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 5 of 36.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for replying to a variation of the question that I asked. The Minister of State referred to the Australian example and just a few weeks ago, the Australian Internet Commissioner who is overseeing this piece of legislation, which is supposed to come into effect this year, towards end of the year I understand, was quoted as saying, "the onus to date has been falling on parents and the children themselves" and "this law is the government making a very definitive statement and saying, 'we need to put the burden back on you, companies, just like we did with car manufacturers 60 years ago with seatbelts'... and now there is so much life-saving technology in our cars that we take for granted. Back then, car manufacturers pushed back but now they compete on safety... The law is really aimed at making normative change that the onus should fall on platforms." This is one fragment of a larger interview she did and was reported on National Public Radio. With regard to the Online Safety Code that the Minister of State spoke about vis-a-vis IMDA's conversation with social media platforms, is the Government of the view that in Singapore at least, these social media companies actually respond quite proactively to the requirements that the Government puts on them with regard to Online Safety? What is the position in Singapore vis-a-vis the relationship with social media companies?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, just a clarification for the Minister. In view of the rising number of seniors who stay alone, for example, and may face difficulties to get online, notwithstanding more touchpoints that the Minister shared, does the Ministry consider more frequent, or is it looking at even considering the prospect of visiting these people who ask for support or who need financial assistance but for various reasons such as mobility, are not able to reach the SSOs or access the various electronic options that are available for quicker assessment of their applications? And if so, does the Minister foresee this to be an issue which will repeat itself more frequently in future, where there may well be a need for SSO officers to visit some individuals, as appropriate?”
“Mr Speaker, just a response to the Minister through a question vis-à-vis what he said about AI. Unfortunately, from the worker's perspective, one usually is not in a position of information superiority over the employer, so you do not know what back-end selections or pre-qualifications your AI system has done. So, in that context, where there is always a power imbalance and there is always information asymmetry in favour of an employer, what new approaches would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) consider to encourage employees to raise concerns to, say, TAFEP or to any other appropriate authority in MOM?”
“Mr Speaker, I am going to just put a question with regard to the last part of the Minister's reply to the Parliamentary Question which covered the MKBF data as an overall update on some of the breakdowns that have happened over the last few weeks. Just to confirm with the Minister that the one million-threshold for MKBF was set a number of years ago, about five years ago now. The Minister shared some data of the reliability of certain lines and that reliability figure has obviously gone higher than one million MKBF. Can I confirm whether the Ministry of Transport is considering raising the threshold and, if it does, what would be the reasons why it would do so and whether it is sustainable going forward.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Senior Minister of State Koh, on the Bill proper, the first question pertains to the costs and how the costs will be distributed amongst platform operators, workers and we know the contribution of the Government. So, it is actually the flow-through, which is a bit more of a concern. I think Member Mariam Jaafar today spoke about how different platform companies have their own models – some 0% and they will charge platform fees and so on, for example. So, there is a concern that for some platforms, there will be an incredible flow-through of these costs to the consumers; others, less so. Does the Government have any expectation of how it is going to manage the situation such that platform operators do not willy-nilly just proceed and transfer all these costs accordingly to the consumer? That is my first question. The second question is pertaining to WICA. My understanding is there is some concern about the cost of WICA for platform companies. As I iterated in my speech with three months to go before the introduction of WICA for platform workers, is there some landing insofar as how these premiums are priced, in view of the varied nature of the platform space? Some clarity on that would be helpful because if WICA is very expensive, then one can imagine what the cost for the consumer would be.”
“I am not going to respond to that point, but just to say that there is no question of losing a relationship in any way.”
“" I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can raise a single example of where an NTUC Secretary-General or a deputy secretary-general has spoken out against a 3G or 4G leader to defend the rights of workers. I am not suggesting that this is the gold standard or the test. It is not the test. But this comes to the heart of what people see and believe to be a conflict of interest. And when NTUC delegates are saying "Majulah PAP", I think people are entitled to question, "Do you speak for the party first or do you speak for workers first?" [Applause.] So, it is a simple point. The point is not about moving Singapore in a direction where employers, employees, workers, Government fight each other to the detriment of our society and our economic growth. That is not the point. And I think we have been waylaid down that rabbit hole and we have got to just come back to the central point that was being made by Mr Gerald Giam. Party interests cannot be more important than the interest of our workers and a symbiotic relationship does not mean that the NTUC is neutered or cannot openly speak out in the interest of workers. And I think Minister of State Desmond Tan has shared where the NTUC has spoken out, and I have no reason to believe that NTUC rank and file workers did not speak out. That is something I have to say, because I know some of them and I have to say I have to thank them for their service for our workers.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to respond to Senior Minister of State Koh. The only reason I do so is because he made a remark in his concluding address on WP leadership. So, obviously, I have to stand up. I second what my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, has said but let me just state some points very clearly. One, I reject, and the WP will reject, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon's comments on the WP entirely and his characterisation of harmonious industrial relations between workers, employers and the government of the day as being something the WP does not agree with. Two, on the Senior Minister of State's historical analysis of the WP, I think it disregards an important fact that more than 60 years have elapsed, and the political situation has changed dramatically and significantly. This is not just true for the WP, it is also true for the PAP. But since the Senior Minister of State is on history, let me refer to evidence of what I believe my colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, was thinking about when he was talking about an independent NTUC, through the eyes of history. I am referring to a publication of NTUC, titled "50 years of the Labour Movement in Singapore", October 1966, "NTUC's cooperation: Not one way traffic": "At an NTUC delegates conference, Ho See Beng, now Secretary-General, reminded the Government and employers that the NTUC's cooperation in the task of economic development was not a one-way traffic. He took issue with the with Government leaders, particularly the Prime Minister, for speaking unendingly of labour's obligations while hardly touching on labour's rights and major grievances.”
