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 7 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, with regard to the land point that the Prime Minister was referring to, I think the issue here is, at the end of the 30-year lease, the money has to go back into the Reserves once the land is sold. So, it is the same piece of land that is sold. Every time it is sold, the land sale receipts go into the Reserves. That is the only point I am seeking confirmation off from the Prime Minister.”
“" I am not trying to be obtuse about the point, but I think it is important to understand the NIRC framework. And if it is a conservative framework, then let us take it at that. Let us take it that that is a conservative framework. But what the Prime Minister is suggesting is that it may not be as conservative as Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suggested in 2015. So, if the Prime Minister could clarify what is the position, because it will cause to turn anybody's view on how the NIRC ought to be used. Is it conservative or is it not conservative? The third point I would like to raise is the point that, again, I had an exchange with the Leader of the House about land and the Prime Minister put it as land is just a conversion. I made it clear to the Leader of the House that I disagreed with how she had put the WP position. But again, it will be helpful if the Prime Minister can share with this House if a single piece of land is sold repeatedly for as long as the lease lasts – how does that cohere with the Prime Minister's position that land is just a conversion? I think the Prime Minister will be right if we are talking about freehold land, but this is leasehold. So, if the Prime Minister could explain, I would be grateful. And if it means that we have to finesse, or we have to correct ourselves, I do not think the WP will have a difficulty in doing that. On the IPS survey that the Prime Minister referred to, there are points that are made in there which suggests serious questions as to expenditure funding going forward. At the same time, I do not dispute that there are also positions that participants took, be it in the pre-survey or post-survey, which showed that they agreed with the PAP Government on certain issues. I do not dispute that.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his speech. I note that the Prime Minister did not address the five principles of the WP with regard to the Reserves. But be that as it may, I have a few clarifications for the Prime Minister. The first point was the repetition of the point Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong made at last year's Budget debate – which was on Mr Low Thia Khiang's view on the withdrawal of the Reserves arising from actions taken by the Government to deal with the Global Financial Crisis. My response to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at that time, if I recall, was different times call for different measures. And a good example manifesting that point is the fact that the PAP Government is not returning the $40 billion back. So, different times, different measures. But that said, I can understand the political urge to cherry-pick what Mr Low Thia Khiang says. I understand that. But Mr Low Thia Khiang had shared many views on the GST in this House. So, I hope to hear the front bench quoting him on the GST in future. My second point is the more substantive issue that the Prime Minister raised. I think some are very helpful points. The first really takes off from the exchange I had with the hon Member Mr Neil Parekh about a concern the Prime Minister raised about how the returns can be volatile. I return to the speech made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in 2015, and I quote, "The NIRC system, after it was modified in 2008, we paid particular attention to ensuring the system will be sustainable and that there is no bias in favour of over-optimism in expected returns and thus, the likelihood of facing a situation where actual returns are, in fact, much lower than expected returns.”
“To the Member, at page 64, "Another alternative is for Parliament to set up an ongoing committee." I read that as a select committee. I am not sure what other ongoing committees there can be.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to prolong this. Let us just say there is a difference. I want to put that on record, that there is a difference between what the Leader has characterised in her latest reply and what I was referring to.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Leader, I understand the point that you have lost the use of the land that you sold to Company A for 30 years. I understand that point. But then, when it returns to the state, you sell that same piece of land again. And that is the point that I was trying to suggest that the public intuitively see. Hence, they also feel that our Reserves grow because there is this opportunity to sell the land every 30 years, the same piece of land. That was the essential point I was making.”
“I hope that Leader can address that point, that the fact that the land can be resold.”
“With regard to the proposal for a Select Committee and better engagement, it says, "This process needs to be carefully calibrated so that knowledgeable and activist segments of the population do not feel that it is an attempt to breed the siege mentality or reinforce what has been termed as the veil of vulnerability. It will be unfortunate if this is mired in a debate about whether such a mechanism structure or programme is an attempt to shore up the power of the political incumbents and scare the public into supporting the latest status quo of policy orthodoxies". It is for this reason that I will segue into my second point, which was what the Leader of the House had shared vis-a-vis what I said about land use. I understand what the Leader of the House is saying about land just being converted from cash into a physical — that essentially, there is no real difference between the cash you receive from a land sale and the fact that the land was actually part of the Reserves before. But the point I am making is actually the fact that the land can conceivably be resold. The same piece of land can be resold. For example, in the case of the 30-year industrial property, Company A buys it for $1 billion. After 30 years, it has to return it to the state. And the state, depending on what the prevailing land use rules are, can resell that piece of land. And this is the point that I sought to put into my speech, which brings the ultimate conclusion, that para – and I will repeat it – it is the knowledge of this intuitive fact that the same piece of land can be resold and the state receives land sale receipts, why there is significant interest in conversations about a more equitable use of the NIRC for current and future generations of Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for her reply speech on Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion. I will make two points in response to what the Leader of the House has raised in terms of my interventions in this Motion. The first pertains to the two pages of the IPS working paper which was shared with all Members. I am glad she has no quarrel with my characterisation of what I referred to in my speech. The Leader of the House said that full disclosure of information does not mean the correct stuff will be highlighted because I did not say what, in her mind was important, which was that the PAP Government ranked the highest vis-a-vis the mean rating of trust for every group. But the irony here is that full transparency and identifying the source of the information and the report itself have allowed the Leader of the House to ensure that what she deems is the correct stuff will be highlighted. So, that is my response to an argument about transparency. The other point I would like to follow up with the Leader of the House on is that she also did not make a copy of the point which I had raised specifically in the report about a Select Committee, which was what the report recommended. So, I suppose the argument can work both ways. I refer to page 64 of the report which states quite clearly that, "another alternative is for the Parliament of Singapore to set up an ongoing committee that convenes an annual review", and it goes on. This under the header "There is potential for future public engagements".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications for the hon Member. The first is with regard to a point he makes about the proposal that I made. I think my proposal was really for a Select Committee; it was not so much on the two GICs, which I believe he mentioned. What I was doing was I was quoting from a Business Times article, which I had used, to make a point during my Budget 2020 debate speech. The second point on the IPS working paper, indeed, I do not make a point which contradicts what he says. All I am saying is that the journalists and the media fell right at the bottom. And I think in his speech, he did mention that there is a lot of cynicism out there. I think those are his exact words. So, I hope he understands the context of what I had said, with regard to the point on the IPS working paper.”
