(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();


Alternative proposals for a better Singapore

NCMP positions and WP’s East Coast team

East Coast GRC Team
(Photo: Lim Weixiang / Mothership.sg)

Last night, the Workers’ Party’s CEC (Central Executive Council) met to decide on which candidates would accept the Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) positions, following the results of General Election 2015. The press release on our decisions is here.

Before a vote was taken on the nominee from the East Coast GRC team, I asked the CEC to consider nominating Leon Perera and, if Parliament decides to open up the vacated seat left by Lee Li Lian, for Daniel Goh to fill it.

I am happy that the CEC unanimously agreed to this proposal. The East Coast team had earlier discussed this matter amongst ourselves and we agreed that Leon and Daniel would be the most suitable candidates as NCMPs. They have both taken leading roles in policy work within our Party, and I am confident they will be able to make very positive contributions to Parliamentary debates and speak up for not just residents of East Coast GRC, but all Singaporeans.

I am grateful to have had the privilege and opportunity to serve as an NCMP in the 12th Parliament of Singapore. It was a very fulfilling four years. I learned so much from the debates, the policy research that we did, and from my fellow MPs, volunteers, residents and the subject matter experts I consulted.

I am very thankful to all those who helped me fulfil my NCMP role, including the WP volunteers who gave up so much time to help me in policy work and ground outreach. Special thanks go to my wife and parents who stood by me through all the trying times, as well as my two young kids who were always understanding when I told them I couldn’t spend time with them because I was going out to a certain “Party”.

While I will no longer be an NCMP, I intend to continue serving residents on the ground in East Coast GRC and through my Party in the areas of policy research and media. I would like to thank all the residents of East Coast GRC who have supported me and WP in the past two elections which I contested, and I look forward to greater interactions with you over the next five years. For those who did not vote for us, I especially look forward to an opportunity to understand your concerns, hopes and dreams, and to be able to serve you better in the future.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

GE 2015 Rally: Bedok Stadium

My fellow Singaporeans, and voters of East Coast GRC and Fengshan SMC. A very good evening to one and all.

To my Tamil-speaking friends, Vannakam!

Para pengundi GRC East Coast dan SMC Fengshan, salam sejahtera!

Keputusan pilihan raya kali ini dijangka sangat sengit. Tolonglah kami untuk mengongsi mesej kami kepada keluarga, teman-teman dan jiran-jiran anda.

Sila berkongsi dengan mereka mengapa anda mengundi Parti Pekerja.

Kongsilah dengan mereka mengapa anda melakukan perkara ini bukan hanya untuk diri anda, tetapi untuk anak-anak anda.

Undilah Parti Pekerja! Memperkasakan masa depan anda!


这次大选是新加坡50年来最重要的大选之一。东海岸和凤山是这次的主要战场 。



向他们解释,我们在国会里一定要有足够的反对党议员,才能够确保 行动党不可以为所欲为 。



Mr Khaw Boon Wan said at a PAP rally two days ago: “We all know how much damage a weak government, paralysed by constant debate, can do to the country and to the people.”

I think this sums up very well what the PAP thinks about democracy and debate. They are not interested in debate. They want all of us – including the opposition – to agree with them. Even in Parliament, they get so ‘kancheong’ when just the few of us oppose a Bill that we think is bad for Singapore, even though they have a Parliamentary super-majority to ram anything through. Imagine how much more responsive they will be to you, if we have 12, 18 or 20 Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament?

Don’t worry about “weakening” the PAP. They don’t need so many backbenchers. Some of their backbenchers hardly participate in Parliament. In the last Parliament, there were some PAP backbenchers who didn’t even make one “impactful” speech. We don’t need more cheerleaders in Parliament. We need more representatives who can think out of the PAP box and are bold enough to confront the government with the people’s concerns.

The problem we have in Singapore is not that we have too much debate, but too little debate on government policies that affect your lives. Look at the population policy in the decade before GE 2011. The PAP didn’t table any population white paper for debate in Parliament. They just went ahead and let in one million people within the span of ten years. It took a shock loss of Aljunied for them to realise that our infrastructure was bursting at the seams and that Singaporeans felt they were losing their identity.

My fellow Singaporeans, over the past two weeks, my colleagues and I from the Workers’ Party have put forward many practical policy proposals for improving the lives of Singaporeans. Most of these are from our Manifesto, which forms the blueprint of what we are going to push for in Parliament if we are elected.

I trust that you can see that we are a party that has many serious, well-thought through proposals to bring to Parliament. If more of us are elected, we are confident that Parliament will become a more lively and effective forum for airing Singaporeans’ concerns and arriving at better solutions for our nation’s future.

As this is my final speech of this election campaign, I want to talk to you about more than just policy proposals. I want to talk to you about what this election is really about.

This election is about the future political direction we will take as a nation. The choice is in your hands. We could vote for a Parliament that continues to have a small and under-resourced opposition, or we could vote for a Parliament that has a strong alternative party that is able to give you more bargaining power with the government.

We know the PAP is going to be returned to power on Polling Day. But do you know if there are going to be enough Workers’ Party MPs to be a strong alternative voice for you in Parliament?