“Mr Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself and I think Mr Giam has explained why his subject matter, which Mr Christopher de Souza has taken objection to, is connected to the Bill. Thank you.”
“Mr Speaker, just to put on record, I think the remarks you made at the end, with respect, are critical because I distinctly recall in this House not too long ago, I believe it was a Budget speech, and the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza did not speak about the Budget, but went on to advise the Government or PAP to make a decision on the 4G leadership. So, I think the salutary message you provided at the end is important because it cannot be just accusations made at the opposition, but I think some PAP Members ought to reflect on themselves.”
“While the Bill represents an improvement in social security and fairer working conditions for our platform workers, its effectiveness hinges on resolving ambiguities and the acceptance of important social responsibilities by not just platform companies and consumers, but platform workers accepting some responsibility for their own security too.”
“In the UK, a non-profit entity called WorkerInfoExchange helps platform workers access and gain insight from data collected from them at work, with a view to tilting the balance away from big platforms by collecting and pooling the data of platform workers to help them demand fairer conditions. Can the Senior Minister of State confirm if this Bill envisages a platform work association representing platform workers operating in a similar way, given there is an understanding that platform companies will not be expected to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms? If representation delivers a more level playing field for workers and information, asymmetries between workers and companies are reduced in a real way, more platform workers are likely to be assisted directly, where representation carries weight and bargaining power. This may be an important incentive to get platform workers to seek better representation. Such incentives are needed, given that a survey carried out by Grab, Deliveroo and Foodpanda revealed that 55% of food delivery workers said they are unwilling to pay any fees for representation, suggesting a lack of understanding at what representation can offer or a lack of belief of how representation can benefit them in concrete terms. To conclude, Sir, the success of this Bill for the Singaporean public will turn on how reasonable the anticipated price rises of platform services will be after the Bill becomes law and whether the increase is equitably distributed between consumers, platforms and workers – bearing in mind that nothing stops any company or service provider from capitalising on significant regulatory changes to profiteer or socialise costs more than it should.”
“To that extent, I agree completely with the Senior Minister of State's explanation on WICA for platform workers. Finally, an important prong of the changes envisaged by the Bill is representation. As iterated earlier, the tripartite discussions that preceded the Bill acknowledged that the business secrets of platform companies, such as the operational details of their matching algorithms, would be respected. I believe many people in and out of this House would have heard platform workers speak of riders or drivers allegedly receiving notice of a job in the vicinity, while another driver or rider may not receive the same notice. Naturally, this raises concerns of discriminatory allocation. Unfortunately, these very algorithms that determine allocation are driven by the business strategies of the platform companies and one can understand that they may be trade secrets. While the House must respect the liberty of private enterprise to the extent possible, equally, it is important for platform companies to both proactively explain as well as publicise to their workers how important decisions, such as job allocation, performance assessment of workers and rates, are decided. A balance has to be struck between respecting business secrecy on one hand and the legitimate concerns of workers on the other. Ultimately, any new status quo must better level the playing field between platform workers and platform companies to ensure that workers' rights are protected. I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if representation as effected by the Bill could co-exist with the prospect of platform workers sharing their data with an association.”
“For example, can there be coverage if a food delivery rider completes a job, is in transit on the way home after a food delivery and, God forbids, gets involved in some serious accident? I believe there is some scope for reviewing the applicability of WICA for food delivery riders and ride-hail platform workers differently, to better protect more vulnerable workers. This is worth consideration precisely because of the unconventional deployment of WICA in the ordinary sense, which is commonly extended to those traditionally classified as employees only. I hope the Ministry can look into this. Separately, in a Business Times article dated 13 July 2023, it was reported that a ride-hailing driver had a specific query on whether the WICA coverage would extend to platform workers who get into an accident while waiting for the app to assign new jobs. There was no clarity on this point in the article, so it would be helpful if the Senior Minister of State can address this point in the House, too. Before moving on from this section, the incorporation of WICA for platform workers by way of this Bill does not mean that platform companies have been leaving workers in the lurch. Foodpanda has extended skills upgrading schemes for its workers. A few companies, such as Gojek, offer subsidised premiums if workers take up private insurance. Grab has been providing drivers and delivery partners prolonged medical leave insurance. However, the varied nature of the platform space and, by extension, the varied and different coverage for work injuries suffered by our workers, means that WICA is necessary to ensure better and consistent basic protection for our most vulnerable workers.”
“Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us whether a WICA claim would cover the 90-day average across all the platform companies a platform worker is registered with and works for no matter the number of jobs accepted over this period? This is important because should a claim only be tied to the platform company, through which a platform worker accepted an assignment when injured, the WICA coverage for the worker may turn out to be very low. Another point where clarification is needed, is the time frame during which a platform worker is considered at work. For work injury compensation purposes, a platform worker is considered at-work during the pick-up and drop-off of passengers or items, including when they are headed to their vehicles or bikes. At least this is what I understood from the brochure that was circulated by the Senior Minister of State just now. This means that the eligibility window for work injury claims opens when the platform worker accepts a job through their app and ends when they head to their vehicles or bicycles after finishing delivery. Would there be scope to look at how WICA would apply to the completion of a food delivery job? Usually undertaken by platform workers on motorcycles or bicycles, the risk profile of such platform workers differs considerably from platform workers who provide ride-hailing services. Intuitively, the injuries sustained from even apparently minor accidents like brushes or side swipes involving two-wheelers can be severe, debilitating and, every so often, fatal. Can WICA for platform workers accommodate and extend greater protection for our most vulnerable workers?”
“First, it would be important for this House to understand the deliberations of the work injury compensation implementation network for platform companies and workers, on the number of insurers, which I believe was briefly mentioned by the Senior Minister of State in his opening speech, and the cost of premiums to platform companies since there is a legitimate concern that added cost for platform companies with regard to WICA, are likely to be passed on to the consumer. Have there been difficulties in pricing WICA for platform workers to date and do platform companies have a competitive range of quotes to consider? How many insurers are prepared to offer WICA, particularly since the product is new and the class of platform workers to be covered is far smaller than WICA for employees? With the implementation date for WICA for platform workers a mere three months away, are platform companies aware of how much WICA will cost them, so as to be ready to roll out coverage for platform workers by 1 January 2025? Separately, Mr Speaker, from the platform workers' perspective, for better work injury compensation, there must be a clear claims and compensation process for platform workers which is also easily understood. It was made known in July 2023 that the compensation from income lost due to work injuries would be based on the worker's average actual earnings in the 90 days before the injury. Sir, the reality on the ground is that many platform workers receive platform work across many apps or what is sometimes referred to as multi-homing. We see this all the time with platform workers toggling between several devices hosting different platform apps.”
“Can the Senior Minister of State tell us how the Ministry will investigate platform companies? How would the Ministry undertake investigations without access to the platform companies' top-secret algorithms, or does the Bill open the algorithms to scrutiny if discriminatory practices are alleged? Fifthly, under the Bill, the CPF contribution rates for workers and platforms would be increased by a few percentage points each year, until it reaches 20% from platform workers and 17% from platforms later in this decade. To address the fears of workers about falling incomes arising from the imposition of CPF, the Government announced the PCTS at the Committee of Supply debate in March last year. The Government would contribute 75% of the workers' contribution in the first year and this would reduce to 25% in 2027. A few weeks ago, the Government announced that it would totally offset the first contribution for the year 2025 by 100%, thus subsidising the workers' entire CPF contribution next year. Although, it must be noted that this would be the kick-off year where the workers' contribution is the lowest, at 2.5%. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State, in the interest of fiscal transparency, what is the difference between the new fiscal allocation for the PCTS compared to the original PCTS announcement? I move on to my queries on work injury compensation. I have two broad queries in this regard.”
“8% of the total. In view of the life cycle of the CPF system and lower contributions received in one's later years, the early working years are important age brackets, during which, our platform workers can grow their CPF accounts to reap the benefits of compound interest in good time. Considering that full-time employees are not even given the choice of either opting in or opting out, an opt-out system for platform workers does not seem inappropriate or unfair and would be far more effective in getting platform workers to seriously consider taking up CPF. Fourthly, some platform workers are worried about whether they would be worse off if they opt into CPF as provided by this Bill. They are concerned that it would create a perverse incentive on the part of platform companies to assign more jobs to workers who are not making CPF contributions so as to lower the companies' wage expenditure. The Government needs to address this very real fear of our platform workers. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has previously stated that platform companies must not discriminate when assigning work and MOM would investigate any unfair practices. Without more, my view is that this would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove discrimination as the evidence would lie in the word or, precisely, the algorithms of the platform companies. It was reported that the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation for Platform Workers (TWG) had drawn up some negotiating principles with the platform companies, for example, (a) that parties would be mutually committed to the operators' business success and workers' welfare; and (b) platform operators need not divulge their proprietary information or negotiate on commercially-sensitive matters.”
“Another worker alleged that the payment rate of the platforms had been decreasing since the announcement of the measures of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers were made and asked, "How can the Government ensure that the platforms eventually don't give us the burden?" What is clear is that, platform workers are concerned about lower take-home income should platform companies extract the employers' contribution of CPF by adjusting the algorithm, thereby forcing take-home wages downwards. The workers' concerns are in line with the public demand that the anticipated increase in the cost of platform services goes towards helping platform workers. I have a few queries for the Senior Minister of State on the CPF-related portion of this Bill. First, with an opt-in age of 30, most platform workers could choose not to participate. Could the Senior Minister of State share the rationale and thinking of why it agreed to the opt-in age of 30, in view of the larger policy objective of addressing housing needs and retirement adequacy of platform workers? Secondly, for workers who do not opt-in to CPF, will they receive the platform companies' share of the CPF contribution in cash? Thirdly, based on 2023 MOM data, the median age of resident regular primary platform workers was in the mid-50s. Only 8.4% of such workers were aged 30 and below – 8.4%. Could the Senior Minister of State please tell us why the Ministry did not pursue an opt-out system, instead of an opt-in regime for those above 30 in age? Opt-out systems, from a behavioural perspective, are far more effective in securing participation to address housing and retirement needs while yet giving choice to platform workers. Platform workers aged 30 to 39 form 10.8% of the total and those aged 40 to 49% form 18.”
