. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm what percentage of households, who have successfully applied for SMTA, what is that number even though they may have surpassed the $800 per capita income requirement?”
“Thank you, Chair. My question is directed to Minister Indranee vis-a-vis my cut. If I heard the Minister correctly, the Minister said, land for HDB developments is typically priced lower than that for private housing. Can I confirm how is the differential then determined by the CV between private housing and land for HDB?”
“With well over 80% of all land in Singapore belonging to the state, there is a deep interest in determining the sustainability and affordability of land prices for BTO flats for current and future generations of Singaporeans. Can the Minister tell us how the CV discounts the land sold to HDB beyond the general explanation of market principles? How is this discount derived and what is its basis? Would the Government release zone-specific data on land values for land reserved for BTO flats over time? In connection with this, how does the Government assure the public and this House that it is not raiding the reserves when it prices land for BTO flats, when the only explanation the public relies on is its reference to the unknown fair market value for HDB land? Could the Minister please address this too? Progressive Wage Credit Scheme”
“The Chief Valuer (CV) reviews the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) rates twice a year in March and September, and the rates can be a barometer of the Government's assessment of land values in recent land sales. The CV's work on land not sold for HDB purposes is highly granular. There are individualised LBC rates that reflect market sentiment for each of the 118 geographical areas in Singapore. For example, in March 2024, LBC rates were cut 19.2% for non-landed residential use in Tanglin, but increased 14% in the West Coast and Clementi areas. These numbers mirrored the differing market sentiment between suburban and non-suburban sites over the period from September 2023 to March 2024. In contrast, the public knows far less about how land is priced for HDB BTO flats. What we do know is that land price for BTO flats takes reference from resale HDB prices. With a 58% increase in resale flat prices from 2020 to 2024, there is inevitably a serious concern about whether land for HDB BTO flats is priced sustainably, or if ever-growing subsidies are going to be needed in future to make HDB flats affordable. It has been stated that the HDB pays fair market value, which is determined by the CV and that the land for public housing is lower compared to private housing in the same area. However, there is no information available to the public about land prices for HDB flats, similar to the chart like the 118 Zone LBC chart, which suggests how the CV adjusts the fair market value of HDB BTO flats in response to rising HDB resale prices. There is a public demand to better understand and unpack the fair market value determined by the CV for land reserved for HDB. Sir, what is stopping the Government from lifting the veil on this aspect of the CV's work?”
“The headlines last month rang loud and clear. By the end of 2025, Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale prices are set to rise for a record 23-quarters. That will see close to six consecutive years of resale prices going up and further up. HDB resale prices jumped 12.7% in 2021, 10.4% in 2022, 4.9% in 2023 and 9.7% in 2024. The projected increase for 2025 means that resale HDB prices would have risen since early 2020 by a cumulative 58%. In April last year, the Minister for National Development said that the Government expected the property market to continue stabilising. He noted that resale HDB prices had risen less in 2023 at 4.9%, compared to 10.4% and 12.7% in the previous two years. At that time, which was a mere 11-odd months ago, the Minister attributed the slower price rise, which I should point out is still a significant price rise, to HDB having caught up on construction delays and a ramping up of Build-To-Order (BTO) flat launches. Based on what the Minister said, a reasonable expectation would be for price rises to have slowed down further in 2024. But then, the news in January this year was that in 2024, HDB resale prices climbed the steep 9.7%. This was despite cooling measures being introduced in August last year, such as lowering the loan to valuation limit for HDB housing loans from 80% to 75%. On another front, 2024 was an unusual year for Government Land Sales (GLS) sites for non-HDB use. Last year, the Government rejected three tenders for three private residential sites because it deemed the sold bids for them to be too low. Partly because of this, land betterment rates for non-landed residential use sites dropped by an average of 5.4% for the half-year from September 2024 to February 2025.”
“The Prime Minister said that it was not so clear cut whether that trajectory would continue and that it was too early to tell whether it can be sustained, so we will continue to monitor. Can I ask the Prime Minister whether there is some clarity now, on that point?”
“But that, on a more conservative estimate, this was $2 billion to $11 billion, and these increases would only materialise from FY2027. MOF was making assessments and detailed projections and would come back with detailed revenue updates. It has been a year. So far, we have not received these updates, and I hope the Prime Minister can share with us what these numbers are. In 2023, the Prime Minister also spoke, towards the end of his speech, about the occasional papers. MOF released an occasional paper in 2023, covering the medium-term fiscal outlook up to FY2030. But that paper did not include corporate income tax revenues that would accrue arising from BEPS. The Finance Minister said also in his last Budget reply speech and I quote, "the occasional paper that we published last year may not be so occasional after all. We will keep on updating it from time to time so that everyone will have a sense of how our fiscal trends are unfolding, not just on a year-to-year basis, but over five-year and 10-year horizons." Can I confirm that MOF will be releasing this occasional paper on the medium-term outlook with BEPS reflected in its projections shortly? And, finally, Sir, in the course of our last Budget debate as well, I remember a senior PAP backbencher saying that he was pleasantly surprised about what he had said only two three weeks earlier in the context of the Motion that we had in Parliament on the reserves, he had hoped that our corporate tax collections would overtake NIRC within a 10-year time frame. And merely two weeks later, during the 2024 Budget debate, that that overtaking had occurred: NIRC became the second top revenue source and corporate income tax overtook it.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to Prime Minister and Finance Minister. I assure him that my clarifications will not be with an eye on election rallies. Let me just take two points the Prime Minister made in his speech with regard to some points I raised in my speech. First, on the question of Climate Vouchers for individuals who are living in private household residences, the irony here is that the cost of living affects people across the board, including those in private dwellings. And giving them assistance also makes the point that the issue cuts across all segments of society, which was the metapoint that I made when I addressed the subject before I made that point in my speech. The second issue, the Prime Minister asked about "Where is the turbocharging?" on the matter of inflation. I took reference from the reply that was given by the Government in early 2024. I think it was referred to by Member Saktiandi as well, where the MAS set out a projected number. With regard to core inflation for 2024, it was 2.5% to 3.5%, and it estimated that the GST rate increase would contribute slightly less than 1% to core inflation. So, if you take that figure with the lower end of the estimate at 2.5%, that is 40%, and that is the contribution of the GST hike. That is how I read it. Hence, that explains my characterisation of "turbocharged". On the matter of the third subject, which was covered by the Prime Minister in his round-up speech, if I can just bring back what was mentioned at last year's Budget – when the Prime Minister was then Finance Minister – brought up in his round-up speech. He confirmed that OECD estimated that the investment hubs, Singapore, being one of them, would stand to see corporate tax revenue gain ranging from $5 billion to $11 billion.”
