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 6 of 36.
“These programmes, targeting a mix of US lower-wage workers, high school graduates and young adults, combine training, job placement and support services aiming to transition participants into higher-wage jobs within specific sectors. Sectors were chosen because of local labour market demand and long-term career prospects, for example, healthcare, IT and manufacturing. The evaluations revealed substantial earning gains of 14% to 38% for participants about a year after training completion, with gains persisting from five to 11 years after participation in the programme. The success of these programmes was attributed to targeted skills training, certifications recognised within the industry, comprehensive wraparound support services, as well as leveraging community-based organisations with deep local knowledge to facilitate recruitment. In this light, Sir, particularly in view of enhancements to SkillsFuture at this Budget, how does MOM plan to report on the success or otherwise of the initiatives, to improve the employability prospects of the broader Singaporean workforce to fill the strategic gaps in our economy on an ongoing basis? Complementing Local Workforce”
“Chairman, SOL in the COMPASS EP framework offers a pathway to acquire 10 to 20 extra points towards the 40 points required for an EP, beyond the standard metrics, to ease the filling of known skill gaps in our economy with foreign labour. To gauge its effectiveness so far, I would like to ask: (a) what percentage of EP applications, since September 2023, have taken advantage of the bonus points prospective EP applicants receive; (b) has publishing SOL increased the absolute quantity or quality of applications to these occupations compared to pre-COMPASS? What specific SOL jobs continue to lack applications or suitable candidates despite these incentives? Can MOM name these jobs and briefly outline what it thinks could be the root causes of their lacking suitable candidates thus far? Given that it has been almost six months since COMPASS was introduced, does the Ministry have a view on whether the SOL mechanism is effective as a signal to companies and foreign labour? More importantly, for such identified talent shortages, we should also ensure Singaporeans are trained to fill these gaps. In view of the wider-ranging announcements made to the SkillsFuture Framework, including the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, how does the Ministry work with MOE and other agencies, like SkillsFuture, to systematically nudge Singaporeans into these occupations and sectors with training opportunities? We need to ensure that local workforce development is not just reactive but predictive, aligning closely with future industry needs. Sir, in 2022, Harvard economist Lawrence Katz wrote a paper reviewing four US sectoral employment programmes under the umbrella of Work Advance.”
“Legislating their right to retrenchment benefits would be one concrete way of supporting workers in the name of Forward Singapore. Tradesperson Jobs”
“Indonesia has a minimum statutory severance and long service pay. In general, such payouts are close to a month's wages for every year of service. In 2018, I asked the previous Minister of Manpower how it ensures companies pay retrenchment benefits that meet industry norms as defined by the tripartite standards for companies that retrench workers for reasons not related to financial distress. The Minister confirmed that according to the MOM's survey on retrenchment benefits in 2017, around 90% of establishments which retrenched workers paid retrenchment benefits while more than 70% of them paid benefits which met or exceeded prevailing norms. Sir, the Forward Singapore exercise made it a point to identify Singaporean workers who undertake hand and heart work, such as trade professionals like electricians and plumbers, as well as those in the healthcare and aged care sector. It called to ensure that they are rewarded fairly, since these workers contribute to our collective higher standard of living. In view of the respectable number of employers according to the Retrenchment Benefits 2017 report who are already providing retrenchment benefits meeting or exceeding the prevailing norms, I ask MOM to review its position on retrenchment benefits and progressively consider mandating retrenchment benefits for hand and heart workers to nudge employers to do so. At the same time, we should also look at mandating retrenchment benefits for workmen and employees covered by Part 4 of the Employment Act to start with. Some groups I mentioned are the most deserving among us with wages below the median and it is crucial that we pay special attention to them.”
“Chairman, according to the preliminary estimates released by MOM, retrenchments in Singapore have more than doubled in 2023 from 2022 to 14,320 cases. Recent stories about ongoing retrenchment and redundancy exercises in companies, such as Lazada and Electrolux, have only intensified discussions in public about retrenchment. With the threat of retrenchment for our workers all too real, it comes as a surprise to many Singaporeans that the right to retrenchment benefits is not enshrined in legislation here in Singapore for any category of worker. Generally, benefits upon retrenchment depend on the company's policy of severance package and retrenchment benefits, as well as the terms of the contract of employment. In the LifeSG guide on retrenchment benefits, the prevailing norms on paying retrenchment benefits are around two weeks to one month for each year of service, with unionised companies seeing one month of salary for each year of service. In contrast to our prevailing practice, many jurisdictions around East Asia have enshrined both the right to some form of retrenchment benefits and the amounts to be paid. For instance, under Part 5A of the Employment Ordinance in Hong Kong, both the right to severance payments, except in cases of dismissals, and the amount of severance payment to be paid are enshrined in legislation. Malaysia regulates both the employment termination and layoff benefits regulations. Thailand's Labour Protection Act also determines the severance pay amount for workers depending on their employment period. South Korea grants full-time employees severance pay under the Labour Standards Act regardless of reasons of termination. Taiwan sees employers liable to pay severance pay under the Labour Standards Act.”
