Public sentiment on immigration would be different if govt addressed concerns early, openly & sensibly: PSP responds to Ong Ye Kung

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has responded to Health Minister Ong Ye Kung's claims in Parliament about its supposedly populist and anti-foreigner rhetoric.

On Sep. 24, a day after Ong spoke in Parliament on Sep. 23, the PSP released a statement on its social media platforms as they were "unable to respond to him in Parliament."

PSP rejected any allegations of racism or populism, and said it does not advocate for a closed Singapore, and "has never done so."

It pointed to its multi-racial slate of candidates for GE2025 and its manifesto as proof, and added that it has consistently called for an "open, rational debate" on the level and type of immigration for Singapore's needs.

"These are legitimate subjects for well-informed public discussion in any country," it averred.

What did Ong Ye Kung say?

In his speech, part of the debate of the President's Address to Parliament, Ong discussed partisan politics in Singapore, and focused on GE2020.

Ong discussed far-right populism in vogue in many countries around the world, often linked to high levels of immigration.

He said it ruins societies, fuels xenophobia and racism and added that Singapore is not immune.

He alleged that "we have witnessed populism in this Chamber too."

"Soon after GE2020, there were allegations by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) that our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India – the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) - allowed professionals from India ‘a free hand’ to come work in Singapore, and that was the cause of the employment challenges faced by Singaporean professionals."

He added: "It was a seductive and simplistic argument, which took on an ugly racial tone."

"CECA-themed websites sprouted, filled with disturbing xenophobic views. Minister Shanmugam called out the behaviour in Parliament."

Ong mentioned that he, as a former trade negotiator, knew the allegations were false and delivered a Ministerial Statement on CECA to explain how it works, debate the PSP and clear the air.

Manpower Minister Tan See Leng then explained what the government was doing to address the concerns of Singaporean workers, but those were not caused by any FTAs.

Ong elaborated further, saying the seeds of populism exist in any society, and it is the government's job to address concerns and not allow them to fester.

What was Ong Ye Kung referring to?

Back in May 2021, Shanmugam discussed in Parliament an incident where a woman was subject to a racist attack by a stranger.

He emphasised the need to condemn such behaviour, and said there were certain "parties and websites" that deliberately stoked fears and encouraged racism and xenophobia, over concerns of foreigners taking Singaporean jobs.

He then challenged PSP's Leong Mun Wai, then a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, to put up a motion to debate CECA.

Leong accepted this and said that neither he nor PSP were xenophobic nor racist. PSP later put out a statement condemning hate crimes and violence, and said it does not incite racism to gain political mileage.

The debate

The PSP did not file a motion for the July sitting of Parliament, with Leong saying in end-June that he would "seek more information" from the government before debating CECA.

Despite this, the PAP went ahead with a ministerial statement and subsequent debate in July, with Ong, Leong and Tan all involved.

During the statement, Ong debunked falsehoods about CECA, including allegations that the agreement gives Indian professionals a "free hand" to work in Singapore.

He also said that the FTA had been turned into a "political scapegoat".

PSP's response (further)

In their 2025 post, the PSP used Ong's own words and said it is similarly "seductive and simplistic" to dismiss national concerns on immigration as "xenophobia" or to paint those who raise such concerns as "racist" or "populist".

It charged that the government should have been "more forthcoming" with information and data.

It refuted Ong's words and claimed that the government did not address immigration concerns "early, openly and sensibly", and said that is why "public sentiment on Singapore’s foreign talent policy" is what it is today.

PSP said supports a "calibrated approach" to immigration that meets Singapore's economic needs, mentioned one of its policy proposals and concluded:

"It is our duty to continue asking difficult questions in the national interest. We will not be deterred by labels the government tries to attach to us."

Top image from MDDI/YouTube, Canva, Progress Singapore Party/Facebook