“The wider strategic atmospherics lead me to reiterate that our national unity, a subject I mentioned briefly in my speech, in these unpredictable times is actually vital. This outlook reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Home Team and the importance of National Service (NS). The security these agencies provide is an important source of strength for Singapore and all Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support. Mr Speaker, the WP supports the Budget.”
“However, there is a bigger picture whose focus has changed even more sharply since the inauguration of the Trump Administration. The comments of the Defence Minister at the Munich Security Conference less than a fortnight ago – of the US now behaving like a landlord seeking rent and no longer being the force of moral legitimacy that it used to be – portend a world that may not be changing for the better and a security architecture that may have to be reconfigured. Much international media attention was focused on the phrase "landlord seeking rent". However, I found the question put to his audience at the end of the speech more significant. The question was, "who, if anyone, any one country or region or bloc, can step in if the US declines to protect the global commons, and how effective and against what resistance". This is even as the 2024 Asian Barometer Survey believe that China far outstrips the US in influence over Asia and this gap will only widen going forward. This is the perspective of Singaporeans who were surveyed. Only two days prior to the Minister's speech, the new US Defence Secretary at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group said, in the context of pivoting away from Europe, and I quote: "we also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The US is prioritising deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognising the reality of scarcity and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail". To this end, Sir, and in my last Budget speech, I devoted a final section on a call to strengthen our national unity – a multiracial national unity – in an uncertain world.”
“The public has a right to know because while expenditures can be tracked, tracking returns is a different matter altogether. In the same vein, it would be important for the Government to issue a report card on initiatives that have come to an end. For example, when the Capability Transfer Programme was first mooted at Budget 2017, the aim of the programme was to improve local foreigner workforce complementarity by facilitating transfer of capabilities from foreigners to locals, with the goal of ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of Singaporeans with the requisite job skills. A number of Members, including myself, have spoken or asked questions about the programme during this term of Government. I hope to see the Ministry of Finance's occasional papers reporting on the outcomes of such initiatives, complete with an impact assessment on jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. Only then can better alternatives be promulgated and advanced, not just by the Opposition, but by ordinary Singaporeans who care about their country and the direction it is headed. As I have said so previously, the new social compact between citizen and state, as flagged by Forward Singapore (Forward SG), demands it. Our social compact would be strengthened by such accountability for public expenditure and programmes. This scrutiny would represent a different approach to governance, but it is one that the WP would opine is the expectation of a participatory society and of the Singapore that is imagined by the Forward SG report. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I began my speech by talking of infrastructural developments that are taking shape in Singapore in a section titled "The Big Picture". They stand to change Singapore for the better.”
“While I am sure the fiscal headroom is politically attractive and even desired by the PAP at the end of the term, notwithstanding its constitutional obligations, it should not underestimate the correlation between this poor marksmanship and potential public cynicism in future when taxes must be increased for legitimate reasons. I anticipate the Finance Minister to reply that all these increases were either down to one-off abnormalities or upsides that could not be anticipated. Even if we accept this, the Government's poor fiscal marksmanship raises and strengthens a different argument – and that is, that the money set aside for spending can certainly be accounted for in a more institutionalised fashion with greater public scrutiny. The WP brought up the idea of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office at the beginning of the term. This was roundly rejected by the former Finance Minister and with the Leader of the House positing that it would only benefit the Opposition. My colleagues and I beg to differ; and perhaps in light of unpredictable projections, such an institution would also benefit the Government. Compared to 10 years ago, total public expenditure has close to doubled in nominal terms. The age-old question of greater fiscal accountability and the introduction of institutions that track and account for public expenditure in a dedicated manner are ideas whose time has come. To this end, and in the throes of COVID-19, the Government committed $25 billion to fund its Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plans. In the name of fiscal prudence, is it out of place to ask how well these monies have been spent? Have the plans proved to be value for money?”
“As every Singaporean knows, a 1% rise in GST does not lead to a 1% rise in the cost of a cup of coffee. Increases are incremental, as we have experienced in how purchases from the local shop or weekly supermarket trip have cost a good 30% to 40% for Singaporeans since the GST was hiked in an inflationary environment never seen before in decades. The decision to go ahead with the GST hike, with inflation raging, was poor. We have seen Assurance Packages and CDC Vouchers dished out to cushion the GST blow for many Singaporeans. But when these handouts stop, as they eventually will, the 9% GST will remain, until any subsequent increase the PAP Government sees fit to impose. It would not be out of place to ask then, how many Singaporeans would believe the accuracy of a PAP Government's projections about the need or the immediate need for future expenditures? The Government has shown poor fiscal marksmanship in trying to match Singapore's expenditure needs with revenue. In fairness, at last year's Budget, I recounted the reflection of economists quoted by The Straits Times, who commented that it was getting very hard to project Government revenue because budgeting accuracy in specific tax collections could vary between 17% and 27%, and that gone were the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was the norm. Sir, if this continues, it will be difficult to support future tax increases or even accept policy moves meant to equalise the cost of owning a car, such as by introducing new taxes or charges on electric vehicle (EV) drivers announced in this Budget. Singaporeans would not be out of place to ask: why is there a need to collect so much money when the Government's fiscal projections are so unpredictable, but somehow always so healthy when elections have to be called?”