“Thank you, Chair. Two questions. One is directed at the Second Minister on the non-Tamil Indian Languages (NTIL) framework. I think the Second Minister did mention that the last time the grants for NTILs were reviewed was in 2022. Can I confirm when the grants were last increased? Does the review mean that the grants also went up? I would appreciate if the Second Minister could confirm that fact. And if not, when was the last time that was done? My second question is to Minister. I did not expect Minister to respond to some of the questions that had been filed on the Israel-Hamas issue and the CCE curriculum. My question in my PQ was about lessons learned. I think Minister has covered quite a few of these lessons quite extensively, so I render my support to the Ministry's work in trying to ensure that the public conversation is a bit more even-handed and even keeled.”
“Yes, Sir. And so, the idea must always be: how do we follow up with this individual? So, I hope that clarifies to MSF that when we know of residents who are in need in any constituency, we will try and get assistance rendered to them, be it through people who we know are active on the ground or through the MSF and SSO on their own.”
“But certainly, when we know of residents who are in trouble, who are in need, who are in difficulty, it is not in the WP's interest to go online and to point figures at Government agencies or point fingers at organisations like SSOs for no rhyme or reason.”
“Mr Speaker, I think since I have been referred to, I ought to stand up and clarify matters. Indeed, there was a letter sent by someone who had not left their address. I get various letters all the time. I picked up that letter as I was clearing up my files in my office. This resident had made certain statements. I do not wish to reveal them here because I have not cleared these matters with that resident. I was just checking in on them to say, "Look, are things better now?" That resident gave some feedback about still being in difficulty. I asked for the address, since the address was not on the letter. I realised that it was in an area where Mr Leong and his party are active. So, I said, "Look, have you seen your Social Service Office (SSO) or at least gone to the SSO?" The couple said, "No, we cannot, because I am blind." And the gentleman said that his wife was immobile. For that reason, I got in touch with Mr Leong. I said, "Look, if your team is visiting, you may want to find out and follow up." For the record, maybe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary knows this, I receive similar feedback from my own residents about trouble that some other people may be facing in a different constituency. He would have had knowledge of an email that I sent to the SSO — I beg your pardon, centrally to MSF, telling them, "Look, I have got this information. Can you please follow up with this resident who does not stay in any constituency which the WP are involved in?" So, I hope the MSF acknowledges that in this House, that this is how the WP operates as well. By the way, I did not know how Mr Leong Mun Wai followed up after that.”
“For example, by virtue of the large number of students taking Hindi, there are in excess of 150 parallel programmes for Hindi in MOE schools, while a smaller NTIL, for example, Punjabi, has one school offering a parallel programme. The parallel programme saves many students a trip to a centralised school over the weekend to learn their NTIL mother tongue, leaving these children with more time to engage in other academic and non-academic pursuits. I have two other questions in this regard. Can I confirm what is MOE's policy towards new requests for parallel programmes by ethnic groups in charge of NTILs with a small enrolment, so that more of our students can be served by them? Secondly, and on current policy, I have been made to understand that if a Singaporean student taking an NTIL is enrolled in a school-based parallel programme, he or she will not be allowed to participate in the weekend NTIL class, as MOE currently disburses the grant for both separately. One result of this policy is that community groups with smaller NTIL enrolment see it far more economical and logistically convenient to hold weekend classes, even if parallel programmes may be the preference of some parents. I ask the Government to undertake a review of the NTIL space, with a view to consider the new challenges of community groups, students and parents. In theory, a "one-size-fits-all" grant is fair, but the unique challenge of each NTIL, particularly the small ones, should prompt a second look at the grant framework, so that the desired outcomes of the Ministry's bilingual policy are achieved. Full Subject-based Banding”
“Chairman, bilingual education is a cornerstone of our education policy. In the early 1990s, the Government moved to allow Indian students to sit for five non-Tamil Indian languages, or NTILs, at major examinations, such as the "O" levels. Separately, and in recognition of the status of Tamil as an official Indian mother tongue, MOE ensures that funding for the official mother tongues, namely Malay, Mandarin and Tamil, is higher than that of the five NTILs. Apart from Hindi, the number of students taking the four other non-Tamil mother tongue languages is far smaller. In the main, MOE supports students taking these subjects, namely Bengali, Urdu, Gujarati and Punjabi, by way of grants and making available schools over the weekend, so that students sitting for national examinations in these subjects can receive an education in their mother tongue languages in a conducive environment, with teachers provided by the ethnic community groups. All in all, MOE's broad approach towards the various NTILs is inclusive, while acknowledging the position of Tamil as the official Indian mother tongue language. Sir, I would like to know when was the last time MOE raised grants for Singaporean students taking the NTILs. I also enquire if the Ministry independently assesses the salaries of NTIL teachers and whether they are remunerated reasonably, in view of the important role they play in the Ministry's bilingual language policy. Sir, many local schools host parallel programmes where students are taught their NTIL subjects during curriculum hours, when their classmates are sitting for lessons in the official mother tongue languages. However, the parallel programme landscape varies considerably for the NTILs.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I thank Minister Josephine Teo for responding to my cut. Just two quick questions for the Minister. On the first point with regard to the question I asked on the specific line item in the Budget Book, which would essentially flesh out the funding to SPH Media Trust, and I thank the Minister for pointing out that it is under "Grant Subventions and Capital Injections to other Organisations". In view of the large grant, can I invite the Minister to consider, perhaps in the future, a separate line item for SPH Media Trust? I say this because, in view of the funding framework and how the Government has stepped in into the public service media space, if I can call it that, I think it will be helpful for people to track, on an ongoing basis, how much taxpayer funding goes into the funding of SPH Media. That is just a suggestion for the Ministry. The second point pertains to some of the KPIs that the Minister shared, certain KPIs that were mapped were not met. At the end of every Ministry in the Budget Book, there is a section on KPIs with key indicators of how the Ministry looks upon what services are rendered to the public and so forth. It would be helpful also perhaps, in view of the longer-term funding of SPH Media, I would suggest, to include some of those KPIs in that KPI section in the Budget Book, so that the public also can be informed of where it is doing well and where it is not. For example, I think the Minister spoke about reach, engagement, vernacular targets. So, that is just something for the Minister to consider and I would be grateful if she could comment on that, please. 6.30 pm”