Some of you may have received messages from the PAP and its supporters, telling you there is no need to “check” the PAP, because they are doing such a great job. Even if the PAP has done a good job over the past 50 years, can you be sure that future generations of PAP leaders can match the ability and drive of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his pioneer cabinet colleagues? Looking at the current batch of PAP candidates, do you see any Lee Kuan Yews, Goh Keng Swees and S. Rajaratnams?

So the question is: Are you willing to place the future of your children entirely in the hands of the PAP of 2015?

We need to build up institutions to guard against future government failure. We all know we need to buy insurance before something bad happens, not after. It’s the same for government. We need to slowly build up a credible alternative party so that if the ruling party fails, the alternative can step in to take its place, and Singapore will continue to progress and thrive. This process could take years and many election cycles. The Workers’ Party has started this process of building with your help. In this election, we need to work together to continue to build a credible alternative.

Two is not enough. Seven is not enough. We need many more MPs in Parliament to change the political balance in Singapore.

Voters of East Coast GRC and Fengshan SMC, this is one of the most important elections in Singapore’s short history. It is the first election since Independence where all the constituencies are being contested. It is the first election since the watershed election of GE 2011 where we saw a breakthrough in Aljunied GRC.

East Coast and Fengshan are at the front lines of this battle. We are at the tipping point of political progress in Singapore. Your vote will determine whether the opposition can make inroads beyond Hougang, Aljunied and Punggol East.

The election results are expected to be very close. We ask for your help spread the word to your family, friends and neighbours.

Please share with them why you are voting for Workers’ Party. Share with them why it is important to ensure there are enough credible and responsible opposition MPs in Parliament to check the power of the PAP.

Share with them why this election is our best chance to end the one-party state dominance of PAP. Share with them why you are doing this not just for yourself, but for your children and their future.

Come September 11th, vote for the Workers’ Party. Empower your future!

Thank you!

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Empower Your Future – GE 2015 Highlights

Empower Your Future. Vote Workers’ Party!

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

WP Rally – Marine Parade and MacPherson

Fellow Singaporeans and voters of Marine Parade GRC and MacPherson SMC, good evening!


Saudara-saudari sekalian, salam sejahtera!

During the press conference a week-and-a-half ago when we launched our Manifesto, one reporter asked me why we left out a line that was in our 2011 Manifesto, which said that “WP’s long-term aim is to form the government” but that “while in opposition, we will…call the government to account at the national level.”

I replied that this goal is still relevant, but that for this election, we are not campaigning to form the government. Instead, for this election we want to empower your future by entrenching a credible opposition presence in Parliament.

Some people may be concerned about scare tactics used by the PAP. They say that we are seeking to form the government in a “not too distant a future” and that if we win many constituencies combined with other opposition parties then Singapore is “sunk”.

Let me clarify some misconceptions about how a government is formed.

First, in a Westminster parliamentary system, which is what Singapore follows, a government can be formed only by the party or coalition that wins the most seats in Parliament, but not necessarily an absolute majority.

This means that even if the PAP does not win more than half the seats in Parliament, they can still form the government. This is similar to what happened in the 2011 Presidential election. Dr Tony Tan won only 35.2% of the popular vote but he still became president, because the next best performing candidate, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, won 34.9% of the vote.

Second, the Workers’ Party is fielding only 28 candidates for this election versus the PAP’s 89 candidates. Even if we were to win all the constituencies we are contesting, we would still have only 31% of the seats. This is hardly enough to form the government unless the PAP wins fewer than 28 seats, which is virtually impossible.

Third, we have currently no plans to go into coalition with other opposition parties. We couldn’t even avoid three-cornered fights in all constituencies.

Fourth, we will only campaign to form the government when we feel confident of governing the entire country and ensuring Singapore’s continued prosperity and success. This is the responsible thing to do.

So until you hear us say, “Vote for us to form the next government”, don’t believe our opponents who say that we have hidden agendas, motives or plans. We don’t. What you see is what you get.

Fifth, and I think this is the most important point: We do not see Singaporean voters the same way that the PAP does. To them, voters are gullible and will vote for any party that makes wild promises of giveaways that will drain the reserves.

I have a lot more faith in our voters. I’m not saying this just to please you. I’m saying this after seeing the election results of past elections and by-elections, as well as talking to many residents during house visits, both the educated and less educated, young and old. They all want to have a good government and they all know what makes a good government. There is no such thing as a “freak” election result, because any election result in a free and fair election would reflect the will of the people.

So I urge you to vote all our candidates into Parliament on September the 11th. You can be sure the Sun will still rise on September the 12th, and not just because the rooster crows.

* * * * *

Allow me to move on to share with you more policy proposals that the Workers’ Party hopes to push for in Parliament if we are elected as your representatives.

Today I want to talk about healthcare, an issue that is close to our hearts. Healthcare was one of the most frequent issues I brought up in Parliament over the past four years.

I proposed many ways to enhance the healthcare system and reduce the financial burden on patients and their families. I asked the government to subsidise MediShield premiums of vulnerable families, reduce out-of-pocket payments for treatment, and eliminate the hassle of means testing. I also called for more systems to be put in place to encourage healthcare providers, including GPs, hospitals and long-term care providers, to cooperate and share patient information with each other, in order to make more accurate diagnoses and provide better care.