“Some years ago, I spoke of how the chill felt by some multinational enterprises (MNEs) in Hong Kong could result in an advantage for Singapore, as these businesses relocated to other jurisdictions. The increase in corporate income tax collection, overtaking even the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) has been attributed to a change in the investment decisions of MNEs. The Government has also reviewed its position on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS 2.0), and is anticipating even higher corporate income tax revenue from FY2027, provided Singapore remains attractive to MNEs. With another $3 billion devoted to the National Productivity Fund, in addition to the $2 billion last year, all things being equal, it is hard to see how Singapore would suddenly turn unattractive, despite the US withdrawal from BEPS 2.0. The fiscal situation appears healthy, notwithstanding the absence of financial medium-term projections, which other jurisdictions publish. This naturally has led many to question the necessity of raising the GST. The WP raised this matter on numerous occasions in this House, even participating actively to consider alternative levers of revenue in the Budget debate of 2023. Even as imported inflation contributes to price rises locally, there was no need for the PAP Government to add fuel to the fire and fan the flames of inflation further with the GST hike. Even if a decision was made to raise it in 2023, there was ample policy space to delay the second increase in 2024 when the country was in the thick of inflation. Why the PAP went headlong and headstrong into raising GST, and thereby turbocharging inflation further, is something only the PAP itself can answer to Singaporeans for.”
“Apart from helping SMEs, this will enlarge choice for Singaporeans. The Workers' Party (WP) spoke on the cost-of-living crisis in a Motion this House debated about 18 months ago, where we looked beyond voucher relief towards structural changes to address the cost of living, looking at utilities and healthcare among others. To that end, and among other subjects, I will revisit the subject of land costs for Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate. Sir, let me now speak on the fiscal situation and the Government's Budget marksmanship. Apart from the goodies that were expected in this Budget, it was the fiscal position at the end of the term which raised many eyebrows. The Government's exceedingly healthy fiscal position has led many Singaporeans to question why the GST had to be raised in 2023 and 2024. A fiscal surplus of $6.8 billion is projected for the financial year (FY) 2025. As for 2024, even after the latest CDC and SG60 Voucher programme, 2024's fiscal surplus, originally estimated at a healthy $778 million, has been revised massively upwards to $6.4 billion. And if one casts their memory back earlier in this term, it was estimated by the Government that 2021 and 2022 would see deficits. However, these turned out to be surpluses instead. The overall fiscal surplus for the years 2021 to 2025, or this term of Government, is set to hit around $14.3 billion. Sir, even as the international scene remains in flux with all eyes on the relationship between the US and China, Singapore has been able to leverage its unique value propositions for investment.”
“It also remains to be seen how long bookstores and cinemas will be able to continue surviving in Singapore, and whether the Government is prepared to offer such businesses a helping hand with grants or by requiring building owners to reserve a portion of their built-up areas for such businesses, to ensure that Singaporeans have localised, high quality, holistic and affordable options within our borders. In May last year, I asked a PQ on JTC and whether it was empowered to lease industrial properties to local small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at a discount to the market rate, and whether the Ministry had plans to expand schemes that reduce business costs for local SMEs by way of lower rentals. The Minister for Trade and Industry shared that his Ministry and the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) had formed an Alliance for Action (AfA) on business competitiveness to deep dive into how businesses can remain competitive amid global uncertainties and structurally higher business costs. While the AfA's business competitiveness report released last November covered a range of business related issues, in the main, they addressed matters specific to bigger enterprises. With the Government the largest landowner in Singapore and a not insignificant player in the in the industrial space, land costs and rentals are something that need to be looked into more acutely to appreciate the challenges to business and entrepreneurship in the immediate term. On a separate note and to assist more SMEs, some measures announced at the Budget should be reviewed immediately. For example, the Government should free the second portion of the SG60 Vouchers for use anywhere beyond just participating supermarkets, to include all small businesses and shops located in shopping malls too.”
“Creating a sense of unity in Singapore is a work-in-progress that is made tougher by the PAP itself, when it hamstrings integration efforts with such small-minded and short-sighted policies. Businesses found 2024 tough. More than 3,000 food and beverage (F&B) businesses closed their doors for good in 2024, citing dwindling business and higher operating costs. This is more than eight F&B businesses shutting every single day, the highest number since 2015. While there are even more newcomers to the scene, a CNA report earlier this month identified the entry of cash-rich foreign players, prepared to pay higher rents and salaries as a reality of the local F&B scene. Sir, 2024 was noteworthy for other reasons too. In business circles, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, while on the whole received positively, has also raised concerns about the hollowing out of businesses in Singapore, particularly, those that serve the Singaporean middle class. Arising from the cost-of-living crisis, the increase of the costs of basic goods in Singapore leads many Singaporeans to make regular trips across the border, to extract a good 30% or more in savings. Services are cheaper in Johor Bahru too, from seeing a dentist to getting a thorough health check-up at a reputable private medical facility. With the Johor Bahru–Singapore Rapid Transit System Link starting operations in 2026, many businesses will have to seriously review how far they can expect Singaporeans or other local customers to continue patronising them.”