“I thank the hon Member for his reply. My point really was that the NIR formula itself has been designed to be conservative. And that was the point I sought to make.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one question for the hon Member. I respect his views on the treatment of the NIRC and I think he gave three reasons why 50% was a figure he was comfortable with and I understand that they were long-term sustainability and prudent fiscal management. He had a final point which was the concern about expected future returns. I refer to then-Finance Minister Tharman Shanmuguratnam's round-up speech when the Constitution was amended in 2015. He talked about safeguards. The fifth safeguard and I will read what the then-Finance Minister said, and I quote, "but there is an important fifth safeguard, which is in the governance processes in the NIR framework that also ensures that we do not spend on the basis of over-optimistic assumptions about the expected returns. The process by which expected long-term real rate of returns are decided has checks and balances and is shaped by a sense of realism about the risks in the investment world." In response to that, I would be grateful if the hon Member could agree with me that the way the NIRC system is designed, actually ameliorates the concern that the Member has about the expected future rates of return.”
“However, the current position of absolute secrecy about the total Reserves, when there are national institutions like Parliament in committee to discuss and deliberate these matters, leads me to think that there will be more differences of opinion from the current official orthodoxy on the transparency of the Reserves in future. This will become even more acute as the social compact changes in the years and decades to come. Issues of concern will not just come from a growing senior population or healthcare needs but, possibly, from a further slowing down of social mobility and a low TFR that requires more immigrants to our population, inevitably leading to questions about a more equitable use of investment returns. To this end, it would be important for the Government to leave itself the option of reviewing its position open, in particular, on the usage of the investment returns from our Reserves. The WP supports the Motion.”
“Such views would be completely understandable and expected of a discerning and mature population. The IPS working paper reported that one exercise was conducted among participants from higher socio-economic backgrounds, who, in the IPS' view, are better informed citizens and "more sceptical of the Government's management of the Reserves". I would suggest that such views are not only held by those from the higher socio-economic groups. There are Singaporeans who wonder whether all our Reserves, including the principal Reserves, must be sequestered for speculative attacks against the Singapore dollar, the main reason the Government has offered for not revealing the size of our Reserves. In 2019, Singapore had the 11th highest stock of OFRs in the world. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per capita basis, it was the third highest in the world. In parallel, even in the context of inchoate or unknown threats, it makes sense to speak of realistic threat perceptions and limits that can be set on what it takes to deter adversaries who wish to attack the Singapore dollar. For example, the Air Force stops after procuring a finite number of the latest military assets. Why not acquire more, since we have the capability and capacity to do so to make Singapore even safer? For military planners, these questions are answered by addressing the type of conflict one trains for, by weighing the likelihood of the threats becoming reality, the level of deterrence required and, ultimately, by using judgement. There may well be considered and not overly conservative reasons for the current position on how much of our investment returns ought to be used for our expenditure needs.”
“While questions will be asked in this House by the WP, where necessary, directly questioning individual investment decisions for the sole purpose or a political purpose of pressuring the investment teams is not in the House's interest. Fifth and finally, significant public interest on our expenditure needs requires our public institutions to play a greater role in advancing understanding of our fiscal policy. The IPS working paper I referred to earlier in my speech, revealed relatively low levels of trust in journalists and the media in Singapore on the topic of Reserves policy. For this House's information, Opposition politicians scored higher in this regard. To take advantage of Parliament's sovereign status and its privileged role as an institution of public record, this House should set up a Standing Select Committee that looks into the health of our Reserves. The Committee should also consider specific funding needs and threat events that Singapore must prepare for, and to be briefed on how these are to be funded. Members should not be precluded from asking questions about the Reserves in this Committee. The Select Committee's deliberations or reports have the potential of taking the political sting out of unjustifiable demands to use more investment returns for expenditure programmes. The role of a permanent Select Committee of Parliament is also a recommendation of the IPS working paper and one that the WP supports. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as long as the PAP takes the position that the Reserves must be kept a secret, reasonable members of the public will query whether this is not simply a cover for an overly conservative treatment of Reserves to fob off demands for social policies that can benefit Singaporeans.”
“Second, our economic growth is dependent on a Singapore that is open to the world and nimble enough to acquire first-mover advantage in addition to being open to foreign talent. Ensuring we have a vibrant economy that generates wealth not just for the few at the top but across all levels of society, should represent one of the first revenue bases from which we fund our expenditure. That said, we should not close off conversations and encompass the use of investment returns and their impact, as long-term social investments in our children could impact positively on outcomes for future generations of Singaporeans. To that and, thirdly, inter-generational changes and new realities, such as our transition to a hyper-aged society, should prompt us to consider whether more of our investment returns should be used to fund social needs, especially when we think of an older generation of Singaporeans who contributed relatively more in taxes and sacrificed for the greater good. For example, by seeing lower rates of employer CPF contributions so as to make Singapore more competitive. The words of the late Dr Richard Hu are not only true of the NII framework of the 1990s. They ring true today. That returning 50% of investment returns may not be appropriate in all circumstances going forward, particularly, in view of our rapidly ageing population. Fourth, differences in political points of view in this House, between the Government and the Opposition on the Reserves, should not spill over into political meddling and interference in the investment decisions of GIC and Temasek.”
