Shawn Loh
Singapore
“The Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, for example, is also not without policy risk. And I am glad that we are taking this bet together again. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I acknowledge the SDS' positive outcomes for the CPF members who benefitted. It was a good chapter in our nation-building story, with a happy ending.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In my view, second-hand smoke is a scourge in our heartlands. I note that the last time the Ministry replied on this matter was in 2018 and there was a review done then. I do not believe the issue has improved and I was wondering why there are no plans to do so again.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her response as well. I asked this question because when I first looked into the issue, four hours seemed short. But the Minister of State has clarified that there is more ECG than just the four hours of curriculum time, so I am grateful.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the update. I am very heartened to hear it, that MAS has agreed to do a review because the current level of consumer protections are not adequate. I have two questions. The first one is how long will this review take?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question pertains to early signals. One, does the Government detect any early signals of job losses arising from the new disruption? Two, does the Government detect any early signals in terms of wealth inflows into Singapore, given our status as a wealth hub?”
“Second, make it as easy as possible to opt in for the LRIS, perhaps even make the LRIS the default option for some. For example, default Ordinary Account savings above the Full Retirement Sum into the LRIS, unless the CPF member opts out. Third, add more friction for Singaporeans to speculate with the LRIS.”
The complete record
Every one of 65 lines we hold for Shawn Loh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill. I thank Mr Dennis Tan for the reminder and I first declare that I am the designated Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group, a conglomerate stewarding more than 1,000 livelihoods. And thankfully, we do not have much experience with workplace disputes. I am also the advisor to the Singapore Teachers' Union and the Education Services Union, which collectively represent more than 50,000 workers, who mould the future of our nation. The principles of the broader workplace fairness legislation have been debated earlier this year. I will focus only on the dispute resolution mechanism, which is under discussion today. Specifically, I will share some thoughts from the perspectives of the employer first, and then the worker, and then our overall social compact. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] First, employers should welcome this Bill. It provides clarity over the process and timelines for dispute resolution. I particularly appreciate the reasonable time bars for mediation. These prevent workers from dredging up incidents that occurred a long time ago, and for which evidence would likely be degraded. At the same time, I support Mr Ng Chee Meng's suggestion for longer time bar on an exceptional basis. The Bill also protects, or at least seems to protect, employers by providing for confidentiality during the dispute resolution process. But I have a few concerns. First and foremost, I am concerned over the possibility of frivolous claims as well as the potential for claim amounts to be inflated, especially since workers would not need to bear legal costs up to a far larger claim amount of $250,000.”
“It seems like a perennial bugbear, notwithstanding the Minister's assurance, that the amount of resources to each school has gone up. I would like to ask the Minister, why is this so? Is it because the workload has gone up more than the resources given to the schools?”
“Thank you. I thank the Minister for Education for his response, and I also want to declare that I am the new advisor to the STU, as well as the Education Services Union. It is a common refrain from many teachers that one hour in the classroom is more tiring than one hour in the office. I would venture to extend that to say that one hour in the classroom is much more tiring than one hour in Parliament. And that is important. Because it is very concerning when TALIS, not just notes that teachers on average work 47 hours a week, but that the number has not gone down over the last two seasons of the survey over the last decade. Whereas across Singapore, for full-time workers, the average hours worked went down from about 47 hours to about 44 hours. So, we should all be rightfully concerned about our teachers. To that end, I have two supplementary questions. The first one is for beginning teachers. For beginning teachers, the survey noted that the proportion of teachers was low and that many were intending to leave. So, my question to the Minister is whether the low proportion is a feature of MOE's hiring policy. Is it because it is about low recruitment or is it about high attrition? And if it is the latter, what is the Ministry doing about it? The second and last question is about non-teaching workload. I fully agree with the Minister that non-teaching workload that leads to educational outcomes are important. Our teachers should do that, like for CCAs. Because teachers do not just teach, they educate. But there are also non-teaching workloads that do not necessarily lead directly to educational outcomes – procurement, for example, and other administrative work.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary questions will be shorter than Dr Wan Rizal's.