“With finite land, other Singaporeans question, in the interest of their children, how many more does the Government seek to squeeze in? And what cans are we kicking down the road for future generations of Singaporeans, who will live in a far-denser city than today? In 2017, it was announced that auxiliary police officers (APOs) would be hired from Taiwan. Last month, the Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed that it was looking at hiring APOs from China, India, the Philippines and Myanmar. A few days ago, it was announced that the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) would be looking to hire foreigners as paramedics. With a growing population and a manpower shortage in many areas, it is inevitable that more of such basic manpower needs of our country will go down a similar path. Alongside these recruitments are fears that Singaporeans may face competition from foreigners who apply for some of these jobs, which were traditionally filled by Singaporean men and women. Integration and a sense of rootedness will continue to be a major issue in Singapore in the years to come and no amount of vouchers can make people feel rooted to Singapore. The Government is aware of this and it is no surprise to hear Government leaders extolling the importance of unity and integration of foreigners into Singapore society. This issue continues to be a soft underbelly of our society with fault lines that can be easily exploited. Government policy leaves much to be desired, for example, with democratically elected opposition MPs being kept away from new citizens during their citizenship ceremonies by design – ostensibly for political expediency and advantage.”
“Reflecting on the cost of living crisis, this enthusiastic gesture was both telling and ironic. The Finance Minister dished out the broad statistics for 2024 in his speech: 4.4% growth; inflation continuing to ease; wage increases outpacing inflation; median income of resident workers rising 3.4% above inflation; and income inequality being at its lowest since 2000. But for many, the lived reality of Singaporeans over the last 12-odd months does not correspond with the bright summary revealed by these figures. Life is very tough for the Singapore that is in the heartland. Concerns over jobs, prices, housing costs and opportunities continue for many Singaporeans and their households. The numerous vouchers will give us help for a little while, but not for long. After all, no Goods and Services Tax (GST) Offset Package lasts forever. Sir, 2024 was noteworthy for other reasons too. For the first time in our history, our total fertility rate (TFR) fell below one. For the first time ever, our total population crossed six million. The 2019/2020 Housing and Development Board (HDB) annual report stated that the projected ultimate number of dwelling units in Singapore would be slightly above 1.55 million. According to the latest HDB report for 2023/2024, this number has gone up by 53,000 dwelling units even as the earlier number of 1.55 million was not intended to be a target to be reached, according to the answer to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) given to Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua in 2021. If the ultimate dwelling units number is not a target, on what basis is it moving upwards? For some, these realities make the Singapore of tomorrow a difficult one to imagine and for others, a difficult one to find affinity with.”
“What will be the impact on the bills for clean power, compared to those for electricity generated by fossil fuels? The Government, naturally, must address these concerns. As these and other new vistas open, from artificial intelligence (AI) and sustainability to climate change, Singaporeans must be well-prepared by our education and retraining systems, to be the ones best placed to take on the jobs in these areas. The Finance Minister has sought to assure the public of the Government's intentions in this regard, and there is significant public interest in seeing Singaporeans compete and succeed in securing jobs, created or transformed by these developments. Let me move on to more general comments about the Budget. Coming on the cusp of General Elections, that Budget 2025 would be an "Election Budget" was not a surprise. The Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong had set the stage by providing numerous assurances that cost of living concerns would be addressed. The concerns on the ground about cost of living are known to all in this House. We started the first Budget of this Government's term in 2021, with the disbursement of Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers worth $100. Today, the vouchers are at $800. Cost increases have hurt people from across all segments of society. Beyond the $800 CDC Vouchers and $800 SG60 vouchers, more than a few political watchers noticed the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MPs) thumping their armrests in unison when the Finance Minister announced that Climate Vouchers worth $400 were being extended to private household dwellers too – a relatively small and, generally, more well-off segment comprising of about 15% of our population.”
“Mr Speaker, my reply to this second Forward Singapore Budget is in three parts. First, I will address the important Budget announcements related to Singapore's long-term future. Thereafter, I will make some broad comments about the Budget. And finally, I will speak on Singapore's fiscal situation and the Government's Budget marksmanship. First, the big picture and our physical infrastructure. At the beginning of this term of Government, COVID-19 put plans for Changi Airport Terminal 5 on hold. This year, the Finance Minister announced that Terminal 5 will break ground. With its completion, Changi Airport's capacity will increase by 50%, ensuring that Singapore will remain a critical gateway for global travel and trade. The development of Tuas Port and Singapore's record highs in vessel arrival, tonnage, container throughput and bunker sales have, in the words of the Finance Minister, reinforced Singapore's role as a leading maritime hub. These are no mean feats and Singaporeans are proud of the achievements of all who made this happen. The future is exciting and we will herald more changes and transformation. The advent of nuclear power and the signing of the "123 Agreement" on civil nuclear cooperation with the United States (US) portends a future in Singapore that comes out of science fiction. Even the import of electricity from neighbouring countries may be difficult to fathom for some Singaporeans more used to scenarios from not too long ago, where acrimony surrounded the purchase of critical resources, such as water. It is not out of place for the public to ask important and far-reaching questions on nuclear safety and resource resilience. Equally legitimate, are queries on the cost implications for Singaporean households.”
“I thank the Minister of State. Can the Minister of State further expand on her reply to the first part of the question in regard to two sites per GRC and one site per SMC. When she says sites, what is the range of sites that the Minister of State is referring to – stadiums, open fields? Does she have some resolution on that?”