“In 2022, to critically examine these statements in the absence of specific information from the Government, WP Member of Parliament Louis Chua asked Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong whether the principal Reserves had become larger or smaller after the drawdown in 2020, in response to COVID-19. Deputy Prime Minister Wong did not answer the question directly but said that as of 2022, the Reserves continue to grow. The reply confirms the depth of our Reserves and the scale of the actual dent, the $40 billion COVID-19 drawdown made. If Mr Leong is right and the total value of our Reserves stands at $1.2 trillion dollars, COVID-19, the crisis of a generation, led to the consumption of about $40 billion, or 3.3% of our principal Reserves. Extrapolating from Deputy Prime Minister's reply in this House, the $40 billion amount used for "the crisis of a generation" was recovered in two years or less through the sale of land and NIRC contributions. Sir, I move on to my next section. The WP certainly does not see the depth of our Reserves as a licence for the Government to spend beyond its means or to stop the growth of our principal Reserves. But, the same way the PAP of the 1990s did not see it fiscally imprudent or irresponsible to use up to 100% of the investment returns on the principal Reserves if required, the WP does not see it as imprudent, for example, to use 60% of the NIRC, if there are justifiable reasons to do so. I will make five related points of principle. First, our principal Reserves, which continue to grow with the proceeds from land sales and NIRC, should not be used to finance our budget expenditure except in emergencies such as COVID-19 or the global financial crisis.”
“Even if 100% of the NIRC could be spent – which the WP has not called for – the Reserves would continue to grow steadily since proceeds from the sale of land which hit billions of dollars a year, are added to the Reserves. With the overwhelming majority of land in Singapore being leasehold, when the leasehold expires and the land is returned to the state, subject to prevailing land use parameters, another cycle of the sale of that same land will take place. In the HDB context, Singaporean HDB households are required by law to return their flats to the state for free at the end of 99 years while the state will continue to recycle the land and collect money from future generations of Singaporeans, over and over again. The situation is the same for industrial properties, where land is sold for 30 or 60 years. Perhaps the knowledge of this intuitive fact by the public explains why there is significant interest in conversations about a more equitable use of the NIRC for current and future generations of Singaporeans. The depth of our Reserves was effectively demonstrated in this House by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency Member of Parliament, Louis Chua, who remembered what Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat had said about the use of the Reserves during COVID-19: that the equivalent of over 20 years of past budget surpluses had been used to fight COVID-19 and that a generation's worth of savings had been deployed to combat the crisis of a generation. The use of this language suggested that the Reserves were significantly depleted and utilised to fight COVID-19.”
“More critically, participants understood that using more of the NIRC meant slowing the growth rate of the Reserves. But they thought the NIRC should be a complementary tool which could alleviate the burden of taxation. These are important observations. There are Singaporeans who can conceive of using, for example, 60% of the NIRC for social expenditure. In fact, in a hypothetical scenario involving the topping-up of the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation package, the IPS participants even considered increasing spending even up to the point of tapping the principal Reserves, because of concerns for the current sandwich generation of Singaporeans, which refer to the taxpaying working generation that cares for both their elderly parents as well as their young children. A key concern of the IPS participants was wanting to avoid further burdening this group through taxes and charges. Mr Speaker, if ordinary Singaporeans, and even those in our think tanks and participants in exercises in our think tanks, can move beyond PAP narratives on the Reserves and find it to be a meaningful civic duty to deliberate the use of the investment returns from our Reserves, it should be of no surprise to find politicians both inside and outside this House thinking along similar lines. However, an important point to note is that while the IPS participants explored the drawing down of the principal sum in our Reserves to pay for current expenditures, the WP has not called for the use of the principal Reserves or our rainy day fund. What the WP has called for is an increase in the utilisation of the NIRC beyond 50% when needed. In our view, such a move would not jeopardise the growth of the Reserves. Mr Speaker, that brings me to my third point.”
“The first concerned the possibility of having to finance higher future expenditures; the second sought to reduce the prospect of repeatedly returning to the president for regular draws, should drawing on more than 50% of the investment returns become necessary. But more than the PAP of the early 1990s, there are other Singaporeans today who can conceive of greater flexibility in increasing the spendable amount of the NIRC. In August last year, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) released a working paper titled Public Deliberation on Singapore's Fiscal Policies and National Reserves. It aimed, amongst other things, to deepen the discussion on fiscal policy and inter-generational equity in Singapore. As part of the research for the paper, a survey was conducted with respondents being asked about the NIRC formula. There was also a table-top budget exercise where participants could decide how they would fund Government expenditures. They could tap on expenditure from five categories: (a) taxes and fees; (b) NIRC; (c) what it called Net Investment Returns Reserves, an unofficial term for the other 50% of the NIRC that is not used for the budget, or that cannot be used for the budget; (d) our principal Reserves which cannot be drawn upon without the express approval of the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) and the President; and (e) debt. The IPS working paper observed that while survey respondents chose to maintain the 50-50 NIR framework, the participants in the budget game were "more open to consider using more of the investment returns, that is, more than 50%, if these were spent in ways that would generate clear and measurable returns whether financial or social".”