I said that healthcare providers should be paid based on outcomes, not simply the volume of patients they see. This could lead to healthier patients and lower costs for both patients and the healthcare system.

There is still a lot of work to do to improve our healthcare system. One of the areas we want to look more into in the next session of Parliament is primary care.

After talking to GPs in the public and private sector, as well as patients, we learned that some of the largest outpatient expenses are for the management of chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension and stroke. Also, health screening is very important in detecting chronic diseases early, so they can be treated early before complications arise. However, the take up rate of health screening programmes is still quite low now.

We want to push for more government subsidies and use of Medisave for the treatment of chronic diseases and health screening. This will not only reduce the financial burden on patients, but it will also encourage them to seek timely treatment before their conditions get worse. Because when that happens, patients will not only have to go through much more pain and discomfort, but it will cost them and the healthcare system more.

At the same time, we want to make health literacy a public health goal. Many patients here are still not as health literate as in many other developed countries. We tend to leave it to doctors to tell us what to do. We want to equip and empower Singaporeans to take greater ownership of their health. We can do this through more engaging programmes to reach out to citizens, and through more frequent health screenings and consultations with the same family doctor.

We have many more proposals to enhance the healthcare system, which we want to be able to push for. But we need your help, to first send enough of us to Parliament, so that we can advance your interests in healthcare and many other areas.

Residents of Marine Parade, one team that I believe can make a great contribution to Parliament is our team in Marine Parade. I have worked closely with Yee Jenn Jong over the last four years as we were NCMPs in Parliament. He was a very dedicated MP who raised up many issues on education, childcare and SMEs. I know he will continue to press the government on important issues if given the opportunity to be your MP.

I worked with He Tingru on many healthcare policies over the last few years. She has a great mind to analyse policies and a big heart for people. Firuz Khan worked the ground with me on countless house visits and he knows your concerns well. Terence Tan is a great guy to be around and he brings deep legal expertise to the table. And last but not least, I am confident that Dylan Ng’s banking and financial experience will be a great asset to the team.

Please vote for our team in Marine Parade. Vote for the Workers’ Party! Empower your Future! Thank you.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

GE 2015 Rally – Simei

Rally - Simei
(Photo credit: Weixiang Lim, Mothership)

Fellow Singaporeans, and voters of East Coast GRC and Fengshan SMC, good evening! My name is Gerald Giam and I am here to ask for your mandate to serve you in East Coast GRC and in Parliament.


2011 年的时候,你们的支持让我进入了国会,成为非选区议员。我感到非常感激。过去4年来,我很努力的在国会里发问,提出了很多课题和意见。

如果我们当选了,我们最重要的任务,就是确保 市镇保持清洁、电梯能够运作、还有照顾所有的居民。我们也会好好的管理市镇会的财务。




Please allow me now to say a few words in our national language. Although I am a Peranakan like my colleague Cheryl Loh, I am still trying to learn Malay. So please bear with me as I try.

Saudara-saudari sekalian dan penduduk-penduduk GRC East Coast, salam sejahtera!

Pada Pilihanraya yang lalu, sokongan anda membolehkan saya masuk ke dalam Parlimen sebagai Anggota Parlimen tanpa Kawasan Undi. Saya amat berterima kasih ke atas sokongan anda. Di Parlimen, saya telah berkerja keras untuk mempertengahkan isu-isu yang orang Singapura menghadapi.

Sekali lagi, saya meminta sokongan anda untuk melantik saya sebagai Anggota Parlimen anda.

Unidilah Parti Pekerja. Memperkasakan masa depan anda! Terima kasih.

I will now continue in English.

When I was growing up, I remembered a Singapore that was full of enthusiasm, hope and pride in our nation. We sang “Stand up for Singapore” and “We are Singapore” with gusto. When we travelled abroad, we would proudly tell our foreign friends about the progress we had made as a nation.

In the decades following Independence, the government gave out many special tax breaks to MNCs, with the expectation that these companies would invest in local talent, transfer knowledge and skills to them, and eventually promote Singaporeans to head their local offices.

Something started changing around the turn of the century. There was a creeping cynicism that had entered our national consciousness. The PAP was no longer that benevolent and all-capable government that many of us imagined it to be.

We started to see a government that was starting to lose confidence in its own people. The PAP felt that Singaporeans did not possess sufficient talent to grow the economy at a fast enough pace. Economic growth is of paramount importance to the PAP because that is how it derives its legitimacy at elections, so they were under pressure to do whatever it took to feed this growth.

This led to the fateful decision around that time to open the floodgates of our job market to foreigners. Before I go further, I would like to emphasise again that the Workers’ Party is not anti-foreigner. Most foreigners come here to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families. Any criticism I make is against the PAP’s population policy, not foreigners themselves.

So in the decade after the turn of the century, workers of all nationalities were brought in in large numbers to boost the economy. Knowledge transfer to locals ended up taking a back seat. Why spend money to train locals to do the job if you could easily hire a foreigner with low enough salary expectations?