“Mr Speaker, the title of the letter is, "Your request to rent a public rental flat from HDB". So, it would suggest that the reply from HDB ought to have said what the Minister has been sharing, because it is clearly a rental application not an application to buy.”
“Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me to seek a clarification from the Minister. I heard the Minister's reply and reference to the Parliamentary reply in 2020. I have pulled it out. So, I am just following up on what my colleague, Mr Faisal Manap, has said with regard to representations from HDB. Just as an example: 1 May 2024, a letter written by HDB, "Your request to rent a public rental flat from HDB", and then HDB lists out the circumstances that are necessary before the rental application can be assessed. So, this is what the letter from HDB says: "We have learnt that you are still legally married. Please note that a married couple is considered as a single legal entity and we are not able to allow one party to exclude the other during the application. In addition, HDB would not be able to consider an applicant's application if they have not obtained the deed of separation, or when the divorce is not finalised, as we would need to know the distribution of matrimonial assets, if any. Furthermore, for divorce applicants who wish to apply for a flat with their children below 21 years old, they would need to have custody with care and control, as stated in the order of Court. We are prepared to consider your request after you have obtained the deed of separation or the finalised divorce documents, as we need to know more on the distribution of matrimonial assets, if any, and the custody of the children." So, it would appear not to be consistent with what the Minister is sharing. So, I just thought I would put that out. I am happy to share this letter with the Minister. This letter is dated 1 May 2024.”
“Can I ask, Mr Speaker, how will the Ministry independently ascertain whether algorithms have been manipulated for the reasons that are put in the Parliamentary Question?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister's points about the transit of polytechnic graduates into degree courses and understandably so. I think in the previous decade, MOE had also envisage the cohort participation rate for students entering universities to be on the increase and it is 42% now compared to previously. And of course, the other factor is we have got applied learning universities now as well and that may in itself be a positive fillip with regard to the ASPIRE report. But in regard to the numbers of students who are not transiting to the university directly, on the applied learning front, does the Minister see gaps and issues that can be improved so that the employment prospects of students, polytechnic graduates specifically, can withstand some of these secular trends?”
“I have two questions, Mr Speaker. One, according to the Polytechnic Graduate Employment Survey 2024, the unemployment rate for fresh undergraduates rose from 7.3% in 2023, to 12.5% in 2024, comparable to the numbers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of under-employment amongst polytechnic graduates, and would he direct the polytechnics to track under-employment data in future iterations of the Graduate Employment Survey? I understand that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is concerned about under-employment, when it determines how many places are open in universities for different students, for example, for computer science. And I am wondering whether there is a similar concern at the polytechnics and the number of students who apply for polytechnic courses. The Minister mentioned in his reply that the numbers seem higher for engineering, and information and digital technologies-related courses, and hence, the concern would also apply with regard to under-employment here. The second question I have is that almost 10 years have passed since this House debated MOE's Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) report, which sought to strengthen applied education at polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). What is the Ministry's assessment of the progress made in the ASPIRE report's recommendations in equipping polytechnic graduates with: one, strong skills foundation; and two, sector linkages with industry to help enhance programme offerings, so as to ensure good job outcomes for our polytechnic graduates?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify with the Minister, I think that in his preamble to the reply, he mentioned that I had an additional question in future Sittings or so. I do not have any questions for future Sitting. This is the only one.”
“Thank you for calling on me again, Mr Speaker. I missed out another clarification for the Minister pertaining to the Bill. I have asked some questions on clause 31. These are the administrative penalties. What is the range of the penalties that the Bill envisages, vis-a-vis, clause 31(A) to (I)? The second clarification, pertaining to clause 31, again, is whether the Ministry intends for the companies that commit violations and are subject to administrative penalties, whether they will be named and if not named, at least the circumstances of their infractions made public so workers and employees alike would be educated.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, I thank the Minister for clarifying clause 17(3) and the Minister shared that the explanatory statement on this clause is not part of the Bill. I thank him for that clarification. The second point was the Minister raised the example made by my colleague for Sengkang Group Representation Constituency, Ms He Ting Ru, about the call for the legislation to cover individuals of a different sexual orientation and gender identity, what the Minister referred to as SOGI. I can confirm that all the WP Members of Parliament stand behind our colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, on the point she made. And we do so because we see the repeal of 377A and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals at the workplace as two very different issues, two separate issues. LGBTQ individuals deserve to be treated fairly at the workplace. That said, I also note even though the coverage is not explicitly included in the Bill, Minister shared that they would be covered under the TGFEP guidelines. I hope the call made by my colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, can be considered in future iterations, as the Minister shared that the Bill will be reviewed and it is akin to a work-in-progress and that this is just – not the first chapter – it is just the start.”
“Perhaps for the convenience of the Ministers, I can just repeat the question, the specific components. To ask the Minister of Digital Development and Information, when was the Ministry circular that sought to change the practice of masking NRIC numbers dated and communicated to Government agencies? I think Minister answered by saying July 2024. Part (b) was, when did the Ministry determine that such a change was necessary and began planning for it? Part (c) was, whether any whole-of-Government discussions took place before and after the issuance of the circular? And part (d), how many other agencies, apart from ACRA, misread or misunderstood the circular?”
“And there was another query with regard to why the data issues did not come back to Parliament, but I think the Minister has said it is part of the review, so I think that is answered. But in the original PQ, there are still components which have not been answered.”
“I had also asked other questions in my Question No 25, parts (b) to (d). It was on yesterday's Order Paper. I think those have not been answered.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you. It is not a new supplementary question, but I had other questions, specifically pertaining to Question No 25 on yesterday's Order Paper.”