“They run in parallel with Singaporeans taking ownership to explore fiscal solutions, with the view to co-create not just today's Singapore, but a sustainable and equitable tomorrow that future generations of Singaporeans will inherit. My second point is that the Government should not close off the prospect of reviewing the NIRC formula to lessen the financial burden on Singaporeans and to explore policies that can improve social outcomes for Singaporeans. The 50% figure is not a sacrosanct number. In the 1990s, the Government was free to spend up to 100% of the interest and dividends it earned on past Reserves within a current term of government. When our first elected president, Ong Teng Cheong, was moved to speak on this, the late president's concern was whether the interest and dividends generated by past Reserves ought to be left fully in the hands of a current government. He called on the PAP to stop using 100% of the net investment income (NII), and instead proposed a 50-50 formula, where 50% could be spent, and 50% of the investment returns would be added to the principal Reserves. At that time, in the 1990s, the PAP was not sold on the 50-50 ratio. Notwithstanding its psychological resonance today, the then-Finance Minister Richard Hu noted that while a 50-50 split of the NII had merit, he added that, "a fixed proportion like 50-50 may not be appropriate for all circumstances". It would be useful to ask why the PAP was cautious about limiting itself to spending a portion of the dividends and incomes of past Reserves. When the Constitution was eventually amended to lock up and return 50% of the investment returns in 2001, Dr Hu pointed to two reasons.”
“The Prime Minister said in the documentary that people do not appreciate the importance of the NIRC, partly because, and I quote, "It is very hard for people to appreciate the degree to which we are benefiting from the Reserves." Politically, however, the conversation on utilising more of the investment returns from the Reserves as an alternative to taxation, as proposed by the WP, these have been cast by the PAP in extremely narrow terms. Almost any enquiry by the WP into the use of NIRC for social purposes, such as for intergenerational equity or as alternative levers of expenditure, is met with accusations of irresponsibility and snipes of the Opposition wanting to raid the Reserves. More recently, when the WP made requests for details about the Reserves, the PAP has characterised the Reserves as a secret weapon. One so secret that even duly elected Members of Parliament cannot be expected to ask questions about it. In fact, Members of Parliament have to vote on drawdowns of Past Reserves even if they do not have any idea how much we will have left after a drawdown. These realities close off mature and civil conversations on the Reserves. But despite this, the public has not refrained from discussing or reimagining the use of our Reserves. For example, in my 2019 Budget speech, I referred to a Business Times article which spoke of Singaporeans calling for a carving out of some part of our Reserves to deal with the potential of speculative attacks and for another part to be made public. Singaporeans rightly wish to discuss the Reserves and have information about them. In my 2020 Budget speech, I said that calls for greater transparency on the Reserves were not out of place and they will continue in years to come.”
“Mr Speaker, I will make three points concerning Singapore's Reserves and then I will set out the WP's five principles on the Reserves. My first point is that the Government should be more open about our Reserves and reveal figures not for their own sake, but so as to facilitate mature conversations on the Reserves to take place. My second point is that the Government should not rule out using more than the current 50% of NIRC or what is known as the investment returns from the Reserves, to lessen the taxation burden on Singaporeans. I note that with regard to any prospective change in the 50/50 ratio, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is on record in this House as saying, and I quote, "Never say never". Although, these remarks have since been qualified to the extent that the Government does not intend to do so in the immediate term. My third point is that there is significant public belief that the Reserves are likely to be very healthy and will continue to grow through land sales. Since land sales are not used to finance the Government's Budget, the proceeds, of which, go straight to the Reserves. Mr Speaker, my first point is that the Government should be more open about our Reserves. In 2022, the WP proposed alternatives to raising the GST by considering the extent to which we can rely on the investment returns on the Reserves to fund spending needs, such as healthcare. Discussions on the Reserves are also gaining traction outside of this House. Shortly before the Presidential Elections last year, CNA broadcast a documentary which sought to shed more light on our Reserves. There were interviews with the Senior Management of MOF, the Prime Minister and former President Halimah Yacob.”
“Just to reply to the Minister, I had three questions, not four.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for his explanation on this very tragic episode. My questions pertain to what the public came to know about the suicide involving Sgt Uvaraja and, naturally, you have different perspectives out there, and, to the extent that the Minister could, I think the clarifications he provided in the House were helpful. However, there is also a post by an individual who was the senior counsellor of the late Sgt Uvaraja. I think there were some allegations that he made as well. The Minister responded in his statement to Sgt Uvaraja's allegations, but I would just like to confirm whether the allegations by the senior counsellor have also been looked into. I think there were comments regarding the sheer abuse of authority and the fact that the late Sgt Uvaraja endured prolonged surveillance. So, for completeness, can the Minister also confirm the veracity of these allegations, as I think this post still remains online? The second clarification is with regard to, again, the post of the senior counsellor who said that he referred Sgt Uvaraja to the Police Psychological Services Division. Can the Minister share what is the usual procedure for such referrals? Does the Police or the relevant psychological teams follow up with the officer on a regular basis? Finally, the final question, with your leave, Mr Speaker, on the fourth or final point that the Minister made about allegations being made against the Police and so forth internationally and how we do not want these to seep into Singapore and destroy the trust amongst the public and the Police, can the Minister just share what is the current situation with regard to the morale of the Police force vis-à-vis this particular episode?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one question for the Minister. Which agency is reviewing the F1 contract that the Minister shared in her speech – is it the Ministry itself or is it possibly the Auditor-General's Office (AGO)?”