“This is represented by Singaporeans who seek greater editorial independence, a wider diversity of views, providing important feedback on Government policies and even investigative journalism on matters of significant public interest. We were told that there will be key performance indicators (KPIs) for SPH Media Trust and it has to provide the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) with half-yearly updates on its risk management framework. Can the Minister inform the public – who are now SPH Media Trust's stakeholders; one, what are the KPIs that SPH Media Trust has to meet under the funding framework? Two, how has SMP fared on its KPIs thus far, after being subsidised for one year? Three, which KPIs did it fail to meet and why? Four, has MCI found SPH Media Trust's half-yearly risk updates satisfactory? Five, how has SPH Media Trust addressed its risk management framework? I look forward to the Ministry's replies and request the officeholder to share under which line item and page of the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates the subsidy to SPH Media Trust is reflected at and what is the expenditure for 2023 and the amount budgeted for 2024/2025? I ask because there is not a specific line item making reference to significant market power (SMP) or SPH Media Trust.”
“Chair, the first tranche of public funds was disbursed to SPH Media Trust in March 2023. Over four Ministerial Statements in this House, the Government has put out its reasons for making the taxpayers subsidise the running of SPH Media Trust or at least, partly subsidising the running of SPH Media Trust. What we have been told is that public funding is needed for three reasons. First, without public funding, SPH Media Trust's transformation into a digital news company will not be able to afford the investment and costs of running its professional newsrooms, which is expected to outstrip advertising revenue given the intense competition for eyeballs online. Second, it is in the public interest to preserve local news media, particularly those in the local vernacular languages, that are important to give voice to our multiracial communities, but which are difficult to sustain financially given their inherently smaller readership or viewership. Third, we were told public funding is necessary to support SPH Media Trust as the public will be well-served by a mainstream media that is trusted. One example of this was the Reuters Institute Digital News Report of 2021, where 77% of respondents expressed trust in The Straits Times – up from 70% in 2018. In June last year, SPH Media Trust's Audit and Risk Committee found that SPH had indeed overstated its circulation numbers between September 2020 and March 2022 and a Police report was also filed. Given the provision of taxpayer funding for SPH Media Trust, there is considerable public interest in how Singaporeans will be better served by the mainstream media in Singapore.”
“You do not need to interpret it. I agree.”
“Sir, short of re-characterising how I put my question, which I have thought through carefully, indeed, my query on diplomatic ties, I would rather be in communication with a party rather than not be in communication with a party. But the point I think was about how you respond when the other party actually takes a diametrically different position from your national position.”
“I am done soon. Thank you for your indulgence, Chairman. This was also a similar question that came up arising from our activities on the ground. The Minister again may have experienced it and he spoke about it in his speech, where insofar as the Russia-Ukraine conflict is concerned, individuals are asking why do we go so far as to sanction Russia, when we can actually make our point by saying we disagree with their actions towards Ukraine because this goes against international law. So, some understanding for the public about how we move vis-à-vis our own position would be helpful. I am not putting these questions to suggest that I disagree with the position of MFA on these matters, but that understanding is something that can move the conversation in public forward, because as the Minister has also shared, a lot of people in Singapore are talking about it for various reasons.”
“So, it will be helpful to understand how we traverse, how we move on a foreign policy issue, when we take a particular position and one of the other parties takes a diametrically different position.”
“The second element which I think is important to talk about and the Minister made the nuance actually very well in his speech when he talked about the events of 7 October. Certainly, they are acts of terror. The only issue, Sir, is language shapes narrative. In a conflict, that is critical insofar as shaping minds and shaping the information landscape and when you have a situation where one party is likely to dehumanise another party – which they have done in the past; its senior leadership, people in government continue to do so – the language that is used is important. I recall the Minister in November, being very careful and he said, "Notice I am just referring to what happened on that day." I think that is important. Those are the points that I feel compelled to share with the Minister notwithstanding my broad agreement with what he has shared today. But I have two questions that can be helpful in terms of the public conversation and in terms of engagement with Singaporeans on foreign policy. One, again, on the Israel-Hamas issue, I have received those emails. I am sure the Ministry has received those emails. I think some of them are Singaporeans. I cannot speak for every email that comes through. But there was a view that we should cut relations with Israel. That is a separate question. But it will be helpful to understand the nuance of how foreign policy is determined when you have a situation where one party, for example, does not believe in the two-state solution. That is our national position. The current Israeli leadership does not believe in the two-state solution. They have said so publicly. I think a few of their ministers have said so publicly, notwithstanding a motion that was passed in the Israeli parliament last week.”