“Secondly, ACRA and the Government would have been acutely aware that the public treats NRIC numbers as personal data and for personal data privacy reasons, and that these should not be disclosed to the public. Minister Josephine Teo acknowledged that. But in 2022, on the back of amendments to various corporate statutes, the point was acknowledged in Annex A of a public consultation exercise for another Bill that NRIC numbers are confidential information. My second question, therefore, is: in view of the serious and significant public concern about how the of unmasking NRIC numbers that took place could have occurred so easily, despite enough feedback about not just how the public but ACRA itself views the sanctity of NRIC numbers, by virtue of its consultation exercises in 2022 and 2024, surely the matter would have had to be brought to Parliament instead of simply interpreting a circular from her Ministry? That is the second query to the Minister. And finally, I note my Parliamentary Question (PQ), Question No 25 in yesterday's Order Paper, subsections (b) to (d) of that question really have not been answered. So, I would appreciate a reply from the Minister.”
“Sir, in July last year, this House passed the ACRA (Registry and Regulatory Enhancements) Bill. Amongst other things, the Bill introduced a framework that sought to protect the confidentiality of personal information by limiting public access and allowing only specific parties access for the purposes of fulfilling regulatory obligations. Minister Indranee, in moving the Bill, confirmed that the Bill laid the groundwork for the enhanced Bizfile system that was targeted for launch at the end of 2024. No mention was made in the Minister's Second Reading speeches about the Government's new approach vis-a-vis NRIC numbers. A public consultation was also undertaken for the Bill, which was published in March 2024. In this consultation, ACRA had proposed, "to partially mask the identification numbers of all individuals in ACRA's registers which are made available to the public and introduce a contact address that will be shown to the public." There was some feedback to this proposal, principally related to corporate transparency and know-your-client requirements. ACRA responded to this and said, "On the proposal to mask identification numbers, the concerns on requiring access to full identification numbers have been duly noted. We will review this further and provide an update in due course." Sir, my first question: as the issue of the masking of NRIC numbers was clearly in ACRA's contemplation for the purposes of the amendment Bill in July 2024, when did ACRA intend to provide an update to its public consultation? And in view of the reply, if I heard correctly from the Minister, the circular came into being in July 2024, when was ACRA intending to provide an update to its public consultation and why did it go ahead, especially in view of these public representations?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and the Minister. I take the Minister at his word. The issue I had was specifically with clause 17(3) and the way it has been drafted in the explanatory statement. I am not going to repeat my speech. If I recall correctly, in my speech, I sought clarity on examples which would show why clause 17(3) would be important for an employer. What I am suggesting is the explanation on clause 17(3) and the explanatory statement of the Bill on page 44, to me, sounds intuitively odd. That is what I shared. It would be helpful, through the experience of TAFEP, if the Minister could share, perhaps, later, in the round-up speech, examples of why this particular clause is important and is to be included in the Bill. Why is it so important for employers? That would be helpful, so we can understand the clause better.”
“To conclude, Mr Speaker, the Government has announced that there will be a second Bill associated with workplace fairness, which will introduce the procedural rights and processes for individuals to make private claims under this Bill. The WP will debate this separately at its Second Reading. It is assumed that this will give better options for workers to pursue claims against unscrupulous employers. Sir, the Bill before this House today marks a major philosophical shift in the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's thinking on workplace discrimination. For some Singaporeans, the signalling of this philosophical shift has taken too long, particularly when one recalls the deep discontent over the last decade or so of some Singaporeans over perceptions of being overlooked by some employers on the grounds of nationality, in particular, but also age. Late, though it is, the change is for the better and WP will support this Bill. I look forward to the Minister's responses to my clarifications.”
“If so, some guidance and clarity as to what these are would be useful and stated for the record. The Bill requires workers to go for compulsory mediation before considering the prospect of legal recourse, ostensibly with a view to maintain harmonious industrial relations and to avoid a litigious culture. However, litigation can be necessary when egregious cases present themselves and workers are on the receiving end of the same. We know that between 2018 and 2022, the two protected characteristics that host the most number of complaints to TAFEP were discrimination by nationality and discrimination by age. The legal process and legal proceedings would reveal the identity of the companies that commit such egregious discrimination or serious civil contraventions. To this extent, is it the intention of the Bill for the Commissioner to also reveal the names and circumstances of companies that are subject to administrative penalties as envisaged under clause 31? TAFEP has hitherto been conservative in revealing the names of companies found to have fallen foul of their fair employment practices. Naming the employers who fall foul of this Bill is not to encourage a name and shame culture. On the contrary, such an approach would be useful in supporting the purposes of the Bill, educating companies and workers at large about discriminatory practices at the workplace and to nudge employers to always take workplace discrimination very seriously to the benefit of workers. After all, the only natural resource of Singapore is our human resource and it is in our interest as a nation to ensure that all our workers receive protection from discrimination.”
“To that end, I hope the Government can pay close attention to the processes by which these smaller companies currently not covered by the Bill are educated about their obligations under the TGFEP after this Bill is passed, with a view to their prospective coverage under the Bill in future. Next, on administrative penalties, clause 31 details the administrative penalties that will be invoked when employers are issued with a contravention notice, requiring them to pay an administrative penalty of the prescribed amount. The nature of the civil contraventions is wide, ranging from penalties for retaliation against complainants to the publication of a discriminatory direction to providing inaccurate particulars to the Commissioner, amongst others. Can the Minister clarify if the Bill contemplates a specific penalty amount for each of the civil contraventions listed in clause 31(1)(a) to (i), or is there an open-ended range of penalties, for example, up to $5,000 for any contravention? For example, clause 34 of the Bill covers the specific penalty amount that will be imposed on an employer in the case of a serious civil contravention – $50,000 for a first order and $250,000 for subsequent cases. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity with respect to the dollar value of the administrative penalties under clause 31(a) to (i). Clause 34(1) devolves significant powers to the Commissioner to determine what constitutes a serious civil contravention by the use of the term, and I quote, "whenever it appears". Can I confirm if these powers relate directly to what has been established as serious civil contraventions in clause 30, or are there other serious civil contraventions which are contemplated and not captured by the Bill?”