“Much obliged, Speaker. Just a quick follow-up to the reply to the first supplementary question on the applicability of the non-citizen quota vis-à-vis the renting out of bedrooms. I have the relevant printout from the HDB website here. It states that the non-citizen quota does not apply to the renting out of bedrooms. So, I hope the Senior Minister of State can clarify this particular point. Is that applicable only in a certain situation or is that the broad policy that the quota does not apply to the renting out of bedrooms?”
“Can I inquire whether a decision has been made on the specific proposal pertaining to a quantitative noise threshold and if more communication and education needs to be undertaken by HDB to prospective owners who intend to let out their flats or bedrooms to ensure that tenants adhere to the recommended quiet hours of between 10.00 pm and 8.00 am?”
“Just two questions for the Senior Minister of State. I refer to the point the Senior Minister of State made about the non-citizen quota. I understand it only applies when the entire flat is rented out and does not apply when bedrooms are rented out. In view of the decision to increase the rental occupancy cap, does HDB actively track, or does it plan to actively track the nationality of tenants who are renting out bedrooms? And would the Senior Minister of State agree with me, notwithstanding his previous answer to the supplementary question by Member Foo Mee Har, there will also be additional manpower expectations on Town Councils arising from the new rental occupancy cap? For example, when you have eight tenants in an HDB flat, they may dry their clothes at the common corridor and there may be additional disamenities of this nature requiring HDB to come in to liaise with the owner and so forth. My Parliamentary Question covered manpower issues and is it the Senior Minister of State's position that there is sufficient manpower for HDB to deal with this problem? The second question pertains to a possible increase in noise-related complaints with the revised rental occupancy cap. The Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise that was set up in 2022, recommended a quantitative noise threshold in the form of decibels to help in the assessment of egregious cases of neighbourhood noise. In January last year, Minister Desmond Lee replied in Parliament that the Ministry of National Development (MND) was studying the recommendations and would provide a response when it was ready.”
“At their core, all the proposals prompt the Government to relook at its legacy policy with an eye on battling the cost of living crisis that Singaporeans find themselves deeply mired in. Mr Speaker, it has been a long day. But I would like to thank all Members, including the office holders, PAP Members of Parliament, PSP, Non-Constituency Members and the Single Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) for participating in this important Motion. I may not have referred to all of you in my roundup speech but I thank you for your participation. The Workers' Party will vote in favour of the original Motion and reject the amended Motion for the reasons I have provided earlier in my round-up speech. 9.39 pm”
“Sir, at the National Day Rally this year, the Prime Minister shared with the public that the new classification system for HDB flats into Prime, Plus and Standard from the existing mature and non-mature classification, would see the sticker price of an $877,000 5-room BTO flat in Ang Mo Kio, for example, come down. The question is how would this reduction in price come about? Would it be from the Chief Valuer relooking at how land is priced for public housing, or as should be assumed, from an increase in taxpayer subsidies from HDB flats, drawn from the yearly Budget? The reality, Mr Speaker, is that the Government will look to lower HDB prices through the deployment of taxpayer dollars. Inevitably, it is a taxpayer that is going to foot the bill for a larger HDB subsidy to make HDB flats cheaper. And this is an amount that the Government believes it can absorb without an increase in taxes. Otherwise, it would not have pursued the new HDB BTO classification system. In the same spirit, Mr Speaker, the WP believes that we should continue to look beyond short-term relief in addressing this cost of living crisis and to relook at prevailing orthodoxies on other schemes so as to lower cost for Singaporeans and their families. A few other proposals will put cash in the hands of vulnerable workers and seniors to help them navigate their way out of this difficult period, for example, by reviewing with a fresh perspective, both MediSave, as well as the Workfare Income Supplement. A few other proposals may prompt behavioural shifts towards greater efforts to reduce wastage and more sensitivity to sustainable usage of utilities, such as water and electricity.”
“To ensure all Singaporeans can access appropriate housing and shelter, addressing the fundamental demand-supply problem would necessitate adjustments to the supply side of the equation so that the market can find the appropriate equilibrium. On private transport, Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim called for changes to the COE system that would rationalise high prices. He explained why expensive COE affect not just households that may have very legitimate need for cars, such as families with children or the disabled, but also everyone that books a taxi or PHC. He stressed the importance of smoothing out the vehicle quota supply across the years and seizing the practice of reimbursing early deregistered COEs at their book value. He also suggested prohibiting dealers from bidding directly for COEs and treating private hire cars in the same manner as taxis are, which is to have them bid in the open category albeit paying Cat A or Cat B prices. On public transport, Aljunied GRC Member, Mr Gerald Giam called for a National Transport Corporation to be established as a publicly owned non-profit land transport planner and operator of all MRT, LRT and trunk bus services. This will allow the early profits of the current public transport operators to be redirected to benefit commuters by mitigating fair increases and providing free transport for the elderly and people with disabilities. He explained how the NTC could bring about significant productivity gains and economies of scale when compared to the current public transport model. Mr Speaker, some of these proposals by the WP will be revenue-neutral. Others will result in increased expenditures.”
“Her speech reflects the WP's concern about the effect by increasing cost of care is having on the physical and mental well-being of families and calls for more support in areas like mental healthcare and intermediate and long-term care. For instance, she called for MediSave annual limits to be increased in line with medical inflation. Hougang SMC Member of Parliament, Mr Dennis Tan asked for the current means testing in healthcare to be improved upon to better account for an individual's financial situation and health conditions so that healthcare can be more affordable and accessible. He called for help to be given to more Singaporeans who may need more assistance, even though they may be adjudged not to be eligible based on present household income or annual value of their home, especially when they are not able to receive financial assistance from members of the same household. He called for more help to be extended to adults with special needs or other forms of disability who are in the working adult age group, but who are unable to work and require part-time or full-time care from family members, especially in families where the parents are getting on in age. More help should also be extended to family members responsible for their caregiving. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Chua reiterated his call for the Government to defer the GST hike in 2024, with even one year being a helpful deferment, especially when the Government has already achieved the revenue increase which the GST hike was meant to bring. On housing, he called for the Government to increase the supply of HDB flats across the for purchase market and also the neglected for rent market, especially as our population growth and housing demand appears to have stepped up.”