“The next part of my speech covers questions on the preparations, assumptions and scenarios related to these new protections for workers, which are being brought to this House almost two years after the original recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers. I will first speak on the compulsory CPF contributions for platform workers aged below 30, with an opt-in regime for platform workers above the age of 30. In April 2022, I asked the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon about the number of platform workers who contribute to their CPF accounts on their own accord. While the Senior Minister of State did not have the data on hand, it was assessed that only about 45% of platform workers made some contribution to their MediSave accounts. It is not surprising that most platform workers do not contribute to their CPF accounts. Workers are very concerned about take-home pay. Anything that could reduce that amount is viewed with apprehension as it affects daily life. At a platform workers' dialogue session on 3 February 2023 involving about 120 workers, several workers raised their fears on whether the recommendations suggested by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers would result in higher costs for platforms, which would then be passed on to workers, to the detriment of their take-home pay. One worker said, "I hope that it will not be the cost all (passed) over to us, (but) it will be spread across consumers, platforms and ourselves. At the end of the day, if you just say only and, when you implement, the cost come back to us, we are the ones paying the 17%." He was referring to the 17% rate for employers' CPF contributions.”
“A different survey in September 2022 of 570 respondents found that nine in 10 were prepared to pay more if the monies went towards initiatives to better support platform workers. Minister – through you, Mr Deputy Speaker – in view of the survey threshold and tolerance of Singaporeans for price rises for platform services arising from this Bill, how much does the Ministry anticipate prices to increase by and how will this be equitably spread between consumers, platforms and platform workers? Specifically, after the implementation of the full CPF amount and WICA, are prices for users of platform services expected to rise by 5% or more, or will it breach the 10% mentioned by the Senior Minister of State? Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a mere technical question, but one I expect has been carefully considered by the tripartite partners, in view of the long period of deliberation, after the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers made its recommendations. Should the price increase be too high for consumers, one cannot rule out the prospect of a demand shock that causes consumers to recoil and reduce overall demand for platform services. If that were to happen, platform workers could find themselves with less work and even lower incomes. In addition, does the Senior Minister of State expect platform companies to reveal how much of their anticipated price increases are accrued to the CPF and WICA amendments envisaged by this Bill? Or are the algorithms of the platform companies expected to accommodate the increase in prices, with the public unclear about the extent of the price rise that is devoted towards better security for our platform workers? The latter scenario may of course incentivise the prospect of profiteering in the name of regulatory compliance.”
“Quite simply, many of our platform workers are potentially one major unexpected medical bill or even car repair away from exhausting their savings and sinking into real financial hardship. The changes proposed by this Bill are aimed at helping platform workers by addressing their income and health-related insecurities. For these reasons, the Workers' Party (WP) supports this Bill, as it seeks to advance regulatory changes that will ultimately better-serve the interests of platform workers. This House understands, of course, that the changes provided by this Bill must be paid for by someone. For now, there is little clarity on how much of the higher costs will be absorbed by the platform companies. But the Bill will doubtless usher in a period of overall higher prices for customers of platform services. At a platform workers' dialogue session in 2023, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon remarked, "All the surveys we have done, showed that Singaporeans are prepared to pay up to 10% more to support platform workers." However, a survey conducted in the first half of 2022, with a sample size of 2,000 respondents by the then-Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) on how much consumers were willing to pay to facilitate better protections for platform workers, revealed more nuanced findings. The MCI survey noted that four in five consumers were prepared to pay more for food delivery or ride-hailing services if the monies went to better support platform workers. Four in 10 respondents said that they were willing to pay up to 3% more, while three in 10 said that they were willing to pay 4% to 5% more. One consumer said that she was willing to pay a little extra, provided that the increase in costs were transparent and clearly went towards worker protection.”
“In a survey done as part of a 2022 Institute of Policy Studies inquiry on platform workers, 46% of respondents earned their income solely from food delivery, while another 27% earned income solely from platform work, including food delivery. MOM reported that the median gross monthly income of full-time platform-related occupations was $2,000 in 2023, unchanged from 2022. For a better understanding of each sub-category of platform workers, this figure needs to be parsed further so we can understand the median gross monthly income of each category of platform worker as listed by MOM, namely delivery workers, taxi drivers and private hire drivers. I hope the Ministry can provide this information so we can have an acute understanding of the income situation affecting specific type of platform work. With the cost of living biting Singaporeans at all levels, especially those of lower income, the earnings of most platform workers are precarious. This view is reinforced by a 2023 DBS study, which showed that platform workers are spending more than they earn and have to tap into their savings as they try to cope with the cost of living. In 2022, the expense-to-income ratio was 107%. This rose in 2023, to 112%. Arising from this, the savings of platform workers fell to 1.7 months' worth of expenses in May 2023, compared to 1.9 months a year before. This figure of 1.7 months is well below that of DBS Bank's median retail customer, who has savings of 3.5 months' worth of expenses. It is also well below the 12 months' of savings recommended by DBS Bank's Head of Financial Planning Literacy for those with an unstable income stream.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Platform Workers Bill comes to the House on the back of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, recommendations which were approved by the Government in 2022. The Committee's recommendations sought to strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: adequate financial protection in case of work injury through the Work Injury Compensation Framework provided by WICA, improved housing and retirement adequacy through CPF contributions, and finally, enhanced representation for platform workers. I will first speak on the platform workers space in general, and then on the higher prices for consumers that will most inevitably arise from the legislative changes effected by this Bill. The second part of my speech will focus on specific queries on the introduction of CPF. Finally, I will end with a few questions on WICA for platform workers and the expectations platform workers ought to have of associations that would bargain for them. Before I speak on the substantive Bill, it is important to give an overview of the platform workers space and the incomes of our platform workers. In 2023, there were 70,500 platform workers who formed 2.9% of the labour force. The platform industry and how it is regulated, is also diverse. For example, ride-hailing is far more regulated than food delivery, which is comparatively unregulated. Another significant question concerning platform workers is whether they earn most of their income from platform work, or if such work merely supplements what they earn from their full-time jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, just a single question for the Minister. With regard to the visa application process, I seek the Minister's confirmation whether a photograph also was required to be submitted by the preacher in the course of his visa application and whether there are particular processes by which that individual, as he is pictorially represented or represented in the picture, is cross-checked with the watchlist. And if there is no such process, can the Minister confirm whether, beyond my supplementary question, improvements are being considered to capture individuals who are already existing on a watchlist and clearly present a different level of threat, as compared to the average person who walks through our immigration gates?”