Meanwhile Singaporeans were told that foreigners would create jobs for Singaporeans; that the fruits of economic growth will trickle down to the poor. But this did not seem to be happening. Incomes could not keep up with the rising cost of living. Singaporeans started realising they were being squeezed out of jobs, university places and even choice primary school places. When you walk into any MNC now, many of the positions that were once occupied by locals are now staffed by foreigners. Even some GLCs and local banks are not spared.

When Singaporeans complained, they were told that they were losing out because they had become less hard-driving and hard-striving.

It took the big shock of GE 2011 for the government to finally wake up and realise that these were real problems that were hurting Singaporeans. Hence came the big “sorry”. Four days before Polling Day, the PM apologised to voters for “not getting it right”.

Four-and-a-half years on, do you believe the PAP was really sorry?

If you look at subsequent statements from PAP ministers after the election, they don’t admit that their population policy was wrong. Instead, they justify it as being right for that time. Some are even saying that demographic changes have been the reason for the foreign worker policy U-turns. Did we just turn into an ageing society four years ago?

We need to make sure the PAP follows through with their “sorry” and fixes the mess they have created, which is an over-populated island without sufficient infrastructure to accommodate it.

We need to invest more in our people, to give our people confidence in themselves and hope for the future. We need to reclaim our right as masters of our own land, and not supporting actors in a movie with a bad script.

I have faith in our people. We have gone through so much together in the past 10 years as a nation. We will emerge stronger.

We need a new style of leadership and approach to governance. This change will not come about if we leave the PAP to its own devices. We have to force the change on them.

To do that, we ask you to send a strong message to them by voting in MPs who can hold the PAP to its “sorry”.

Voters of East Coast GRC, I first contested here in GE 2011 as a young 33-year old. You gave our team then the second best GRC results in that election for an opposition party. My team and I have drawn strength from your support, as we have gone about meeting you in your homes or in markets, almost every week for over two years now.

I am very grateful for your support. This is why I have given it my all in the last four years in Parliament, asking many questions, raising up issues that affect your lives, and proposing solutions to the challenges we face as a nation.

Now I am contesting East Coast GRC again, asking for your mandate to become your representative and your voice in Parliament.

Please support us, because there is a lot more work we need to do to empower your future.

I would like to introduce my East Coast GRC team, who will be your voice in Parliament. I feel very honoured to be contesting with this team of very capable and committed men.

First, is Mohamed Fairoz bin Shariff. Fairoz holds an honours degree in history and a master’s degree in Southeast Asian Studies, both from NUS. He has been a lecturer at SIM University and was with the National Library Board until a few weeks ago, when he had to resign to contest the elections.

Fairoz is a dedicated husband and father. He is a man of strong conviction and principles. If elected, I have no doubt that he will not only care deeply for his residents, but will also be able to raise very important issues in Parliament that affect all Singaporeans, including the Malay-Muslim community.

Next, Associate Professor Daniel Goh Pei Siong. Daniel needs little introduction. He is one of the foremost sociologists in Singapore. He is the deputy head of the Department of Sociology at NUS and has a PhD from the University of Michigan. Daniel has a tremendous ability to analyse policies, crunch the numbers that support policy proposals and present them in a way that everyone understands. You can be sure that he will be able to effectively debate issues with Ministers in Parliament.

And last but not least, Leon Perera. Leon obtained a double first class honours degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University. He was a PSC Overseas Merit scholar and later co-founded an international research consultancy. He is now the CEO of his company, which operates in 8 countries.

Despite all his achievements, Leon is one of the most humble persons I know. He has also been involved in both policy and grassroots work in the Workers’ Party for the last few years. His corporate management experience will be a great asset in running a Town Council together.

Residents of East Coast GRC, we are here to serve to you!

Please vote for us so that we can serve you as your town councillors and MPs in Parliament.

Vote for the Workers’ Party! Empower your Future!

Thank you.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

GE 2015 Rally – Nee Soon GRC


Residents of Nee Soon GRC, good evening! My name is Gerald Giam and I am the Workers’ Party candidate for East Coast GRC.

During the first rally, I shared with you why it is important to elect in a sizeable number of credible opposition MPs into Parliament. This is so that we can better scrutinise government policies and build up a credible alternative to insure Singapore against a decline in the ruling party.

But what is a “sizeable number”?

From 1981 to 1991, we had only one or two opposition MPs. Was that enough?

From 1991 to 1997, we had four opposition MPs, but it fell back to two in 1998. Was that enough?

In the last Parliament, we had seven elected opposition MPs. Do you think that was enough?

Let me share with you some numbers to give you a sense of how many opposition MPs are needed to properly empower you, the people.

To pass a law in Parliament, at least 45 MPs are needed, or more than half the total MPs present.

To prevent the Government from changing the Constitution and introducing things like the GRC system, we need at least 30 elected MPs.

To have an opposition MP shadow each Ministry, we need 16 MPs. But this is not even enough to shadow all the ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries currently in the government.

So, my friends, seven is certainly not enough. We need many more opposition MPs in Parliament to form a proper check on the power of the PAP. Come September 11th, we ask for you to vote all 28 Workers’ Party candidates into Parliament.