“But the dramatic failures of retailers in 2021 has cast doubt on the viability of the open energy market to bring down household electricity bills. She asked the Government to look again at her earlier suggestion of tiered electricity pricing and to also consider lowering charges for consumption during off-peak hours. Staying on utilities and specifically water prices, my contribution to this debate was my calling on the Government to review the price structure of water for both domestic and non-domestic consumers. Such a review would have the objective of creating a more fairly tiered structure that promotes water conservation and potentially lowest cost for business and many households. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, Mr Faisal Manap, reiterated the call he made in 2014 to the Government to establish a means of assessing the effectiveness of our social safety net. Back then, he proposed that Singapore adopt the International Labour Organization (ILO)'s social protection framework. He suggested that if the Government prefers a more localised framework, the Government should then look at the minimum income standard published for households in Singapore, reports that have been published by local academics led by Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn and Dr Ng Kok Hoe. The Government is not precluded from publishing its own list of basic needs and those extras required for thriving in Singapore as a way of tracking outcomes for Singaporeans. Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru's speech covered several keynotes in health and the health and care ecosystem where the Government can and should be working harder to control the cost of healthy living in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you to all in the House who have spoken on this Motion. Mr Speaker, I will get straight into it. The Workers' Party (WP) rejects the amendment proposed by Member Mr Liang Eng Hua Hwa. We have no substantive quarrel with Amendment No 3, which does not substantially change the thrust of our Motion. A careful examination of our proposals today would show that they would neither undermine Singapore's fiscal sustainability nor would they unduly burden future generations. However, we disagree with Amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 1 which states that "cost of living is a global concern" reads as an attempt to minify the role Government can and should play to reduce cost of living burdens on Singaporeans. While global factors are important, these should instead prompt a review of existing policies with the view to relieve cost of living pressures. We also disagree with Amendment No 2 and its use of the words "continue pursuing policies". The use of the word "continue" suggests to us, at least, that the status quo is fine. We disagree. Indeed, we have proposed specific structural changes to the system that we believe will work better than current policies. The WP Members of Parliament have made concrete proposals in several areas. We urge the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of its policies to better support Singaporeans and their families during this cost of living crisis. On the electricity front, Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Ms Sylvia Lim observed that the need for Singaporeans to conserve energy is more urgent than ever, given the risks of high prices and supply shortages caused by conflicts around the world. She recounted the Government's answer to managing household electricity bills, was the open electricity market.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Acting Minister for responding to my intervention on relooking water pricing tiers. As I heard him, when he spoke about broad-based subsidies, I was concerned that he may have misunderstood my proposal. As we know, the price of water has three components. That is how it is priced in Singapore. There is the tariff, waterborne fee and the conservation tax. I had not been talking about the tariff and the waterborne fee. I understand they have specific purposes. For example, the waterborne fee is a charge to offset the cost of treating used water and to maintain the public sewage system. When I spoke of tiers for water conservation tax, I was not suggesting that, for example, a user at 35 cubic metres per month is going to be charged zero to 10 at one rate, then 10 to 20 – once you hit 35, if you pay the water conservation tax, that would be tiered for users who consume between 30 and 40 cubic metres of water. That progressivity, in my view, would serve the purpose of the water conservation tax, which is to reinforce the water conservation message. That was the suggestion. The Acting Minister was talking about broad-based subsidies and the rich also getting subsidised. That was not the focus of what I was driving at. I hope I made myself clear. I will be happy to clarify if the Acting Minister has his queries on this.”
“Mr Speaker, can I request a ruling from you, please? Would the amendments not qualify as a very significant change to the original Motion?”
“Interest rates are often accompanied by price increases and loan interest rates remain high. What was cash-in-hand not too long ago has, now and in the future, to be used for interest payments. This reality reinforces the view that prices are galloping away and that incomes are struggling to catch up. It is important to also consider the compounding effect of price increases with costs passed down from enterprises to consumers. The breadth and depth of the rise in prices also vary considerably, since consumption patterns differ from each household. For example, a household with young children will be sensitive to rising tuition and enrichment class costs, in addition to other expenses that accompany raising a child. Singaporeans who need a vehicle for their work are understandably more sensitive to Certificate of Entitlement (COE), diesel and petrol prices. On the other hand, food prices account for a large proportion of income at the lowest strata of society. And so, when a plate of chicken rice or noodles goes up by $2 or $3 and coffee prices shoot up far more than increases in water prices, for example, the pinch for low- and even middle-income Singaporeans is real and painful. When income growth cannot match this increase in prices, it is perfectly understandable why Singaporeans feel nervous and anxious. In some cases, this may even lead to the deterioration of their mental health.”