“He said if – and correct me if I am wrong and if I am misquoting the Minister – the Minister said that if the EBRC takes notice or takes note of the close electoral contest in the previous elections in its work and it takes it into account, that would be gerrymandering. Can I ask the Minister a simple question? Is there gerrymandering in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, just two clarifications for the Minister. Before that, just a point for the record. I disagree with the Minister that the Motion, as filed by PSP, sows distrust. If we do not discuss this issue in Parliament in a civil way, where do we do it? My two clarifications are as follows. I note that the Minister made a point about the presence of the term "political party" in the Motion and took issue with it at a few junctures in the course of his interventions and in the course of his speech. I would like to refer the Minister to a reply in 1983 by Mr Lee Kuan Yew again. When asked by Mr JB Jeyaretnam whether there were plans to increase the number of electoral constituencies to Parliament and, if such, whether a committee had been set up and so on and so forth, the usual questions that we get, in view of the current system. Mr Lee Kuan Yew replied as follows: "As there have been population shifts away from the old centres of populations into the new towns, my office will appoint an Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee consisting of civil servants. Their report will be presented to this House. On previous occasions in 1967, 1971, 1976 and 1980, no political party served on the Committee. Until there is a credible opposition party, this will continue to be the practice." Sir, I raise this to understand from the Minister whether the Minister's comments today are a significant point of departure in terms of the prospect of political parties ever serving on such an EBRC. If it is, then we can have it on the record. A second clarification which I think we ought to have on the record is the question of gerrymandering. The Minister, in his speech, was very careful to phrase it in a particular way.”
“As Forward Singapore notes, Singapore is at a prime moment for change, and a functioning and robust social compact creates trust. Keep your promise to Singaporeans to create a new and refreshed social compact. Follow through with the Government's Forward Singapore exercise. Bring Singapore forward with a fair electoral boundaries system. That is nothing more than aligning Singapore with international best practices. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“Even if they decide to retain the current system and not amend Singapore law, it is the PAP's choice whether to continue to accrue political advantage from the redrawing of electoral boundaries. This coming election is a chance for a new start, a refreshing of the social compact as the new Prime Minister has promised. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G leaders have the chance to change "politics as usual" in Singapore. The WP asks the Government to consider legislating and implementing a system that includes the following features: first, a Commission that is truly independent whose decisions cannot be rejected by the party in power; second for a Supreme Court Judge selected by the Chief Justice to be appointed as a member of the EBRC; third, the publication of proposed changes well in advance of elections and outside the election cycle; fourth, the opportunity for the public, including political parties, to provide feedback on the proposed changes; and fifth, a minimum period during which revised boundaries cannot be used for elections. I ask Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to take Singapore forward into a truly democratic political system. This would enhance Singapore's world standing even further. The international community and even fellow Singaporeans respects Singapore and our leaders for economic achievements and lack of corruption. But there are asterisks when they assess our political system. As for the population of Singapore, changes that promote democratic participation will give the public greater confidence and pride in our political system. We in the Opposition, and I dare say ordinary Singaporeans, are asking Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to do the right thing.”
“There is variation in each country's process, but generally, the boundary commissions will publish proposed changes in the number of representatives and electoral boundaries based on set guidelines, which are formalised through legislation. The public and political parties are given the opportunity to provide feedback on these proposals before the boundary commissions make their final decisions. Ministers and Parliament cannot reject the decisions of the boundary commissions. In the UK, the boundaries commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consult the public before coming up with their final recommendations. In addition, the boundary delineation exercise takes place once every eight years, and not before a general election. In Canada, there is an additional stipulation that revised boundaries cannot be used for elections within seven months of the revision. Any election within that period would run using the previous boundaries. In all these countries, there is a clear commitment to preventing political interference in the process of redrawing boundaries and to ensure the independence of the boundaries commission. This brings me to my third point. If Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G PAP team were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the spirit flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise that envisions Singapore operating under a refreshed social compact. A commitment from the 4G leadership to an independent and de-politicised EBRC would be concrete manifestation through action. In the end, the choice is the PAP's. They are in power. They can continue with things as they are, or they can amend the law to entrench fairness into the electoral boundary system to protect future generations.”