“Sir, as I alluded to earlier, the Bill before the House today is not just a piece of manpower legislation, it is a social legislation too. For many Singaporeans, work takes up a significant part of almost all our lives. In a recent podcast last month, the Prime Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, remarked, and I quote, "In any multiracial society, it is harder to be a minority than the majority." The Prime Minister urged those in the majority community to be sensitive, engaged and to reach out to minorities across all aspects of life. These remarks are relevant to the Bill before the House and promotes the outcomes that this Bill seeks. To this end, workers need to consider that some employers' perceived lack of sensitivity may be down to ignorance, inexperience and a lack of exposure, as opposed to malice. For things to change, greater professionalism and mutual respect at the workplace must be promoted. Such HR improvements welcomed through open conversations can boost productivity, if sincerely undertaken by both workers and employers. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, will speak on this point from a different perspective, with a view to engender greater understanding for some of our workers and compromise from employers. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with less than 25 employees that professionalise more swiftly and adopt workplace fairness practices and are ready before the five-year exemption period is over, such workplaces may well generate greater interest from jobseekers. A fair workplace-ready TAFEP accreditation scheme for workplaces with less than 25 employees may well be something the Ministry can consider as an intermediate option before the review of the applicability of this legislation for these companies comes up.”
“For clarity, can the Minister confirm if the threshold number of 25 is to be understood on a group basis for companies that have a holding company and multiple corporate entities for corporate planning and risk management purposes, but effectively operate as one entity or for an individual corporate entity, such as a company? And in addition to this, are the Civil Service and public service officers, including uniformed services and Statutory Boards, also covered by this Bill? More significantly, as provided for in clause 28, the Bill provides not insignificant protection for workers when they raise grievances to the employer. As it stands, workers who are employed by companies with less than 25 individuals will not be covered by clause 28, at least for the next five years. In view of the protections available for workers who make legitimate claims and the prospect of other civil relief which will be made known by the Government later in the year through sister legislation, I hope more resources can be placed at the feet of these smaller companies to help them come up to speed with the requirements of this legislation by way of regular updates from TAFEP, so that all workers can be covered by this anti-discrimination law in good time. I note Minister, in his opening speech to this Bill, stressed about various educational resources that will be developed, so I take the point that the Minister raised. I understand and respect the approach of the tripartite partners in taking a staggered approach out of practical necessity. However, a clear roadmap with intermediate goals towards compliance for companies with less than 25 workers would be necessary as the Bill today still does not cover 25% of our workforce. Why are such intermediate checkpoints important?”
“My colleagues, Sengkang GRC Members of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Louis Chua will speak on the development of the common law with regard to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions, which have a longer history of hosting anti-discrimination legislation to better address such problems. They will also speak on the important subject of reasonable accommodations, including for workers who are differently abled. Sir, MOM's press release on the First Reading of the Bill in November last year states that small firms with fewer than 25 employees will be exempt from this Bill and that tripartite partners will monitor the situation and review the exception in five years time. If this Bill comes into force in 2026, for example, it follows that all our workplaces will only be covered in 2031 at the earliest. My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, will speak on this issue of timing and other matters in her speech. This exemption was the subject matter of my PQ to MOM in 2023, when I enquired how many discrimination-related complaints were made by workers and employees working in companies with a headcount of less than 25. While the intent of MOM is that firms with less than 25 workers will continue to be covered by the guidelines, the Minister confirmed that between 2018 and 2022, 35% of workplace discrimination complaints were received from workers working in firms with a headcount of less than 25. This is not an insignificant number and I have some queries in this regard.”
“The fact that not all the illustrations in the Committee's report are automatically determinative of discrimination is a reminder that proving workplace discrimination is not always straightforward and many workers will also have to be alive to the reality of indirect discrimination. The prospect of indirect discrimination was raised by my colleague Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2023. The Bill before the House does not cover indirect discrimination as the Tripartite Committee opined that it would impose very wide legal obligations on employers, resulting in uncertainty for both employers and employees. In addition, there was a concern of an overly legalistic relationship between employer and employee. While this perspective is not completely without merit, it must be remembered there could be some cases of employment decisions that arise out of norms, culture or processes that are nonetheless discriminatory. This would be one area to monitor closely going forward to better support workers who are commonly in a more inferior bargaining position compared to their bosses and employers, who exert significant control over them. I note that TAFEP will welcome complaints covering indirect discrimination, even if this Bill does not list indirect discrimination as a protected characteristic. To complement the Bill, it would be critical for TAFEP to list out examples of such indirect discrimination going forward, which it should profile publicly.”
“First, the claimant or the worker should clearly cite the incident that led him or her to believe that he or she suffered an adverse employment outcome because of a protected characteristic, and the cited incident should show how the consideration of the discriminatory action, for example, on the grounds of age or nationality led to that adverse employment outcome. The report also says that documentary evidence, such as emails, mobile phone messages and oral testimonies, which are signed by witnesses, will strengthen the claim. This is from the workers' perspective. These requirements are likely to be a bridge too far for many workers, and discriminations on the grounds of the protected characteristics may be quite difficult to prove, particularly at the moment of employment. I would be grateful if the Minister could share some examples of how TAFEP helped workers who made such complaints on the grounds of nationality and age at the moment of employment, were successfully resolved. I choose nationality and age because these are the two characteristics which rank highest in terms of complaints by workers on the grounds. These examples would help workers appreciate the evidentiary threshold that has to be overcome to succeed in a claim. To this end, the Tripartite Committee's report does list out some helpful examples that would be useful to guide workers. In the absence of illustrations in the Bill, it would be important for these examples to be profiled and updated, as appropriate, on easily accessible public resources on a public service website or channel, not just for the convenience of workers and employees, but for a more realistic understanding of what is perceived to be discrimination as envisaged by this legislation.”