“Mr Chairman, thank you to the Minister for a very broad-ranging speech which I thought was very helpful. I refer to one of the points which he anchored his speech on, which is about foreign policy beginning at home and the importance of a cohesive and united society in Singapore. I subscribe to those points. Perhaps, it is best to describe it through something which happened some years ago. The Minister gave me a call. It does not matter which country it is, it does not matter which race or which Embassy it was. A particular Embassy had reached out to Singaporean MPs of a particular race and had invited them for an event. The Minister shared with me, at least the PAP's position was they would not be going for this event because of the particular way it was organised – only for one particular race of MPs to show up. And it did not take long, in fact, hardly a few seconds for me to just tell the Minister, "Look, I think that is something we will follow suit because we are Singapore." I think that is something quite pregnant with meaning to it when I said that, when I said, "We are Singapore." I want to share this episode just to set the tone of the conversation in the right spirit. Two points which the Minister raised. One was self defence. I have no disagreement with the Minister about how important it is for Singapore to retain our right to self defence. The only issue in case of Israel-Hama's conflict was that the conflict had a history. I do not mean a long history, but I mean a far shorter history – four conflicts in a short period of about less than two decades. Almost every time, it is a case of one side going too far. And this was what I sought to share in my speech in November when Mr Vikram Nair and his colleagues filed a Motion on this subject.”
“I thank the Minister for answering the original question. Just a quick follow-up on the Minister's point about the upcoming support for workers who are involuntarily unemployed. Can I confirm whether the benefits or the programme that the Government is considering is over and above its current policy on retrenchment benefits, as in even though those are not legislated, are they going to supersede the Government's position on retrenchment benefits or are they still two separate matters?”
“Would the Ministry be able to share how it determines the circumstances it takes into account in deciding when to raise its chargeable income threshold for the first $20,000, either to increase it, in view of rising prices and inflation? RIE2025 and Intellectual Property (IP)”
“Chairman, the registration threshold of $1 million for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been in place since 1994. The threshold works, for example, to exempt some small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as hawkers and retail shops in our neighbourhoods. It also helps avoid incurring additional costs to comply with GST accounting and collection requirements. Almost 30 years later, this figure of $1 million remains in place. In an earlier Parliamentary Question to MOF on this matter, it replied that the Ministry would continue to assess the appropriateness of this threshold as part of its regular policy reviews. Can the Ministry share the factors that it considers with regard to the appropriateness of the $1 million registration threshold for GST and why it has not been minded to raise this threshold, particularly in view of inflation? Separately, are there plans to further simplify the compliance costs of GST registration, particularly for small businesses? Income Tax – Chargeable Income Chairman, the chargeable income tax for the first $20,000 of one's personal income is 0%. This has remained the case for many years. Even though the effective tax rate of 2% is in place for those earning between $20,000 to $30,000, a figure that comes up to $200, this amount is not insignificant, especially for low-income earners, much of whose salaries get spent on food and consumables. An additional $200 to spend on such items can provide much respite and support for some families. For those who rent HDB flats under the rental housing scheme, and at the lowest tier, $200 can pay for seven months of rent.”
“Mr Speaker, I think I do not need to prolong this. The Member has not answered the point on instalments.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not mean to belabour this, because we are going to get into a hypothetical argument here. But the Government announced a 24-month instalment for property tax in this Budget. You can pay by instalments, can you not? Perhaps, that could be a way.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. You have just made the case that I was making: in one situation, you can; another situation, you cannot. You have to look at the statements made when the money was returned, and then you see in a different situation a different context, there is a different explanation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. To Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the response that I gave to Deputy Prime Minister is a point of fact. It was in response to what Deputy Prime Minister said about Mr Low having a certain position on the Reserves and that it had changed under me. I think this must be the third time he has mentioned it in this House and I have responded to it before and I responded to it the last time as well. Global financial crisis – Government draws down, returns the money and I think there were some statements made about why it was doing that. This time round, Reserves are used for another emergency and they are not returned – just a simple statement of fact. Positions change.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I have heard this before in this House. The point again I would make in response to that is, indeed, I have to agree with the Finance Minister. Policies change. A People's Action Party Government yesterday would return the money that it has used from the Reserves as a matter of principle. But today, a People's Action Party Government may not return the money it uses from the Reserves. That is my response.”
“Mr Speaker, I would say that when we make proposals, it is in the context of what is before us at that point in time. I think that is what I would have to respond with. Earlier on in this debate, we had a bit of a back and forth. I think Member Mr Murali Pillai and my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, engaged in an exchange about the information that we have to put together, policies, Budgets, to understand whether whatever we do going forward is going to be sustainable. I put the question to Mr Murali Pillay about what the $40 billion that has been committed by the Minister for Finance, is going to go towards. Now, we have no insight on those sort of matters. So, I cannot make any promise here that we are reneging or stepping back on a commitment to look for revenues to fund some of these policy objectives; because we do not have an insight into those things. By and large, I think the vision, or whatever it is, before the WP in particular – I cannot speak for the entire Opposition – but we will have to work with the information that we have. We are not in Government. If it means that we have to look at all options, we will look at all options.”
“The Government, basically Ministers, came out to say: we are slowing down growth, we have to, because the situation had changed so dramatically. Going forward, I think the real question is not so much what I think one Member I heard saying, I make no apologies for growth. I think we have to be careful if we go down that road, but to frame a conversation on sustainable growth. And then, I think there will be support for many policies that the Government proposes.”