“If there had been no gerrymandering, it would be quite obvious to everybody and everybody would then be quite happy. But whether or not there has been an unconscious bias in the work of any official, so as to justify the allegations made by the Member for Serangoon, one can only judge from the vehemence of his allegations and the corresponding vehemence of the denials of the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. Nothing would be lost, if the reasons for the delineations are placed before an all-party Committee". It should not surprise this House to learn that these quotes were from Parliamentary speeches made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1956 and 1957 when he was in the opposition. Mr Lee talked about the possibility of unconscious bias, if a political party in power benefits from the redrawing of boundaries, whether that benefit has come about due to the unconscious or conscious bias of officials. This can be taken care of through the two bodies proposed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In his speech in 1956, Mr Lee suggested that a Boundaries Commission be set up. And in his speech in 1957, he suggested that the work of such a Committee be placed before an all-party Committee. Those measures proposed by Mr Lee are in line with those currently practiced by Australia, Canada and the UK, countries which practise the western ideas of political organisation that Mr Lee himself mentioned. In these commonwealth countries, boundary revisions are decided by boundary commissions or committees which are independent of Government ministers. The commission of Canada and the UK include a high court judge appointed by the chief justice.”
“It is obvious that changes in the electoral boundaries of SMCs and GRCs have benefited PAP. My second point is that in a fair and democratic political system, no parties should benefit politically from the rejoining of boundaries. No party. To that end, Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundaries system based on international best practices. This would prevent a situation where any party, whether PAP now or some other party in future, benefits politically from the drawing of electoral boundaries. Mr Speaker, allow me to quote various parts of one senior stateman's different Parliamentary speeches on this issue. First, and I quote, "If we want to avoid gerrymandering, any alteration of boundary lines to suit whoever is the Minister and his party, then let us have a Boundaries Commission". Second, and I quote, "I am stating, as a proposition, that in any part of the world, and more especially in this part of the world, people who assumed the duties of Government are somewhat tempted to use the powers with which they are temporarily vested to weigh things permanently in their favour. If we want to avoid gerrymandering, the drawing of boundary lines to include kampongs where one's supporters are and to exclude kampongs where one's opponents' supporters are, then let us have a proper Boundaries Commission. Let the mechanics of it be by the Minister notifying it in the Gazette. But let us have proper machinery to ensure that the working of Parliamentary democracy, this wholesale importation of western ideas of political organisation, is not perverted by feudalistic eastern ideas of personal survival". Third, and I quote, "On principle, it is advisable to have the work of this Committee placed before all political parties.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Let me outline my speech. First, for decades, PAP has gained political advantage from the way that electoral boundaries have been drawn and redrawn. Second, in a fair democratic political system, no party should gain such an advantage. So, Singapore should implement a politically impartial electoral boundary system based on international best practices. Third, if the 4G PAP were to implement such an impartial system, this would be in keeping with the promise flowing from the Forward Singapore exercise, that Singapore will operate under a refreshed social compact. My first point is that PAP has gained political advantage from the drawing of electoral boundaries. As far back as 1996, then-MP for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, presented a table in this House that showed how SMCs that had been through close electoral races were invariably incorporated into GRCs. Ms Hazel Poa has cited similar evidence in her speech on this Motion. I will give three examples. In 1991, the opposition candidate in Braddell Heights, Mr Sin Kek Tong, obtained close to 48% of the vote. In the next GE in 1997, Braddell Heights was incorporated into Marine Parade GRC. In 2011, the Workers' Party's (WP's) Yee Jenn Jong obtained close to 49% of the vote, losing the SMC of Joo Chiat by a mere 388 votes. In GE2015, Joo Chiat was merged into Marine Parade GRC. In 2015, the three SMCs where PAP had their smallest percentage of wins were incorporated into GRCs. As a matter of interest, these were all SMCs contested by WP. There is really no need for me to say more about this or to give more examples because any reasonable person can tell that the examples cited are not coincidences.”
“Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I believe, on one occasion, in the previous session of Parliament, we had extended Question Time because of the large number of questions on the Order Paper. Can I request Deputy Speaker and perhaps even the Leader of the House to consider extending Question Time for about 15 to 20 minutes so that we could go through some of the supplementary questions on the Marine Parade Town Cluster bus service? With your indulgence, please.”
“LTA announced the $900 million Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. My question, Sir: in view of Singapore's growing population of seniors, where one in four Singaporeans will be 65 years of age and above by 2030, does the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service open the door for LTA to introduce similar cluster services elsewhere in Singapore through the public transport system? And if not, what does the launch of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service say about the Government's approach to equity and fairness in the use of taxpayer-funded grants to serve Singaporeans? Thank you for your indulgence, Sir.”