Having seven, 16 or 28 Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament will not cause gridlock, because we are a party that puts the country’s interests first and foremost. We will debate policy issues rationally and responsibly, and will not resort to personal attacks.

Tonight, I want to continue sharing with you more policy proposals from the Workers’ Party that will better the lives of Singaporeans, including ordinary citizens like you and me.

National Minimum Wage

The PAP has responded to our proposal for the introduction of a national minimum wage. I am glad that we have gotten this important conversation going. It is an issue that affects the lives of well over 110,000 full-time workers who get earn less than $1,000 a month.

The PAP’s counter-arguments revolve around the following: One, it will cause job losses. Two, we already have Workfare. And three, we have the Progressive Wage Model.

Let me address all three in turn.

First, on job losses. There have been many studies that have shown that minimum wages set at modest levels do not lead to job losses. A “modest” level means less than 50% of median full-time income. In Singapore, this will be $1,885 . The minimum wage we are proposing is about $1,000 a month. This is only 27% of the median income – well within the “modest” range. So there should be no fear of job losses.

Furthermore, this would be an ideal time to introduce a minimum wage, because we are reducing the inflow of foreign labour, so there are more jobs than there are people to fill them. Raising wages will attract more Singaporeans into the workforce to fill these positions. It could also improve productivity and reduce turnover, as workers are more motivated in their jobs and are less likely to switch jobs. It is therefore “win-win” for workers, employers and the economy.

Second, on Workfare, which is a wage supplement for low wage workers. The Workers’ Party supports Workfare. We are not proposing that the minimum wage replaces Workfare, but complements it.

A minimum wage together with Workfare will ensure that both employers and the government do their part to uplift the incomes of our low wage workers. A worker on the minimum wage should still continue receiving Workfare, although the Workers’ Party proposes that we double the cash proportion of Workfare so that workers have more disposable income to spend on their daily needs.

Third, on the Progressive Wage Model or PWM. I debated this in Parliament last year and won’t go into the details. The PWM is essentially a minimum wage for specific industry sectors. Its introduction is an admission by the PAP government that we cannot wait indefinitely for wages at the bottom to increase naturally.

However, the PWM will be implemented in only three industry sectors, covering 70-80,000 workers. That still leaves over 30,000 workers who will continue earning less than $1,000 a month. A national minimum wage will ensure that all Singapore workers will earn a decent living wage to meet their needs.

Public transport

I would now like to turn to another issue that affects many Singaporeans: public transport and in particular, MRT breakdowns.

Like many of you, I don’t own a car and I usually take public transport. I got caught in both the massive MRT breakdown in December 2011 and the even bigger one in July this year, and many other delays in between. I’m sure many of you will understand that frustrating feeling of having to get out of a stalled train, taking a long route to your destination and being late for work.

I asked the Transport Minister in Parliament whether there was a delay in the replacement of the ageing parts of the MRT system that could be the cause of the frequent breakdowns we have been experiencing the last few years. I discovered some surprising things along the way.

I found out that a key component of the MRT tracks called the ‘sleepers’ are designed to last 15 to 25 years. They have to be replaced when they are near the end of their lifespan, or when they show signs of significant wear and tear.

Do you know when the sleepers on the North-South and East-West MRT line started to be replaced? In December 2012, more than 25 years after operations started, and it takes another 4 years to replace all the sleepers.

The replacement programme for the ‘third rail’, which was the likely cause of the July incident, was also delayed until 2017. The signalling system too had a maximum lifespan of 15 years, but a contractor was not appointed to replace it until 2012 when it was 25 years old.

The problem, it seems, is not just that maintenance of the MRT lines was lacking, but that SMRT and the government, which owns the rail assets, did not adequately plan for the renewal and replacement of ageing rail assets before their end-of-life. Is this what is called forward thinking and anticipating problems before they occur?

The Workers’ Party calls for a not-for-profit and government-owned National Transport Corporation to own and manage all rail and bus assets. This will minimise costs and achieve efficiency in the management of these assets. A dedicated entity that manages rail and bus assets will better ensure that maintenance and renewal are done in a timely fashion, insulated from the profit pressures that public transport operators face.

Fellow Singaporeans, these are just a few of the over 130 proposals that the Workers’ Party has put forward in our Manifesto. Our candidates will be sharing more of these proposals in this and subsequent rallies. In doing so, I hope that you can see that we are a party that brings to the table practical proposals that will improve your lives.

Vote for the Workers’ Party, to empower your future!


Memperkasakan masa depan anda!