“Just a quick clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. I acknowledge and thank him for stating very clearly that the Government will provide more information in response to some of the interventions that the various MPs have made. I think this is important. I was trying to link it to the final subject matter that the Deputy Prime Minister covered about usage of reserves and so forth, or suggestions that were made by the Opposition, I think these were in a particular context. It did not come up in this debate, but certainly, in previous debates where we talked about how we can make up for funding gaps vis-à-vis GST and all that. So, the call for information actually is very much part of how the Opposition tries to understand or tries to work through a mechanism or framework of fiscal prudence as well. I will give you an example how we do that. The Finance Minister talked about unemployment insurance and I think he made clear at his round-up speech that it will be financed through taxes. The Workers' Party (WP) had proposed a scheme which was actually financed by employer and employee. So, I would be cautious to suggest that the Opposition essentially just wants to dig into the reserves because we do think about the financial prudence question quite carefully. That was just a clarification for Finance Minister. The second point is with regard to growth. I think there were Members in the House in the course of the debate who talked about growth. Indeed, growth is important. But I think the key point here is sustainable growth and I think this is the real key going forward in this decade. Because we have seen what happened one decade ago, about 10 years ago, the sort of debates we were having in this House. And the Deputy Prime Minister was there.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister announced the expansion of Active Ageing Centres at his National Day Rally last year. And in view of what would be significant manpower requirements, is there a plan that the Ministry has to ramp up or mobilise this manpower and what sort of numbers are we looking at from the Ministry's standpoint?”
“Just a last clarification. So, just to push the Member a little bit more. In the case of a commitment made by the Government, for example, to spend $40 billion up to the end of the decade for ForwardSG initiatives, should these also be laid out earlier?”
“Just a quick response to Mr Murali Pillai on his clarifications. In the case of the BTO example that was raised as part of this debate by a PAP Member, that example then would actually fail the test that Mr Murali Pillai has brought up. Similarly, when other Members on the other side say we want to introduce a scheme, such as Carefare, or they speak of — nobody said cost of living crisis, but I heard affordability crisis today by PAP Members. I am assuming that in Mr Murali's schema, that analysis would also have to follow. Just for clarification.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his speech. I have been trying to follow very carefully what he has been suggesting. I think the broad strokes, typical of Mr Murali Pillai, you would not really disagree with them. But in terms of populism, I thought it would be important for me to just come down to some specifics. He mentioned some references in my speech to the 19 February Straits Times article. I think the point that I made in my speech was that article showed how people outside of this House, Singaporeans, in the context of the Forward Singapore exercise, were also looking at fiscal sustainability, fiscal balance, how the Government raises revenue and its expenditure policies. And in that regard, the point I made was we had put forth a proposal to smoothen that conversation, to better that conversation for the benefit of all Singaporeans. I understand he moved on later to talk about certain proposals that we have made for which the PAP has a conscientious objection. I think that is where I would like some clarification from him. If there is a conscientious objection, then what happens to the populism argument? Is it wrong for the Opposition to bring up those points? The second clarification I have is, again, bringing it down to an example. In this debate so far, we have the PAP Members speak up about building BTO flats in advance. What sort of numbers would the Member expect from anyone across the aisle or even in his own party, raising in Parliament, to substantiate that argument? Some clarity on that would be helpful. For the moment, I will leave it at these two clarifications.”
“Some of the differences between the PAP and the WP are of methods and approaches, and we must agree to disagree. But there may be a few issues where there is consensus on the final outcomes, and yet, others where there is none. This is how a parliamentary democracy works. A Singapore with a contested and balanced Parliamentary system, with a robust opposition presence playing its role in making for a fair and inclusive society, and ultimately, what it does is that it makes us a better, more confident and an authentic Singapore. Sir, the WP supports the Budget.”
“None of us chose to be born into our race or religion, so kindness and empathy must be a dominant feature of the multiracial Singapore spirit. As an opposition party with elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in Parliament, the Workers' Party will not self-censure but commit ourselves to bring up matters responsibly. Once mistrust between communities take root, we will not know what hit us. The WP agrees with the posture taken by the Government, that polarisation must not happen in Singapore. And as a society facing an unpredictable world, we should not dismiss this potential reality. We must gird ourselves against this prospect by deepening our commitment to fellow Singaporeans and representing them and their views faithfully. A potentially more volatile outlook also reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team and the importance of National Service. Our security agencies may be tested or challenged in ways that may not just be kinetic, but asymmetric, and we cannot afford to fall short. All Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is broad agreement on the outcomes sought by Forward Singapore. But the call for a fair, inclusive and united Singapore must also accommodate and respond to citizen demands for greater transparency and civic participation. Otherwise, Forward Singapore could easily fall victim to political cynicism. The WP has, on numerous occasions, proposed how these calls for greater transparency can be better addressed. Such calls will not grow softer and they are not inconsistent with the findings and the desired outcomes of the Forward Singapore exercise.”