“This House must leave no stone unturned because, for some Singaporeans, this has become a cost-of-living crisis. My speech is in three parts. First, I will cover the situation facing Singaporeans on the ground, particularly for workers, seniors and their families. Second, I will cover some policy areas where the Government can explore the prospect of lowering costs for Singaporeans in different ways. Finally, I will outline specific areas which will be expanded upon by the WP Members of Parliament (MPs), where policies can be changed, enhanced, revisited or even overhauled, so as to lower cost-of-living pressures for Singaporeans and their families. First, the cost-of-living reality facing Singaporeans. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)'s inflation outlook tells us that inflation has slowed across a broad range of goods and services and core inflation is projected to come down to between 2.5% and 3% by December, lower than its 5.5% peak in January. However, from our ground outreach and from feedback received by the WP, cost of living worries for Singaporeans are clearly moving in the opposite direction. This is understandable, as there is a chasm between, on the one hand, headlines that say that inflation is stabilising, while on the other hand, price rises continue to hit Singaporeans hard. The Parliamentary reply by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) this morning of a 4.5% fall in real median income in the first half of 2023 is consistent with this emotion. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation, only covers household consumption expenditures and does not include non-consumption expenditures, such as loan repayments, the purchase of property, including Housing and Development (HDB) flats, monthly mortgage payments and credit card debt payments.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move*, "That this House calls on the Government to review its policies so as to lower cost of living pressures on Singaporeans and their families". [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis. (proc text)] Mr Speaker, on the occasion of the New Year in 2022, the Workers' Party (WP) identified cost of living as a major pressure point for low- to middle-income families, which strikes most acutely the families with both young children and aged parents to care for. In the same message, the WP committed to tracking how the Government upgrades its legacy schemes for, and I quote: "the circumstances of today and tomorrow, not yesterday". The reality of the pressures faced by low- and middle-income Singaporeans was repeated in the WP May Day message that same year. On May Day this year, the WP warned that Singaporeans were living through one of the most rapid cost-of-living rises in history, eroding the purchasing power of their wages. And, finally, in our National Day message this year, celebrations which also saw a remake of Dick Lee's 1988 hit, "Home", the WP noted that just as the remake of "Home" comes at a time when Singapore and the world are at a different juncture from a quarter century ago, our national policies also need to be re-examined to make them relevant to today's Singapore. On cost of living, the WP acknowledges the one-time reliefs extended to eligible households. Most recently, on the back of the announcement by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) in late September of an increase in water prices. For the purposes of this Motion, the WP will look into possibilities of further reducing cost-of-living pressures by way of policy change.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two points for the Deputy Prime Minister. Number one, he spoke of a request for us to update the WP's statement of the 18 October. I am happy to note that he is clear that the positions taken by Mr Giam and myself have clarified the matter. So, we will append our speeches to that statement and it should make our position quite clear. My second point really is about something a bit more fundamental – which Deputy Prime Minister spoke about. He talked about it being a national security matter, that there was an impression that the Government had – that there were some omissions which were quite critical. The Government did not take us into confidence on its position on the Israel-Hamas issue. On 18 of October, I did not get any message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs or anyone, suggesting to me that our statement was problematic from a national security angle. But I would like to assure the Foreign Minister and, of course, the Government as well and the Deputy Prime Minister, that in future, if the Government has an inkling of such a concern, that there are national security matters or issues which the opposition may not be apprised of or we may have completely ignored, let us know. My assurance to the Deputy Prime Minister is that we will certainly take those views on board very carefully – because as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, at the end of the day, we want a Singapore where we have a united population even though we know that the issue tugs at the heart strings of people on both sides. So, that is my assurance to the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister for the two clarifications. On the first clarification, I take the Minister's point. My simple rejoinder earlier was that Hamas was not on that list. I was not questioning whether the Act did not capture them or anything of that sort. If you look at the list, it appears to be a positive list. The Taliban is there. ISIL is there. Daesh is there. I took it from that perspective. I hope that clarifies. On the second point, I note the Minister's clarification.”
“I do not have the Act in front of me right now, but I know we list out specifically what some of these organisations are and the fact is, Hamas is not on that list, notwithstanding the Member's personal views to this particular issue. Before he put his view out, he said that our statement did not condemn it because of this particular point, or because of terrorism. I think he may have misunderstood. In our view, at the time the statement was made, a condemnation of both parties was important to us, for different reasons, of course. And so, we captured it in the fourth paragraph of our statement. I hope this clarifies.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to get a sense from the Minister as I put in my original set of clarifications, how would he characterise what happened in the occupied territories? I think that is important for a more balanced perspective to this issue. And I think it is important that the Government sets its view out as well.”
“My final point relates to something which was originally said by Mr Alex Yam. The Minister also made the same point by way of the document that has been released to Members, where he said that Singapore has been consistent in its stand on matters concerning Israel and Palestine. I take the point. But I had a quick look at statements that were made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew over the years. I referred to him in my speech. I also noted what he said in his memoirs. He spoke of the Six-Day War and I am quoting from his memoirs, "When the UN General Assembly was debating the resolution to condemn Israel, Rajaratnam, our Foreign Minister and Afro-Asian champion, was all for it. Keng Swee saw me to press Raja to direct our UN delegate not to avoid in favour of the resolution or the Israelis would leave." By "the Israelis would leave", he is referring to the Israeli advisors who were here in assisting the build-up of the Singapore Armed Forces. Thereafter, Mr Lee said, "As I could not attend the Cabinet meeting, I stated my position in a note. We had to stand up for the right of small nations to exist." And he goes on, "I added that I did not believe the Israeli advisors would leave even if we were to vote for the Afro-Asian resolution. I was in favour of abstaining in the vote. The Cabinet agreed with my view. We abstained and the Israelis did not leave." So, I just wanted to clarify because the handout says we voted "Yes" for all these emergency special session resolutions. It may well be that the resolution Mr Lee is referring to is a different one, but I am just making that point to clarify what the Minister has put out in his statement.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to clarify some remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, specifically, his comment about the WP's statement of 18 October. I think, the Minister, correct me if I am wrong, the Minister was, for lack of a better word, curious why the words "terrorist attack" were not in our statement. The focus of our statement was to emphasise that whether it is Hamas, whether it is Israel, killing of non-combatants, women, children, by any country or organisation, deserves no less than absolute condemnation. I thought that would have made it clear that we were taking a very even-keeled approach to this matter, that on the one hand, the terrorist attacks are not to be condoned; on the other hand, when you have matters such as Israeli settlers evicting Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank – even today, it is happening today – that also ought to be condemned. I hope the Minister can agree that there has to be an even-handed approach to this. My second point, perhaps explaining why the use of that word "terrorism" was not activated so readily but more of a balanced approach in our statement was what we sought to put forward – is with regard to Singapore's approach on the labelling of organisations or terrorist designations on certain groups. I understand Singapore has an Inter-Ministry Committee on Terrorist Designation (IMC-TD). It is the authority of the designation of terrorist groups and groupings. The Government relies on this committee to determine which organisation is labelled accordingly and then this is legislatively captured in the Terrorism (Suppression of Financing) Act 2002. My understanding is that Hamas is not on that list. Maybe the Minister can explain that position for the understanding of the general public.”