Thank you.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

System design and renewal of North-South and East-West MRT lines

Question Time in Parliament, 18 August 2015

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how an electrical insulation problem in one “third rail” cover between Tanjong Pagar and Raffles Place MRT stations can cause a catastrophic failure across the entire North-South and East-West Lines (NSEWL); (b) whether this is an indication of a lack of built-in redundancy or poor system design of the MRT’s electrical network; (c) whether engineers have assessed that a massive overhaul of the NSEWL is needed to prevent such failures from recurring; and (d) if so, what it will take in terms of time, cost and system downtime for such an overhaul to be completed.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mdm Speaker, as explained at the LTA-SMRT joint briefing on 29 July 2015, the disruption on 7 July on the North-South and East-West Lines was caused by intermittent tripping of the power system at multiple locations. Chloride deposits, possibly exacerbated by a water leak in the tunnel, lowered the electrical resistance of a third rail insulator between Tanjong Pagar and Raffles Place stations. This allowed electricity to flow through the insulator to the ground and led to a higher than normal voltage difference between the running rail and the ground. Because the running rail is connected throughout the North-South and East-West Lines, the higher voltages would show up at multiple locations across the network. The movement of trains further elevated the voltages. When confronted with abnormal voltage, the 64P safety mechanism would be activated as a safety precaution. This safety mechanism is widely used in overseas systems such as Japan’s, as well as in all our rail lines. In this instance, the safety mechanism was activated to trip the power at multiple locations across the two lines.

As to whether it was design or maintenance flaws that precipitated the incident, I would say that LTA’s investigation is ongoing and so it is perhaps premature to prejudge the conclusion. But, as a general rule, I would say that if there are design flaws, we are likely to see it pop up within three to five years or so of operating the line, rather than to see it come up 25 years or so after the start of operations. In the interim, SMRT is replacing all the third rail insulators. SMRT has also combed through the tunnels to ensure that there are no other leaks with water dripping onto trackside installations, and will be installing data loggers at all traction power substations within the next two months to better monitor the condition of the insulators. Lastly, we will be making the North-South and East-West Lines less susceptible to such power trips by increasing the touch voltage threshold for the 64P safety mechanism to levels similar to international standards, as well as the newer Circle and Downtown Lines.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Madam. I have four supplementary questions for the Minister. First, given that the North-South and East-West Lines started operations in 1987, when did its rail assets, specifically the sleepers, signalling system and third rail, reach their end of service life? Second, when did the renewal and replacement works for the sleepers, signalling system and third rail commence? Third, is it LTA or SMRT that is responsible for the renewal of these assets? In other words, who owns these assets? And who is supposed to initiate the process of renewal and who is supposed to bear the cost? And lastly, what was the cost of the renewal and replacement of these assets and how much of this cost has been borne by the Government so far?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: If you look at the sleepers, for instance, and you are talking about the wooden sleepers, there were two sets of wooden sleepers that were used. One set had deteriorated more quickly than the other, even though it was installed later. Therefore, it is a little bit hard to give you a definitive time frame as to how long these sleepers can last because it depends on their conditions, the type of wood, how it is treated and a variety of different factors. And therefore the more important thing is actually to monitor them on a consistent level, and replace them on an ad hoc basis as and when necessary. But when it reaches what is considered the critical threshold, then you want to consider changing them out, replacing them en masse, and in this case we are doing so by replacing them with concrete sleepers.

For the third rail, the programme is ongoing and we will be able to replace the third rail in its entirety by 2017. There is a slight delay to the programme because there was a need to try and de-conflict all the works that are ongoing, like replacing the sleepers which we give priority to, the re-signalling which we also give added priority to, over the third rail. But this is ongoing now and its replacement will complete in 2017.

On who is responsible for initiating the review, it is the operator’s responsibility because they are responsible for the maintenance, and so they will have the best idea of the condition of these different components. As to who bears the cost, there is a formulation, quite a complicated one in the original White Paper, which I do not intend to go into, but we had talked about this previously. Basically, the Government bears part of the cost of the replacement and renewal. But because we think that actually it could have lasted us longer if it was better maintained over the years; therefore you also take a discount from what the Government would otherwise have to pay. But formulas are all set up in the White Paper. I believe I have answered the Member’s questions.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for the reply. I did some research on the SMRT website, and according to the FAQ section, the timber sleepers are supposed to last between 15 and 25 years. Can the Minister verify that this is the case? Does the operator replace the sleepers only when it reaches its end of life, or does it replace when it sees signs of wear and tear? Because if we count 15 to 25 years from 1987, the sleeper replacement ought to have been completed by 2002 or 2012. But according to SMRT, the sleeper replacement only started in November 2012 – this is the press statement that they issued – and it will not be completed until 2016. So, why was there such a long delay and who is responsible for this delay? And did the delay in sleeper replacements pose any risk to commuters’ safety at any point?

Regarding the signalling system, again according to the SMRT website, the replacement of the signalling system started only recently, and this is more than 28 years after the line operation started. My last question is: have there been any problems or conflicts between LTA and SMRT that resulted in delays in the renewals of these critical rail assets? And how has MOT stepped in to resolve these differences so that there is no delay in the renewal process?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: As I have said before on sleeper replacements, it is an on-going process. The sleepers do not deteriorate to the same extent, even though they may be within the same locality, and that is borne out by some of the pictures that I have seen over time. So, you may have one or two sleepers within the section that have deteriorated more significantly than any of the others.
So, what we do is, on an on-going basis, we will replace them. But at a certain point in time, when the assessment is that in order to be at the top of the curve, you would want to replace them en masse and with a different set altogether, in this case, with concrete sleepers. Were there any risks to commuters? The answer is “no”.