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the explanation. As recently as earlier this week, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) released data that showed that inflation was indeed cooling. But the cost-of-living anxieties have far from abated. We hear this in the voices of our residents. In particular, there are two groups that we hear it quite loudly from: seniors who have retired many years ago as well as households with lower incomes. To that end, I have three supplementary questions. The first, does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) look beyond hard data into sentiments and anxieties of the population when it comes to cost of living? The second, beyond the aggregate-level data, does MOF or does the Government look at specific target groups that are more vulnerable? And my third, if the answers to the first two questions are yes, would the Government then consider additional forms of support in the coming year, even when inflation cools? For example, building on the success of the SG60 vouchers, would we consider distributing vouchers to a more targeted subset, specifically, the Pioneer Generation as well as blue Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders, as an example?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for the clarification as well. I actually wanted to clarify my own speech, so I will make two clarifications. One, my own speech; and then, two, in response. In my own speech when I mentioned the numbers for the Jobseekers Support Scheme, as well as my back-of-the-envelope calculations for the premium collections, I may have misspoken. I said billions instead of millions; it should be millions. So, MOM's estimated budget for this year for the Jobseekers Support Scheme is $200 million and back-of-envelope calculation for the premium collections on an annual basis is on the parameters that the Member outlined. It is about $150 million. I take the Member's point that he wants to build up premium reserves over time. I do, however, acknowledge that the MOM's budget calculations and estimates are for this year, this year's Jobs Support Scheme, not for the future but this year. That means this year, MOM expects to spend $200 million of taxpayer dollars to support the workers who need help. If that is the case, then we will not be able to build up the reserves over time if the estimate is only $160 million from this year. But the broader point is that we probably want to look at the numbers a bit closer to see what is the appropriate premium collection amount that could reflect that proposal more accurately. So, for example, if it is a targeted scheme which the Member has also acknowledged that cost $200 million this year, then a national insurance scheme should collect more premiums this year even though it is to build up its reserves over time.”
“It makes me very optimistic about our future because it shows that Singaporeans, especially the next generation, cares not just about themselves, but about others in the community. These are the first fruits of a "we first" society. And over time, I hope we will even move towards becoming a "you first" society, a society where Singaporeans are more others-centred and put others first, not only because they identify as belonging to the same community or the same "we", but simply because putting others first is the right thing to do as human beings. I have witnessed firsthand how strong community bonds can overcome local challenges – neighbours helping other neighbours in times of need, fighting fires together, carrying less mobile seniors down the staircase to evacuate a flat. And I hope that as the Government makes policies at the national level, we would also do more to encourage the building of these local community bonds at the local level. One thing I have learnt as a new MP, is that no community can be fully served by our national policies or our Government agencies. There will still be gaps in the last mile of policy delivery. So, we will always need a strong community to make sure that the gaps are filled and that the last, the lost, the least, and the lonely are taken care of. This is not something that I came up with myself. This is something that my wife who coincidentally celebrates her birthday today, always reminds me about. And when our communities are strong and united, our country will likewise be strong and united. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion and wish the Government and all civil servants the very best in delivering on the policy agenda. [Applause.]”
“At the same time, my constituency set the record for the most expensive Design, Build and Sell Scheme flat transaction, at more than $1.5 million. That is more than 100 years of rent for the HDB rental flat, just think about that. And I do not even have landed properties in my area, where many have complained about higher property taxes. With smaller family sizes, wealth will get passed down to fewer children and could become increasingly concentrated. I worry when I hear people say that the only way to be rich in Singapore is to be born rich. If the greatest predictor of wealth is who your parents are, then I think we have a big problem. If we are serious about addressing the issue, then perhaps our fiscal system should be used as a means to reduce wealth inequality. How can we ensure that the returns to labour and effort, exceed the returns to other assets, such as real estate investments? How can our asset tax system, including property tax, be even more progressive? And how can we build a more effective form of wealth redistribution? On that note, we actually have some interesting learning points with our CDC vouchers, which are universal and have provided some basic level of assurance. I was privileged to have had the chance to work on the CDC voucher scheme at the Ministry of Finance (MOF) as a civil servant and I look forward to interrogating these big questions in my role on the GPC for Finance. Let me now conclude on the last theme – keeping Singapore united. Since the GE, I have seen an upswell of interest to volunteer in my community of Whampoa and Jalan Besar, especially among our youths. I cherish this dearly.”