“To conclude, Mr Speaker, about two decades ago, a grouping called the Middle East Quartet, made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, has recognised that in order to have peace, it is necessary to fulfil the aspirations of the two parties for an independent homeland through two states for two peoples – the state of Israel and an independent viable state of Palestine, both of which must be able to live in peace and security. The WP backs this stand, which is also that of the Government of Singapore, as the only feasible path to a durable, just and comprehensive resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Today, this prospect may feel far removed, but until that day comes, it is important that Singapore advocates strongly for the safety and security of civilians and children who are the innocent victims of this long-standing conflict. We call on both Israeli and Palestinian leadership to make compromises for peace, to prevent future generations from paying for the actions of their elders – I should say, actions and omissions of their elders. A price that has proven and will continue to prove to be a high one for the world well beyond the borders of Israel and Palestine.”
“This brings me to my third and final point on the importance of international law for Singapore. Mr Speaker, we speak in this House on this matter because it is important for Singapore to put its position on the record. Both the parties directly involved in the conflict, as well as the rest of the international community, must know Singapore's position and our firm belief in international law and our desire for the protection of human life. The WP supports the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols that prescribe international humanitarian law. We endorse the UN Charter and other international agreements. We support them because our survival depends on them. Singapore is a small state that relies on international law, and small states need international law and their protections. For example, Singapore has made its position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict clear. We took particular umbrage at the Russian claim that its aggression in Ukraine was justified because of historical errors and crazy decisions. In the context of the Israel-Palestinian dispute, Singapore has voted in the UN against calls for Jerusalem to be recognised as the capital of Israel. The principles and reasons for doing so are readily apparent. If some religious group, militant organisation or other country justified its aggression on something other than international law, we would have to aggressively stand against such perspectives. For example, some group or organisation in a neighbouring country may argue that Singapore has been part of the Malay archipelago for centuries and, therefore, should expect to be occupied and annexed. International law is clear that this cannot be so.”
“This point was shrewdly emphasised by the Palestine ambassador to Malaysia last month. On the one hand, he thanked Malaysians for their steadfast support for the Palestinian cause but, on the other, warned them to channel their donations and support carefully, lest they reach the wrong hands. Some months ago, in a different context, he was on record noting that there were sectarian issues, such as internal politics involving the Palestinian population. For those who are familiar with this, the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, for example, have different approaches to achieve their goals, even if Israel has deemed the Palestinian Authority as supporting Hamas after the latter's actions on 7 October 2023. While the Israel-Hamas confrontation and broader conflict look set to continue for some time, Singaporeans should be aware that in view of our multiracial and multi-religious society, this conflict will test us. But it should not be allowed to compromise our multiracial and multi-religious peace and harmony. As Singaporeans, we should not analyse a political issue through religious lenses. For us, it is a humanitarian issue, and both Israel and the Palestinians deserve to live in peace and harmony. Our contribution is a humanitarian one, to advocate and support calls to stop the killing, particularly of civilians and children, and to support the international community in reaching a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. To that end, the WP supports the major decision taken by Singapore at the UN General Assembly, which is referred to in the amended Motion, calling for an immediate and sustained humanitarian truce, leading to a cessation of hostilities.”
“I quote Yuval Harari from a piece he penned for The Financial Times in July this year, "To understand events in Israel, there is just one question to ask: what limits the power of government? Robust democracies rely on a whole system of checks and balances, but Israel lacks a constitution, an Upper House in the Parliament, a federal structure, or any other check on government power except one, the Supreme Court. The Netanyahu government plans to pass the first in a series of laws that will neutralise the Supreme Court. If it succeeds, it will gain unlimited power." The International Institute for Strategic Studies, which hosts the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, reported that between March and July this year, Israeli air force reservists refused to keep up their training hours, helicopter instructor pilots refused to report for duty, and active reservists in the Special Forces refused to volunteer for service, all in the protest of the country's direction. These differences in Israeli society should remind those of us far removed that not all Israelis think alike, and that there are Jews and Israelis who may not necessarily agree with the right-wing political leadership on issues that include pursuing a strategy of settlement expansion that seeks to unilaterally change facts on the ground. It would be incorrect to think that all Jews and Israelis are monolithic in their views, even as their desire for a homeland where they can live in peace without being subjected to terrorist attacks is shared by all Israelis and friends of Israel, including Singapore. The nuances are no different in the case of Palestinian organisations that operate in the Gaza Strip and in the other occupied territories.”