“If Forward Singapore seeks to refresh the social compact to keep our society strong and united and to prepare for a difficult road ahead, all of us in Singaporeans – regardless of our political persuasion – will have to be our siblings' keeper. More so than ever before. But this will not be easy. Immigration and integration are good examples of where potential challenges lie. Earlier generations of immigrants had little choice, or less choice, but to integrate. They could not live hermetically sealed off from their host population. Only 30 years ago, it was prohibitively costly to make an international phone call. Current immigrants can easily stay connected to their networks and countries of birth. One can be a new Singaporean or PR physically present in Singapore, but removed from Singapore society. Better integration between the races and communities must be an important feature of the new social compact. We ignore this social objective at our peril, given how immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore's society. The prospect of constant information operations undertaken by state and non-state actors, is an acute threat facing all multicultural societies. As a multiracial and multi-religious society that relies on immigration to top-up the population, our bonds as one united people may be severely tested in the years to come. The reality of online misinformation of foreign interference, particularly if framed in nationalistic terms, or in the form of identity politics, can be insidious and highly damaging to Singapore. Even as we seek more space to passionately advocate our views, including those on race and religion, we should be mindful lest we denigrate another group. More communication is certainly needed, but we should never forget our common humanity.”
“This year's Budget sees the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit extended for another year. As in previous years, the WP calls on the Government to report on the success, or otherwise, of these enterprise schemes that cause huge amounts of money. Reporting on outcomes is a fundamental requirement for accountability. Please give us information on what outcomes, if any, have been achieved on an industry-wide level. Please let us know so that this House and industry experts outside this House can give inputs on how these schemes can be improved, if necessary. Sir, I move to my final point. In this uncertain world, Singaporeans need to be committed to being united even as we must remain multiracial and multicultural. The Budget speech By Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, sought to put into focus an important message that many of us overlook as we remain peaceful and far removed from the prospect of conflict. The segment of the Finance Minister's speech that stood out for me was the assessment of the uncertain outlook for Singapore. Some language was particularly strong. These include, and I quote: the international outlook has darkened dramatically; the post-Cold War era that fostered three decades of peace and stability is over; we are now in a new era of conflict and confrontation and there is no turning back; what can we expect in this new world? It will be more violent, it will be more fragmented, it will be messier and more unpredictable. At the same time as the world is seeing rising political polarisation and disenfranchisement, due to economic displacement, the world continues to struggle with common global problems, such as climate change, a subject Hougang Single Member Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan will touch on.”
“We must also improve workplace culture and change attitudes towards skills upgrading and training, if Forward Singapore is to become a reality. In a recent Ipsos survey titled "What Singapore thinks, feels and does", it was revealed that three in five Singapore employees – or 60% of Singapore employees – said that they were proud to work for their employer. But this was some 14 to 19 points below the global average; 29% said that they plan to leave their current employer in under two years – nine points more than the global norm. While pay is one reason, feeling unrecognised and a lack of career progression, are the two additional factors that drive employees to leave. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to improve productivity, this is as good a time as any to significantly review HR policies: to align them with national imperatives and the lived experience of Singapore workers. Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, will speak more about productivity improvements in his speech. A citizens panel on employment resilience concluded, as part of Forward Singapore, noted that many workers did not proactively manage their careers until a need arose – due to a lack of awareness of resources for upgrading; or to there being too much information that is too daunting to navigate. The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit aims to encourage employers to invest and enterprise, and workplace transformation. It covers an array of programmes, including support for job redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant. These initiatives can be superimposed on the key HR workplace pain points identified by employees – particularly older workers. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim will speak more on this subject.”
“Mr Speaker, my fourth point, is that employers need to show more support for employees. Business groups have expressed concerns about the new Local Qualifying Salary cap of $1,600, which is widely considered as the de facto minimum wage. However, if Singapore really wishes to embrace the philosophy of Forward Singapore, then we need to show stronger support for our financially vulnerable workers. This is such an important ingredient of the future social compact. Increases of the de facto minimum wage, should be seen as a step towards an inclusive and fair Singapore. If we have a shared future, where there is a lack of support for paying our lowest-paid workers in step with economic fundamentals, that would reflect very poorly on Singapore. When the economy grows or when support measures are extended to companies, workers must also benefit. But consumers too, must be prepared to pay more for goods and services and it cannot solely be left to businesses to absorb the additional cost of wages. The strongest social compact promised by Forward Singapore, also offers an opportunity to think about protections for our workers beyond wages. Much has been said about the lack of recognition in Singapore for all blue-collar workers who use their hands to perform skilled work. As the next step, Singapore should legislate retrenchment benefits or introduce redundancy insurance for these workers. I will speak more about this in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Manpower. But there are areas where some employers have done well and displayed solidarity with the Singaporean worker. For example, by implementing Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) in concert with the demands of a more modern Singaporean workforce. But FWAs are just one area.”
“A point made by the WP in our speeches during the Housing Motion that was debated in Parliament last year, when we sought to bring focus to the People's Action Party's (PAP's) amended Motion. It was not coincidental that the Prime Minister in his 2023 National Day Rally, referred to the now infamous $877,000 five-room BTO flat in Ang Mo Kio as an example of a BTO flat that should become slightly less expensive under the new Standard, Prime and Plus BTO classification system – thanks to added taxpayer subsidies. More money set aside for HDB flat purchase means less funds available for retirement, notwithstanding options to downgrade. If property prices and general inflationary trends rise faster than wages, plans for retirement will have to start later for many – since they would have less to set aside for their nest egg, with mortgages to serve today. It is time to closely examine how much CPF money should be set aside for housing. But if HDB prices continue to escalate, any move to reduce the CPF funds that can be set aside for housing, in favour of retirement adequacy, may backfire. The Government may then have to commit itself to making HDB flats even more affordable by increasing subsidies further. Make no mistake, direct subsidies for HDB flat purchases do not make HDB flats cheaper. They merely transfer the cost to current taxpayers. The WP will continue to closely monitor PAP's moves on this point. We will be sure to hold it to account, if it allows HDB flats to continue to rise in price beyond wage growth and if it allows the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans to be compromised. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap, will make some related points covering housing and low-income households in his speech.”