“The Government has acknowledged this in its packages for the Pioneer Generation and the Merdeka Generation and I believe there will be a need for another package in this term, for a subset of these seniors. Mainly because, after a certain age, perhaps 85, they would all have lived beyond what they expected to live when they first retired. None of them would be automatically included in CPF LIFE. Not all would have Silver Support. But almost all of them would be anxious about the cost of living and they would not be able to benefit directly from the higher wages that a strong economy may bring. Can we, therefore, contemplate a more broad-based level of assurance, perhaps an expanded Silver Support scheme, for the oldest 5% of our population? Fourth, the work to build a more inclusive society is far from complete. The new challenge of this generation is to address wealth inequality. It is no longer just about income inequality or the inequalities of starting points in life. Earlier terms of Government focused on equalising opportunities for our young and improving wages of our lower-wage workers. This is no doubt important and I strongly support it. But an important assumption here was that incomes and education would continue to be the best way to close the gaps in life outcomes. What if this assumption turns out to be only partially true? We are already seeing early signs that wealth inequality is becoming worse. And if we do not address this fast enough, it will threaten to divide society. We would be broken into a million pieces, and we cannot go back. At my weekly meet-the-people sessions, some residents struggle with affording a basic HDB rental flat. I regularly appeal to lower the rent of these rental flats.”
“And Singaporeans will benefit because they have the assurance of a job first, before they commit to training. The GRIT programme is a step in that direction. If I had it my way, I would call it the Graduate Employment Assistance through Training programme, or the GREAT programme. I am glad to be able to look into this further in my role on the GPC for Manpower. Third, extreme longevity will raise new questions for town planning and policymaking. For the first time in our history, there are now two generations in retirement at the same time. In Whampoa, I encountered someone above 90 years old at almost every block visit. And quite regularly, someone above the age of 95. I think it is the same for many Members of this House. I see the future complexion of Singapore in Jalan Besar and Whampoa. Our town planning assumptions will have to change. Looking ahead, we will need to design our towns for the extreme user – the 90-year-old, not just the 70-year-old. A 10-minute walk means very different things for these two individuals. At Whampoa, our ramps on our overhead bridges are increasingly useless. My elderly residents tell me that it is too tiring to walk up the ramps. And if we do not plan ahead to build lifts and other infrastructure early enough, we will end up isolating many of our oldest seniors and this will be a growing problem with senior frailty. It also means that the provision of senior care and other social support services may need to be more distributed in the neighbourhood, even if it means a less efficient model. Beyond planning, our policies will also have to be updated. We cannot make policies assuming that all those above 65 are a single monolithic block with the same needs.”
“The scheme provides the support required for our workers to get the assurance they need if they fall into redundancy, for a targeted group. The second reason is because I am not sure whether the numbers add up. Let me explain. I looked at the suggestion in quite some detail. The Member suggested that if you contribute 0.1% of your monthly wage, you would have enough in the insurance pool to cover the redundancy payouts. From the back of an envelope calculation, 0.1%, which he said was about $5; grossed up to a year, which is $60; grossed up from the whole population of 2.2 to 2.5 million Singaporean workers, that gets us about $150 million of collection for the insurance pool. However, I am not sure whether that is enough because in the Jobs Support Scheme, the MOM budget was already $200 million and this was for a targeted group of unemployed individuals. So, a national unemployment or national redundancy insurance scheme should cost more, and not less. However, I think the greater point is that there are other ways in which we can resolve this issue. I believe we should pivot our policies towards a greater emphasis on employer-led training and away from broad-based SkillsFuture initiatives. Do more to help employers give workers jobs and then train them on the job. We call these place-and-train programmes. The logic is simple. The best place to pick up relevant skills is in the workplace, working for best-in-class companies, hopefully local companies, that are closest to the market and closest to the frontier of innovation. Businesses can be incentivised to hire Singaporeans and then train and re-train them in those jobs. The Government can help through expanding time-limited wage subsidies for new hires.”