“This clause deals with what is commonly referred to as "associated discrimination" and it reads, "an employment decision made only on the ground of a protected characteristic of a relative or an associate of the individual is not discrimination". This reads rather innocently until one peruses the explanatory statement to the clause at the end of the Bill, which reads, I quote, "An employer does not discriminate against A if the employer dismisses A on the ground of the race of A's husband." Prima facie and without more, this explanation makes it clear to me, at least, that A's employer is a racist. What has the race of A's husband got to do with A's employment and dismissal? By extension, other extreme examples that would not be out of place here would be when A chooses to fire the worker if the worker's spouse is a foreigner, or their parents are too old, or the child or A's child is mentally disabled. These examples show how mind-boggling discrimination by association can be insofar as the explanatory statement is concerned. Can the Minister clarify what this clause seeks to achieve in favour of an employer with concrete examples from TAFEP's history, given that TAFEP has been around for close to 20 years? These examples may be more useful than explaining what is sought to be achieved by this clause. Workers must note that for practical purposes, they would need to secure evidence to lodge a workplace fairness claim. I note the Tripartite Committee's Workplace Fairness legislation final report which listed two key requirements to that end.”
“How do we convince Singaporeans that their National Service commitments are not in vain? How do we convince them that the state will always have their backs? Hence, employers should not see this legislation just as an administrative process, or worse, a burden. It is far more important than that. I would even go so far as to say that it is a critical piece of legislation with a view towards nation building in the years to come, where many of our challenges will be domestic. Mr Speaker, the Bill is also significant in how it seeks to achieve certain important goals and to balance the relationship between workers and employers. It covers discrimination, not just with respect to hiring decisions but to in-employment decisions, such as performance appraisals, promotions, training opportunities and finally, dismissals. On the protected characteristics or the specific discriminatory grounds set out, Part 3 of the Bill seeks to define the meaning of eight out of 11 characteristics. Clauses 9 to 16 seek to clarify the ambit of these characteristics and must be read with exceptions at Part 5 to be properly contextualised and understood by workers. Employers are allowed to consider a discriminatory hire if there are genuine job requirements on the grounds of age, in favour of citizens and PRs, on religious grounds and on grounds of disability. In the main, the exceptions are fair and practical and they provide significant operating space for employers to make employment decisions in the best interest of their corporate entities and companies. However, I found the explanatory statement to clause 17(3) intuitively problematic and odd, especially since this Bill addresses discrimination.”
“I will speak on some issues the Bill raises and seek clarifications on some others. My colleagues, Sylvia Lim, He Ting Ru, Faisal Manap and Louis Chua will also speak on this important Bill. First, on clause 3, which covers the purpose of the Bill. It states four purposes to this proposed legislation. First, to protect individuals from discrimination by employers on the grounds of the protected characteristics listed in clause 8, covering age, nationality, sex, marital status, pregnancy, caregiving responsibilities, race, religion, language, ability, disability and mental health conditions. Second, it establishes fair employment practices, including the codification of the Fair Employment Framework and legislating how employers handle grievances. Third, and very significantly, in my view, it ensures that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) are fairly considered for employment opportunities and continue to form the core of the workforce in Singapore, with foreigners as a complement. Finally, to preserve harmonious workplace relations. Where does this Bill leave foreigners who are critical complementary components in many sectors of the economy? The Bill correctly offers wide and significant protections to them as well, notwithstanding clause 22. Clause 22 reads that it is not discrimination to say that an employment opportunity is for a Singaporean or PR at the expense of someone who is a foreigner. It is a simple exception, worded in the negative but clear in its intent. Employers should always aim to recruit Singaporeans and PRs first. This must be so. Otherwise, how do we build and sustain a united people and nation heavily reliant on immigration, which is a fault line in many parts of the world?”
“Mr Speaker, when the Workers' Party (WP) participated in the General Election of 2020 to seek a mandate from Singaporeans, the call to introduce anti-discrimination legislation was an important proposal in the party manifesto. Separately, and for some years now, several Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have also called for such legislation. But as late as 2018, MOM spoke out against the codification of the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices into legislation. It argued that doing so would not lead to superior employment outcomes and, separately, that the specific anti-discrimination legislation may have the unintended consequence of deterring businesses from hiring workers because these businesses would become fearful of dismissing workers without legitimate reasons. I spoke at some length about the importance of such legislation in my first speech as Leader of the Opposition in 2020 during the debate after the opening of Parliament. Mr Speaker, the reality is that the spirit of any anti-discrimination legislation does far more than just supporting and helping workers. This Bill sends a fundamental and powerful message. It speaks to how the state deals with where Singaporeans stand at workplaces in their own country. It speaks to how the state recognises multi-racialism, especially when minorities form about 25% of the population. It is a powerful signal, particularly when one considers the domestic context over the last decades. This would include the fears of some Singaporeans becoming second class citizens in their own country, where some believe job prospects are better if you are a foreigner on an Employment Pass (EP) than a local born or naturalised Singaporean. Mr Speaker, the WP supports the Workplace Fairness Bill.”