“The moves to raise employer's CPF contributions through to the year 2030, must also be seen by employers in this light – of ensuring that all the workers are not left behind when retirement beckons. Employers will have to redesign jobs, so that seniors can continue to work for far longer if they wish to. The real risk of more redundancies in the years to come, arising from job displacement, adds impetus to the need for job redesign. Recently, in a social media post, the Minister for National Development celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Ownership Scheme. History shows that the reception to the HDB Home Ownership Scheme, per se, was initially lukewarm. The popularity of HDB flats exploded only when the CPF Act was amended in 1968, allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF funds for down payments and mortgage instalments of HDB flats. It would not be hyperbole to say: that the CPF changed from a statutory board in charge of Singaporeans' retirement to a subsidiary of the HDB, with the aim of helping Singaporeans purchase property. Of course, many aspects of CPF policy have evolved since then. But what is clear, is that Singapore is in a far different place compared to where it was in the early years of Independence. Specifically, younger Singaporeans cannot expect the same home equity appreciation that Singapore experienced from the 1990s. Today, HDB affordability continues to remain an ongoing concern in the minds of many Singaporeans, in spite of the new Build-To-Order (BTO) classification system – which adds new restriction and increases subsidies for new flats. In substance, the Government appears to acknowledge the point that affordability is an ongoing concern.”
“The $4,000 SkillsFuture credit, which is ringfenced for selected programmes with better employability outcomes, can be used for part-time diploma, post-diploma and undergraduate courses as well as PWM-specific courses. The WP sees the deployment of SkillsFuture credits towards economically productive courses with employment outcomes as an important policy initiative of this Budget. But we believe that many of the courses are likely to cost more than $4,000. To further facilitate skills training and help Singaporean workers, the Government should introduce an interest-free SkillsFuture education loan. The WP put this proposal front and centre in our General Election 2020 manifesto. To start with, these loans can be calibrated towards courses, in either high-growth industries that lack Singaporean manpower or in other economically important areas. Sir, my third point, is that the Government must improve retirement adequacy. The changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Special Account (SA), announced by Deputy Prime Minister, will be addressed by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua. However, I speak of retirement adequacy more broadly and as an ongoing concern for the decades to come. It did not escape many Singaporeans, that all three core components of the Majulah Package: the annual earn and save bonus, the one-time retirement savings bonus and the one-time MediSave bonus, for Singaporeans born between 1960 and 1973, involved CPF top-ups. The Merdeka and Pioneer Generations will also get them. In total, 1.4 million Singaporeans will see CPF top-ups. From the vantage point of the WP, Sir, these moves make it clear that sufficiency of CPF balances for retirement is a serious and ongoing concern.”
“Surely, that is an admission, perhaps unintended, that a fair number of the 5Cs are unattainable for most Singaporeans today. But I would go further. The reality is that things are very difficult for not a small number of Singaporeans, regardless of what definition of success one deploys. A Business Times article from late 2023 reported the findings of an OCBC financial wellness survey. Fewer Singaporeans can comfortably spend on things beyond the basics. And more do not have sufficient emergency funds or savings to meet their families' needs. Just 40% of Singaporeans can afford to spend beyond the basics most of the time, down 8% from 2022; and 23% can only afford the basics; while 79% of Singaporeans either do not have a retirement plan or are not on track with their retirement plans. This was a rise from 71% in 2022. If the sentiments captured in this survey are anything to go by, there is a likelihood that the social compact may be precarious and uneven, particularly if the middle of society feels insecure about their financial future. To address this possibility, the structural moves to invest more in the future, particularly through SkillsFuture, are important and critical, even as the temporary cost of living support with the Budget are acknowledged and welcomed. The WP foresees a need for even greater investments in our human capital in future, especially in view of how rapidly the workplace landscape is changing and with more well-paying jobs requiring high-order skillsets, a point that will be further expanded by Sengkang GRC Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.”
“Singaporeans need to know how much there is to spend and where the money comes from. These are basic requirements for having rational discussions on fiscal matters and for realistic alternative visions to emerge. In any democratic society, the Government must facilitate such discussions and it should do so proactively by declassifying more information if necessary. Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member Ms He Ting Ru will speak on the themes of deliberative democracy, transparency and accountability in her speech. Coming back to the financing of Forward Singapore's goals, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that $5 billion of this Budget has been set aside for Forward Singapore policy moves, with around $40 billion to be used by the end of the decade. Will the Government spell out these initiatives in view of the commitment made in the Budget Statement, since some thought appears to have been applied to how much it will take to fund Forward Singapore plans? Sir, PAP must tell us how the Government will deploy the $40 billion for Forward Singapore policies so that Singaporeans can understand what PAP believes the social compact of tomorrow requires. Just as PAP calls on WP to lay out its alternatives, surely PAP must lay out its proposals, too. Mr Speaker, my second point is that there is a growing mismatch between the aspirations of Singaporeans and the reality facing them. Steps must be taken to address this. A reference in the Forward Singapore report to the 5Cs of decades past was scrutinised by some in the media. The 5Cs captured the aspiration to have cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership. The Forward Singapore report calls on Singaporeans to move beyond the 5Cs towards wider definitions of success.”
