Vulnerable people in the community should not be used as “trojan horses, as pawns or as chess pieces”, and their plights should not be politicised, said Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Eric Chua in parliament on Mar. 4, 2024.
Chua was responding to questions about a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order that was issued to Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai.
Leong had wrongfully claimed on Feb. 12, 2024, that a couple living in West Coast did not receive any form of financial assistance from the public sector agencies concerning their daily expenses other than a Home Caregiving Grant.
Chua said that Leong came to know the couple from Opposition Leader Pritam Singh of the Workers' Party (WP).
Singh referred PSP's Leong to the couple
During question time, Member of Parliament (MP) Melvin Yong asked if MSF was aware of how Leong came to know of the couple’s situation.
“The couple told our volunteers that they were surprised to find Mr Leong at the door on the 12th of February because they had neither approached the PSP (Progress Singapore Party) nor Mr Leong about their situation,” Chua said.
“Instead, they had said that they had actually written to Mr Pritam Singh four years ago in 2020. Then, there was no response from the WP (Workers’ Party) nor Mr Pritam Singh," he said.
Four years later, Singh called the couple, saying “that someone would visit them”, he added.
“As to why Mr Singh did not do anything for four years, and why he then chose to speak with Mr Leong and whether Mr Singh knew or agreed with Mr Leong that this matter will be highlighted on social media just four days before the Budget statement was due to be delivered on Feb 16 – that is not clear to us.
I don't know what Mr Singh was trying to do, and I make no specific comment on his motivations.
But I'm sure he and everyone in this chamber here will agree with me that people, especially the vulnerable ones that we serve, and their plights should not be politicised.
Instead, there must be a sincere intent to help.”
Saw letter from couple while clearing files: Singh
The WP chief made a response to Chua, saying that he had picked up the letter as he was "tearing up files" in his office.
He said that he then decided to check in on the couple to see if they were doing better but received feedback that they were still facing "difficulty".
He asked for their address and realised that they lived in an area where Leong and his party were active, he added.
"So I said, 'Look, have you seen your SSO (Social Service Office) or at least gone to the SSO?'" Singh said.
However, the couple had shared with him that the husband was blind and the wife was immobile.
“For that reason, I got in touch with Mr Leong and said, ‘Look, if your team is visiting, you may just want to find out and follow up, '" Singh said.
He added that he “did not know how Mr Leong followed up after that”.
Singh also shared that he has received similar feedback about "trouble" that some people may be facing in a different constituency.
"When we know of residents who are in trouble, who are in need or who are in difficulty, it is not in the Workers' Party's interests to go online and to point fingers at government agencies, point fingers at organisations like SSO for no rhyme or reason.
So the idea must always be how do we follow up with this individual.
When we know of residents who are in need in any constituency, we will try and get assistance rendered to them through people who we know are active on the ground, or through the MSF and SSO on their own."
Out to seek facts: MSF
In response to Singh, Chua said there is “no disagreement with the process", but the ministry is “out to seek the facts”.
He noted that Singh did not answer why he took four years to respond to the couple's letter.
He also highlighted that vulnerable people in the community should not be used “as trojan horses, as pawns or as chess pieces” and that subjecting them to such situations “is neither good faith” nor does it "do any good" for their situations.
Could not recall if he had contacted couple previously: Singh
Singh later made a follow-up statement on his Facebook page, saying he decided to contact the couple as he "could not recall" if he had contacted them "without success" when he first received the letter four years ago.
He explained that during the course of his "brief conversation" with the couple, he had asked if they would mind if someone came to visit them to assist him.
He said that after the couple agreed, he dropped a note to Leong, whose party runs a registered charity, to ask if his party's volunteers could provide assistance.
"I do receive all forms of letters and requests for assistance, and I endeavour to assist as best as I can, regardless of the source of support.
In some cases, I have sought assistance from other individuals or organisations, including MSF as shared in Parliament, to facilitate help for individuals or households in need.
I will continue to do so.
The Workers’ Party’s approach to politics is not to politicise the circumstances of individuals in need. "
Concerns on couple's identities
WP MP Gerald Giam had earlier raised questions about whether the disclosure of the couple's financial situation including their CPF and MediSave balances aligned with the privacy protection standards and whether it was necessary given that it could lead to the identification of the couple.
Chua replied that the POFMA correction direction issued on Feb. 15 "did not identify the couple in any way”.
"It is unclear why the member believes that referring to the CPF balances of an anonymous couple would lead to their identification," he said.
The disclosure of the couples’ CPF and MediSave balances was “necessary” to dispel falsehoods made by Leong.
“It is unfortunate that there is a habit of rushing to publicise cases of persons in need,” said Chua.
"When cases are publicised with errors of fact, they create the misleading impression that we as a society are failing those of us who are in need."
The government would have to then "set the record straight in the public interest", he said, adding that this is "consistent with the government’s instruction manual and the Public Sector (Governance) Act on data governance standards".
Top photo from MCI