Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung said that preparing for ageing, whether it is in the areas of urban planning, economic development, retirement adequacy or healthcare reforms, requires anticipatory policy making, a "hallmark" of Singapore's government.

In addition, good governance also requires responsible stewardship, he said in his response to the President's address.

Ong then addressed points that had been previously raised by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), and MP Leon Perera of the Workers' Party (WP) in the same debate.

Leong said that the PSP has "proposed alternative policies as a serious opposition party does" and claimed that "the government does not generally seem to be prepared to seriously consider" their proposals.

As for Perera, he said that the WP has been providing concrete alternative ideas, in response to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's call on the opposition to do so.

Responding to these two opposition MPs, Ong said: "The government has always acknowledged the concerns raised by various members of the House, including by the PSP."

Government has "serious concern" about the way PSP's Leong raises issues

In the case of Leong, Ong pointed out that Leong had alleged the PSP's concerns and questions were often dismissed by the PAP government.

Leong had also alleged there were occasions where the PSP was painted as "xenophobic, nativist and racist."

Ong then said that the government's acknowledgement of the concerns the PSP had raised includes Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a "globalised and fast-changing" economy, as well as the affordability and accessibility of HDB flats, among other issues.

"And we are working hard to adjust policies, and make deliberate efforts to address these issues," he said.

Ong added that he hoped Leong will also acknowledge the "serious concern" the PAP has in the way he "raises and debates" issues, two of which he was personally involved in.

The CECA debate

At this point, the minister referenced the debate over the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) in July 2021.

"Running up to the date, there was much demonising of CECA, that it allowed unfettered entry of Indian nationals into Singapore. The discourse took a worrying racial undertone," Ong said.

Ong added that delivered a Ministerial Statement in Parliament over the issue, in his capacity as a former free trade agreement (FTA) negotiator.

Ong said that he had acknowledged the concern amongst Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods, and explained how an FTA works, along with how CECA preserves the country's right to immigration policies and setting work pass conditions for foreign nationals who want to work in Singapore.

Leong did little to reduce "raw emotions" on CECA even after explanation: Ong Ye Kung

Ong also noted that he had a "fairly long" exchange with Leong.

Following this, Ong pointed out that when Leong filed a motion on foreign talent policy in September 2021, he continued to refer to CECA as a cause for "widespread" anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods.

Leong also did little to reduce the raw emotions and "misimpressions" on CECA that had been stoked, Ong highlighted.

"It was as if my Ministerial Statement and explanation in July 2021 did not take place.

I recall during that Motion debate, he eventually conceded that some people would think that his statements on CECA had racial undertones, against the Indian community."

Making an allegation about differential treatment of unvaccinated students by citing a Telegram message

Ong also referenced another incident in January 2022, when Leong alleged that teachers in the Ministry of Education (MOE) were treating vaccinated and non-vaccinated students differently.

The minister added that he was very worried about vaccination-differentiated safe management measures being inadvertently imposed on young children, in his capacity as chair of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce.

Ong said:

"Because this was a serious allegation, Minister Chan Chun Sing stood up and asked for details. Mr Leong then clarified that his information source was a Telegram chat, and there were no details."

The minister then emphasised that every MP and political party, including Leong and the PSP, are aware that race issues can be played up, especially in a multi-racial country like Singapore.

"We can debate, we can spar, but we should not pit one group against another, over and over again, always looking to tear at the seams of our society.

And if we keep doing that, it will sow disunity and divide our society. In multiracial, diverse Singapore, our harmony is hard earned. Let’s not take it for granted. In fact, let's be very careful to preserve (it)."

Not true that government pushes a single "dominant narrative" without regard for WP's alternative

As for Perera, Ong noted that the WP MP had asserted that the government had tried to push a single "dominant narrative" without regard to the alternatives raised by the WP.

"I think it cannot be true. If not, we would not be having such extensive debates on so many issues in this House and hearing out each other," Ong said.

In addition, each political party having its own dominant narrative based on its manifesto and values is part of political contestation, he elaborated.

Both the PAP and the WP have this, he noted.

Most of the WP's proposals are not fundamentally different from existing policies

Ong then pointed out that many of the ideas raised in Parliament, including by the WP MPs, are not fundamentally at odds with existing policies.

These ideas build upon the policies that the government already has, Ong said.

Occasionally, these ideas are shades of the same policy, and their differences do not need to be exaggerated, the minister added.

Within the areas of preventive healthcare or carbon tax, the WP's proposals are similar to the government's policies, he noted.

"Very often, (the) WP, as opposition, wants more of what is already being done. Whatever the government proposes, ask for more. So here is one difference between our two parties. I don't think it is a major one, and is again part and parcel of political contestation."

The main difference lies in the WP's approach to the budget

Ong said a key difference between the WP's policies and that of the government's pertains to the budget, and described the WP's position as such:

"Because to do more, one has to spend more, and one has to say where the money is coming from. However, the WP never supported the GST (Goods and Services Tax) system. So an alternate budget without the GST simply cannot work and is a non-viable alternative."

He added, "The sums just don't add up. You cannot give up a major source of revenue yet want to spend more in so many areas."

The minister acknowledged that he might have misunderstood the WP's position however, and that the party could have changed its long-held position, to accepting that the GST is needed but objecting to the increase from seven per cent to nine per cent instead.

Ong pointed out that currently:

"To make up the loss of two percentage point of GST revenue, the WP has proposed, amongst other things, changes to the NIRC (Net Investment Returns Contribution) formula. So instead of drawing half of NIRC for government spending, (the) WP proposes to draw a higher amount at 60 per cent. Or higher percentage, at 60 per cent."

The PAP will not agree to this and this is a fundamental difference as it has to do with the PAP's values and beliefs, Ong said.

PAP will not budge from position on reserves

This issue was discussed during the Budget Debate in 2022, with Finance Minister Lawrence Wong explaining the government's position.

Ong elaborated:

"Our view is that the reserves belong to all generations of Singaporeans, current and future, even though they are not born, cannot vote and their voices have yet to be heard. As responsible stewards, we will nevertheless safeguard their welfare and interests.

To achieve this, the current formula is deliberately designed to divide the NIRC equally – half for current generation to spend, and the other half adds to the savings for the future. The half-half apportionment is a formula that is simple, is fair, and I think is wise."

Hence, while it is tempting or seductive to shift the ratio to 60:40, Singapore's fiscal rules were enshrined not too long ago in the country's Constitution, he stressed.

"We should not at the first sign of need, push for changes in the rules, just to take the easy way out.

We should hold on to the equal apportionment principle for as long as possible. This is good stewardship. And it's the PAP's position, and that's why there is a fundamental difference here."

Related stories:

Top image from MCI YouTube.