“The Finance Minister has laid out two possibilities that could affect us: one, of more corporate income tax being collected; and another of some multinational enterprises (MNEs) leaving Singapore. Both could happen at the same time, if recent media reports are anything to go by: one, predicting the move of more MNE headquarters to Singapore from Hong Kong; and another reporting on the move of Electrolux's regional headquarters from Singapore to Bangkok. In view of the implementation of Pillar 2, what are the estimated collections in either an optimistic scenario or a conservative scenario? At the first Budget debate of this term, WP called for the setting up of a Parliamentary Budget office, which was rejected by PAP as an idea that would only benefit the Opposition. In the spirit of Forward Singapore and in view of a greater need to track the effectiveness of Government policies and their expenditure outcomes, such institutions should be a feature of our democracy and the Singapore that the Forward Singapore report demands. One economist quoted in the 19 February The Straits Times article said that Singaporeans outside this House desire to analyse and understand to a deeper degree what the Government is doing. These examples I shared put into relief the types of differences we can expect between the political Opposition in this House and non-politician Singaporeans outside of it on the one hand, and the PAP Government on the other. Such calls for information cannot be set aside as red herrings. If the Government was doing well on this score, we would not have private sector economists making the arguments and the points they do. These calls represent a desire to shape a political environment that is fit for Singapore's purposes.”
“Another economist noted that Singapore is unique and does not follow standards set by global bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with regard to the difference between revenues and expenditures in the management of the fiscal balance. Yet another economist was quoted as saying, "As a society, we now have some very important choices to make and, unless we are well-informed, we will not be able to make those choices well." Sir, the latter point was about the Reserves, a subject which we debated earlier this month and where WP set out its five points of principle. On 20 February, an opinion piece in The Straits Times was titled, "It's getting harder to project future Government revenue". The author noted that it would become more difficult to achieve Budget marksmanship as there could be variations of 17% to 27% in specific tax collections. His view was that gone are the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was normal. Two Budgets ago, I asked what the total estimated amount collected by the carbon tax would be. The Government did not tell us, even though the preliminary numbers would not have been difficult to estimate and probably had already been tabulated by the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, in 2016, the Government announced a $4.5 billion industry transformation roadmap. No proactive update on how monies were spent on these programmes was provided until Parliamentary questions were put to the Government. Surely the Government can do better here. I have spoken about the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Sharing regime, or BEPS, for some years now.”
“While the details may differ, the philosophy of supporting our involuntarily unemployed is one which WP championed. The same can be said for the WP proposals for anti-discrimination legislation to better protect our workers. Unlike PAP, WP clearly stated these proposals in our election manifesto, and our Members of Parliament (MPs) have systematically and repeatedly raised these points along with others in Parliament. Mr Speaker, let me now put forward five points which form the basis of my response to the Budget. First, the Government needs to be more forthcoming with information so that Singaporeans can participate more actively in policy discussion. Second, there is a growing mismatch in Singapore between aspirations and reality, which must be addressed. Third, the Government must improve retirement adequacy. Fourth, employers need to show more support for employees. And fifth, we must work towards further strengthening unity among Singaporeans in this uncertain world. My first point is that the Government needs to be more transparent and forthcoming with information so that there can be meaningful participation by Singaporeans in the most critical matters affecting us. This is a recurring theme in my speeches, but I am by no means the only Singaporean to hold this view. The Straits Times carried an article dated 19 February 2024 titled, "Economists applaud 2024 Budget but some worry about sustainability." The economists quoted were concerned about the combination of large cash handouts with the lack of information about the sources of Singapore's fiscal strength. In the report, one former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) called on the Government to provide more information on how it funds its expenditures.”
“Mr Speaker, it is not mere coincidence that the slogan of Forward Singapore is "Building Our Shared Future", while that of Budget 2024 is the substantially similar "Building Our Shared Future Together". The Government intends for Budget 2024 to be a step towards Forward Singapore. The Forward Singapore exercise has three major goals for the decade and the next. Singapore must: first, have a strong and growing economy; second, develop a fairer society; and third, deepen our sense of unity. In doing so, the shared future that was distilled from various engagement sessions with the public was a Singapore that will be vibrant, fair, resilient, inclusive, thriving and united. Sir, it would be fair to say that these are broad strokes that capture the Singapore that all of us seek. In the way it fleshes out the direction of the Government, Budget 2024 is not objectionable, and so the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Budget. The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans on how to journey towards the destination envisaged by Forward Singapore. No doubt, PAP has asked for diverse views by demanding that the Opposition come up with alternative proposals, although one suspects they do so rhetorically. WP has responded sincerely and we have not been short of proposals that have ultimately been accepted by the Government in some shape or form, albeit after initial and sometimes significant resistance. Indeed, this year's Budget includes WP proposals; the announcement by the Finance Minister of a temporary financial support scheme for our workers is a case in point.”