On the signalling system, actually, the signalling system is still working reasonably well. Part of the reason why we initiated the upgrading of the signalling system was because we wanted to be able to run the trains at shorter headways. The current signalling system allows trains to operate at 120 seconds. The newer systems, including that in the North East Line, for example, will allow you to run trains at tighter intervals. And we wanted to be able to do that in order to add capacity to the North-South and East-West Lines, and that was one of the primary reasons why the signalling upgrading project was initiated.

On conflicts and delays between the operator and the regulator, as I have explained before, it is actually a fine balance. They have too cosy a relationship, you get worried; if they are at loggerheads all the time, you will get worried, too. So, we expect a certain healthy tension because one is operating it and one is regulating it, doing the audits, doing the checks, providing some of this feedback to urge the operator to take certain actions and to expedite what they are doing.
What they do is that they report to me on a three-monthly basis. After the December 2011 incident, I felt that the way LTA was overseeing the operators needed some improvement. In the past, we were looking at the outcomes and the indicators that we get every so often. But by the time the indicators take a clear turn for the worse, it probably is a little bit too late. That was number one.

Two is that because we were initiating a whole series of major projects, there was a need to make sure that there was proper coordination, both between the regulator and the operators, as well as within the operator itself. And I wanted to have more direct oversight of all these different arrangements. So, I initiated the joint teams, I required them to report to me every three months.

What we have done more recently is to step up the audits by LTA on the operators, both planned and surprise audits, and also to embed a dedicated team from LTA in SMRT itself so that we can have a better insight of what is happening, on an almost day-to-day basis.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Madam. I appreciate the Minister’s point that because there are so many replacement works that need to be done, there is a need to prioritise them. Would the Minister agree that a lot of these replacement works should actually have been started earlier on, pre-2012, in order to be able to complete the replacement works in time before the end-of-life of the system?

Mr Lui Tuck Yew: I think it is not always clear when the end-of-life is. There may be an estimate given but, because of varying conditions, that can always change. In any case, I suspect that perfect foresight is as rare as 20-20 hindsight is common.

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

GE2015 Hougang Rally – National Minimum Wage

Speech on 2 Sep 2015 at Hougang field

Hougang Rally

Residents of Hougang and from all corners of Singapore, good evening!

It is so wonderful to be back here to speak with you.

During my house visits in East Coast GRC, a few residents have asked me what the opposition can do for them in Parliament. Some think, if we only have a few elected MPs, we can’t get laws changed or prevent bad laws from being passed. We can only make speeches and hope for the best.

I believe that our value as an opposition party is not just about taking up more seats Parliament or making speeches. It is much more than that.

First of all, if you elect a sizeable number of opposition candidates into Parliament, it will send a signal to the PAP that all is not right with their policies and their attitude towards the people. On the other hand, if you give the PAP an overwhelming vote, they will take it that you strongly support their policies on manpower, immigration, public transport and healthcare, and they can continue on the same path.

Second, once we have a critical mass of capable MPs in Parliament, we would have more resources, time and manpower to scrutinise government policies more closely, propose better alternatives and put pressure on the government to implement these policies. We need enough MPs to be able to effectively examine the work of over 16 ministries, 66 statutory boards and many other government organisations.

Third, by sending a good batch of Workers’ Party candidates into Parliament, you are helping to build a stronger and more credible alternative party that can form a bulwark against any incompetent government that may arise in the future. No governing party lasts forever. History around the world is filled with governing parties which started out well, but eventually lost the support of their people. The real political risk for Singapore is not an opposition that causes gridlock, but not having an alternative to the PAP if it fails the people.

National Minimum Wage

So what are the policy changes that we are pushing for in this election?

I would like to invite you to read our Manifesto, entitled “Empower Your Future”. It is available for sale here at the rally or you can download it from our website for free. It is 46 pages long and contains over 130 proposals for improving the lives of Singaporeans.

Today, I will talk about one major economic proposal in our manifesto: The introduction of a national minimum wage.

What is a national minimum wage?

A minimum wage is the lowest salary that employers are legally allowed to pay their workers. A national minimum wage will apply the same wage floor across the country, instead of having it only apply to certain industries.

The minimum wage is not a new concept. The first minimum wage law was introduced in New Zealand in 1894 and now almost all countries in the developed world have minimum wages or some way of ensuring a wage floor. We are one of just a handful of countries that do not have a minimum wage.

Why do we want to introduce a minimum wage? There are many reasons, and I will outline just a few today.

First, we want to reduce poverty in our country. This is a basic responsibility of any government.

There are about 110,000 full-time employed Singapore residents who earn less than $1,000 per month. This is based on 2011 figures provided to me after I asked the Manpower Minister a Parliamentary Question. This means that together with part-time employees, there could be well over 110,000 Singapore residents who earn less than $1,000 per month or the hourly equivalent of $5.25 per hour.

Ask yourself: Can you support a family in Singapore with less than $1,000 a month?

According to the government’s Household Expenditure Survey, the average monthly household expenditure for the poorest 20% of households is $2,230. This means that even if both parents in a household are working but earning less than $1,000, it is still not enough to cover their expenses. According to another government statistic that I obtained in Parliament, a family of four on average spends $1,250 per month just to pay for basic needs.