“Noted, Deputy Speaker. In striking contrast, the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service was announced about a week after new MRT stations were opened along the Thomson-East Coast Line in Marine Parade GRC. Does the Minister of State not agree that the introduction of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service will make it far more challenging for the Government to undertake future bus service rationalisation exercises, especially in view of the growing population of seniors in many mature estates in Singapore who, like the residents in Marine Parade, would prefer easier and more convenient accessibility to polyclinics, hawker centres and MRT stations? My second supplementary question: in 2022, my colleague Gerald Giam had said in this House that LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services as these serve many elderly and disabled residents and suggested switching to smaller buses or extending bus intervals instead of removing services. On the launch of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service, Minister Edwin Tong was quoted as saying, "Even with a widespread transport system of public buses and MRTs, there is sometimes a gap, and that gap can translate into something that is quite difficult, especially if you are a senior." And on 30 July, after the Parliament deadline for Members to file PQs had passed, LTA announced a $900 million —”
“Sir, I had filed the specific Parliamentary Question (PQ) on LTA's role in the roll-out of the Marine Parade Cluster bus service to MOT, but this was re-directed to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). So, I have no choice but to put my supplementary questions to MCCY. Sir, over the last few years, there has been significant public unhappiness reported among Singaporeans across the island when bus rationalisation exercises have been undertaken to remove bus services with the operationalisation of new MRT lines. This was most recently manifested late last year when residents in Sembawang, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Bishan and Bukit Merah raised unhappiness about LTA's decision to amend services 75, 121, 162 and 859, and in addition to performing a U-turn to cancel bus service number 167. Commuter grouses over the bus service rationalisation exercise centred on the loss of a direct bus route connecting northern Singapore to the city and the inconvenience of having to make multiple transfers.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a few questions for the Minister. This pertains to the second thrust of his original reply, which was on the subject of Singaporeans' access to affordable insurance products. Both my questions pertain to what has happened over the last 24 hours. The first pertains to the statement by the NTUC Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng. He stated that, "Today, Income offers two low-cost schemes for union members – NTUC Gift and LUV term life insurance. Income has assured NTUC that it will keep premiums affordable for policyholders, especially those in the lower-income segments." Can I ask the Minister, with regard to MAS as regulator of insurance companies, has it queried NTUC on the basis of such a commitment that has been made in view of NTUC Enterprise's projected minority shareholding – if the deal goes through? Relatedly, can I enquire whether MAS is looking at the market to provide more low-cost options for Singaporeans, especially underserved communities who require insurance protection? The second question pertains to NTUC's joint statement on 4 August and the response of the former Income CEO, Mr Tan, yesterday. MAS, as regulator, would note that there is a point of difference between NTUC Enterprise's alleged representation that its undertaking to hold on to the relevant shares was "not for an indefinite period". Mr Tan, on the other hand, represents that this is not true and he invites MAS to ask both NTUC Enterprise and NTUC Income to produce all the material board minutes on the undertaking given by NTUC Enterprise. What is MAS' position on this matter?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Lately, over the last two years, in particular, there has been a term that is floating in the media lexicon – "Singapore-washing". Can I confirm whether the IMC will also be looking at the various permutations and aspects of some of the claims made by individuals and media organisations worldwide about how Singapore is potentially used as a conduit for such money laundering?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a few questions for the Minister. First, with regard to the latest CNB Drug Situation Report 2023, which observes an 18% increase from 2022 of new drug abusers in Singapore, can I enquire from the Minister what new initiatives is the Ministry and, more specifically CNB, looking at to ensure that this number does not increase further? Specifically, I understand the same report covered some information on preventive education and efforts taken at preventive education. What other new initiatives can we expect with regard to the increasing number of abusers? Related to this, there has been a significant jump in new psychoactive substances which have been seized by CNB. Is there a particular reason why there has been an evolution from other drugs, which are classified in the report, to these new psychoactive substances being abused in Singapore? It would be helpful if the Minister could share with us whether this is across the board or are there specific communities that are consuming these new drugs? The second question refers to the slide that the Minister put up on the two-year recidivism rate. Would the Minister also share if the five-year recidivism rate generally follows those same percentages – 73%, I believe, as recorded in 1993 to 27% in 2021? The final clarification is with regard to the recently passed Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill. I think the Minister suggested that we may come back to the House to see what else needs to be done. Is the Minister suggesting that there are some gaps in the Bill, which has not even come into force yet, which may require an amendment to the Act as it stands?”
“Mr Speaker, it does not address the question. It was an answer to a different question that was not put. My question is, are all AACs going to be run like how they are run today on a non-political, non-partisan basis?”
“Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I understand the PAP Community Fund has been invited to build and manage AACs in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm that all AACs including those in Opposition wards will be run on a non-partisan and non-political basis, like ACCs that are run by charitable organisations in Opposition wards today?”
“Thank you, Chairman. A question to the Minister on my cut. Emergencies can be defined by the patient and the medical professional differently depending on the sort of pain you are in. And to that end, the Minister shared that about 40% of cases at Accidents and Emergencies (A&Es) are not emergency cases. I would like to enquire whether that has been a stable number over the years because, if it has been, then it may be helpful to consider some sort of dynamic information to be shared with walk-in patients, because it will help them get attended to more quickly and also for the health workers and health staff in hospitals who may not be overloaded if these potential patients go to a hospital which is less crowded. The second question pertains to my cut with regard to providing information beyond just the median vis-à-vis bed utilisation, and whether it can also be extended to bed utilisation at the 75th and 90th percentiles. I have a final query on overstayers. Is this a significant problem in the hospitals? It would be helpful if the Minister could share some information on overstayers and whether there could be better coordination between medical social workers and the consultants and overseeing doctors, so that this problem can be abated somewhat.”