“Perhaps the Government should consider supporting a new class of local enterprises that are larger than SMEs, but smaller than your $1 billion-listed companies. These are some issues that I hope to explore as part of my role on the GPC for Trade and Industry. Second, the technological cycle has shortened significantly. AI, which many Members have spoken about, represents a stepped increase in technological advancement. Some have likened this to the discovery of the steam engine that catalysed the industrial revolution and disrupted many jobs. But even before AI, the pace of job creation and destruction felt like it was already accelerating. Make no mistake, this means that skills will become obsolete faster. Today, we can no longer rely on what we learnt in full-time education to carry us on to retirement. Perhaps there may even come a point in time where what we learn in the first year of tertiary education will become irrelevant by the time we graduate. We see this manifest in greater anxieties amongst our new graduates and our older PMETs. I have spoken to many in Jalan Besar and Whampoa. And I feel for them. What does this imply for the direction of Government policy? Many Members have actually spoken up about this. Mr Andre Low gave the suggestion of the redundancy insurance scheme. I appreciate him for raising that idea. I agree with the intent that it is about reducing the anxieties that many of our workers feel. However, I respectfully disagree in the implementation of the idea for two reasons. The first is that we have just implemented a Jobseekers Support Scheme. The Senior Minister of State for Manpower has spoken about this earlier. It is still early days, but our residents are already benefiting.”
“However, I submit that below the surface of these high-level challenges, there are emerging trends within each theme that require us to rethink and reimagine our policies in this term of Government. I will spend the rest of my speech to share some thoughts about these trends and, importantly, their implications. First, the international economic order has changed, permanently. Bridges have been replaced by barriers. Our earlier economic growth strategy was premised on foreign MNC investments riding the wave of globalisation, which enabled firms to headquarter in Singapore, while the bulk of markets and operations would be outside the country. But now, foreign MNCs, even if they want to invest in Singapore, may find themselves torn between other geopolitical considerations. Manufacturing investments are being onshored in other countries. And because headquarters are increasingly sited nearer to manufacturing or nearer to markets, Singapore is actually at a disadvantage. It is, therefore, critical to have a renewed policy focus on growing our own Singaporean MNCs that are more deeply rooted in Singapore. Yes, we can press on with anchoring investments from foreign MNCs. My former colleagues at the Economic Development Board (EDB) do a valiant job. I, myself, spent a couple of years at the EDB looking at how to grow our Singaporean MNCs. And now, I lead a local company that aspires to be an MNC one day. Based on these experiences, I am convinced that our policies can do more to support our local firms to scale beyond the SME-level. To grow above the current SME threshold of $100 million in annual revenues to become MNCs closer to $1 billion in annual revenues or more.”
“Mr Speaker, I am the first one speaking among the backbenchers from the class of 2025 from the PAP. Thank you for this opportunity. Before I begin, I declare my interest as Deputy Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We are a Singaporean global enterprise operating businesses across the food value chain – from cold-chain logistics to food manufacturing and to food services. Collectively, our businesses steward more than 1,000 livelihoods and we provide nourishment to thousands of Singaporeans daily. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion of thanks to the President. Let me also thank our residents of Jalan Besar GRC and Whampoa for their support for me and my team mates. Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Denise Phua spoke earlier. I was introduced only in April this year, just one month before the GE. I am grateful for their trust in me. This trust will not be misplaced. I will do my best to do our residents of Jalan Besar GRC and Whampoa proud and give them a voice in Parliament. I have been a civil servant for more than a decade and I have had the pleasure to be involved in previous speeches by the President at the Parliament’s Opening. Invariably, the speeches cover the following themes: one, the world is a dark and dangerous place; two, the economy is the solution to many of our problems; three, we need to address the challenges of an ageing population; four, we need to build an inclusive society; and five, we need to keep Singapore united. These themes were from the 2025 speech. But if you thought these themes were from the 2023, 2020, 2018, 2016, 2014 or 2011 speeches, you would also be right! That is not to say the President’s speech was boring nor is it an indictment of the speechwriters. Rather, it demonstrates that our challenges are enduring.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. There were two types of errors here that were discovered by the AGO. One was human error, but the other one was more serious, which was a lack of integrity, resulting in the falsification of documents. So, my question to the Minister is whether in the reprimand framework of PUB, is there a difference between the two? Because in her reply, both officers were reprimanded. And if there is a difference, do we then treat a lack of integrity with more seriousness?”