“While each situation would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, such patients can exacerbate the problems faced by the primary healthcare system. How many patients were labelled as overstayers in our public hospitals in 2023, and how serious is this problem? The Ministry has announced plans to increase beds over the next five years and the number is 1,900. Can the Ministry share its plans on how it intends to expand home care services over the next five years as well, to reduce patient load in hospitals, and so as to ensure that the load on our healthcare workers is not more than it needs to be?”
“Secondly, in view of the situation today and in the short term, can the Ministry generate a publicly accessible or build within mobile health applications such as HealthHub, a resource that provides information on waiting times at A&E departments in our public hospitals, and details on bed occupancy in as close to real-time as possible, perhaps even on a two-hourly basis, so that patients and their caregivers can exercise the option of going to an A&E department that is less crowded? This would also relieve and better spread the patient load at hospitals where doctors and nurses, allied health workers and staff consistently see higher A&E admissions and bed utilisation. Sir, the reality of our growing senior population has been on the radar for decades. I understand moves are underway to increase the number of hospitals and polyclinics. In fact, piling works have just begun last month for the Eastern Integrated Health Campus in my ward of Eunos in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, the development of which is expected to take some patient load off Changi General Hospital. These developments should improve the situation, but it has to account for the rising number of seniors and Singaporeans who inevitably will have to tap onto the healthcare system in some shape or form, and also to account for the rising healthcare manpower needs. Thirdly, there have been reports of patients preferring to stay in a hospital longer than they are supposed to, despite being medically fit for discharge. One report cited an expert as postulating, for example, that three out of 10 patients at the National University Hospital (NUH) or their family members have to contend with discharge issues.”
“Chairman, having to be hospitalised is physiologically and emotionally stressful in many ways. Fortunately, our health workers work hard to minimise the inconveniences of the experience as much as possible. Even so, to know that you have to wait long hours for a bed in Singapore does not correspond with what many older Singaporeans in particular expect of our healthcare system. At their moment of need, many of our seniors and even citizens across various age groups did not believe that they would have to wait hours in a chair in an A&E department or be decamped to beds located at a temporary car park where the lights are never turned off at their moment of critical need. MOH currently publishes the daily median waiting time at emergency departments on a delayed basis of two weeks. In some hospitals, even at the median, the waiting time for a bed can exceed 16 hours. This was the situation at the end of January at Khoo Teck Puat and Changi General Hospital. Imagine being ill and uncomfortable and having to wait 16 hours for a bed. This hospital experience is being narrated anecdotally to me by an increasing number of seniors. In order to have a more accurate perspective of the problem, would the Ministry be prepared to publish the waiting time for an admission to a ward, not just at the median which it does now, but at the 75th and 90th percentiles as well, for a more holistic overview of the situation on the ground?”
“Sir, in August last year, HDB confirmed that it had completed 72% of BTO projects that were delayed due to COVID-19 disruptions. In addition, 28% of the BTO projects delayed by the pandemic remain under construction. For these projects, around 22,000 affected households will progressively receive their keys by the first quarter of 2025 or earlier. Sir, the pandemic did not just affect the contractors who build our BTO flats. It also affected contractors who are involved in other major HDB works, such as electricity load upgrading projects, car park upgrading projects, amongst others, all of which are multi-year projects. In my constituency of Eunos in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), one particular car park upgrading project has been ongoing for a considerable period of time, with the expected completion date of the project extended two times already. Can the Minister share how many of such HDB improvement projects, including those undertaken on HDB's behalf by Town Councils, have been affected by contractors facing difficulties, as manifested by the number of extensions requested, and how many remain uncompleted? Contract extensions also come with an increase in costs that were not considered originally for HDB projects that are undertaken by Town Councils. Re-tendering a partly-completed project at current prices means that costs will have to be incurred. Would HDB consider helping contractors and Town Councils with additional support to complete these projects, the disruptions of which could not have been anticipated at the time of tender, if necessary?”
“Have stair-lifts been installed anywhere in Singapore in HDB flats with the half-landing problem? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: From my recollection, no stair-lifts have been installed yet, at this moment, unless there are certain specifications as part of the LUP. So, I think what is key is that while we install infrastructure or devices, we have to look at some aspects in terms of fire safety and other aspects like the technical constraints that may be there.”
“Just a question for the Minister of State on lift accessibility. Has HDB done any detailed study on the prospect of stair-lifts for certain affected units where seniors have serious mobility issues? For example, it could be half landings where the resident has to access at least a good six to eight steps before reaching the lift lobby. Is that something which the Ministry is looking at, particularly since the construction of new lift shafts for some of these affected units is not really viable financially? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Yes, we have looked at issues relating to stair-lifts. There are considerations like safety, technical constraints, in regard to these. Like what I shared with Mr Yip earlier, we will continue to explore some of these alternatives and options. At the end of the day, we want to see how those are viable and possible for us to do.”
“Thank you, Chair. I will be brief. Thank you to Minister for responding to my cut on retrenchment. Just a quick question, for the companies that currently pay retrenchment benefit, how many of them pay more than the recommended retrenchment benefits as listed by the tripartite partners? Secondly, I understand that every four years, MOM carries out a survey on retrenchment and in the last report – I understand that it is publicly available – is Retrenchment Benefit 2017, published by the MOM Manpower Research and Statistics Department in September 2018. Can I confirm with the Minister that the Ministry is going to continue publishing surveys on retrenchment benefit every four years?”