I think most of us would agree that in the world’s most expensive city, which is what Singapore is according to the Economist Intelligence Unit , it is not reasonable to expect a household to live on less than $1,000 a month.

The second reason we are calling for a minimum wage is to encourage more people to join the workforce. There are currently many women and older persons who choose not to work because the wages they would earn are not able to cover costs like transport and childcare. So it is more worthwhile to stay at home and look after their children.

This is an untapped labour pool in our economy, particularly at a time when we are faced with a labour crunch. If we can encourage more people to enter or re-enter the workforce, it could help to improve economic growth and at the same time reduce our dependence on foreign labour.

Third, we have cannot afford to wait much longer for productivity to rise before raising the incomes of our lowest paid workers.

The PAP government set a target of achieving 2 to 3% productivity growth per year up to 2020. But for the last 4 years since the last election, productivity growth has been close to zero or negative. In fact, a minimum wage could push employers to raise the productivity of low-skilled jobs. It could incentivise them to provide better training for their low-skilled workers and introduce automation, to help raise workers’ productivity to match the higher wage levels.

There are other reasons for introducing a national minimum wage, and there are exceptions that are usually granted to reduce their negative impact on businesses. I do not have time to elaborate on them in my speech, but the Workers’ Party welcomes a national debate on this issue. We will be happy to address this issue in more detail during the course of this election campaign.


The national minimum wage is just one of the many proposals that we will be pushing for in Parliament, if you elect us as your representatives. Our goal is not to oppose everything the government is doing, but to work with the government to identify better solutions and to put pressure on them to implement those solutions, for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

Fellow Singaporeans, we stand at a critical moment in our history as a young nation. We are no longer a developing country that is struggling for survival. We have achieved enviable level of economic development and peace, due to the hard work of our pioneer generation and many others that followed, and our commitment to work together despite our differences. Yet there are segments of our population that have not reaped the full benefits of our economic growth. We need to do more to uplift the lives of these fellow citizens, and so create a more equitable society and dynamic economy.

The Workers’ Party has and will always stand on the side of Singaporean workers and their families. Please support us in this election, so that we can continue to push for more compassionate and sound economic and social policies.

Vote, for the Workers’ Party. Vote, to empower your future!

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Debate on Bus Services Industry Bill

Delivered in Parliament on 18 August 2015

Mdm Speaker,

The Bus Services Industry Bill seeks to regulate the provision of bus services, and the operation of bus depots and bus interchanges in Singapore. It also gives effect to the recently-introduced bus contracting model via a bus services procurement framework.

The Workers’ Party welcomes the government’s shift towards taking over the ownership of bus assets, the planning of bus routes and the setting of fares, while contracting out bus operations to the private sector. This will hopefully give the government greater control over the service quality and affordability of public transport, which is an essential public service.

I have a few queries on this Bill and the bus contracting model in general, which I hope the Minister can address.

First, on the maintenance and renewal of bus assets. Under this Bill, bus operators will be responsible for the maintenance of bus assets, which will be owned by the government but leased to operators. LTA’s lack of direct involvement in bus operations could result in information asymmetry between the regulator and the operators. Essentially, LTA may not have a full understanding of what is going on under the hood of bus operators, and hence may not be able to take the necessary regulatory or enforcement action should maintenance be lacking.

How will LTA ensure that bus operators conduct proper maintenance of these buses? How will LTA mitigate the risk that the buses may be poorly maintained or abused because the operators do not own them, resulting in shorter lifespan or more frequent breakdowns?

Which entity will be responsible for the renewal and replacement of essential operating assets when they approach their end of serviceable life?

The broader question on this issue is: How will the Ministry of Transport manage any possible conflicts between LTA and the operators, to ensure that there is proper accountability, so that disagreements between the two entities do not result in delays or failure to conduct proper maintenance and renewal of essential operating assets?

Next, on buses and crisis response. Currently, most public bus operators are also MRT train operators, and they can reallocate resources internally to respond to incidents like MRT breakdowns. This is likely to change in the future, with the bus routes eventually tendered out to different operators. How will LTA marshal bus resources from different operators to respond to crises like the massive MRT disruption we saw last July? Is there any provision in the bus operator contracts that state that operators must make their bus resources available to the government to respond to crises?

Third, I would like to ask about the transition between bus operators. The bus contracting model is likely to see more frequent transitions between bus operators. How will LTA ensure that the incumbents maintain high service levels as they transition out of areas where they will no longer be providing bus services? I am particularly concerned about manpower transitions that may affect service levels for the commuter.

Fourth, on the removal of the CEO of bus operators. Clause 19 requires bus operators holding a Class 1 bus service licence to obtain LTA’s approval before appointing, re-appointing or removing its CEO or board chairman, failing which LTA can issue a direction to reverse that decision. However, if a current CEO of a public bus operator is incompetent or unable to provide effective leadership to ensure the smooth operation of the bus services under their contracts, does LTA have any power to remove that CEO before the expiry of his or her contract?

National Transport Corporation

Madam, the bus contracting model is now in its second year of implementation. Only two contracts have been awarded so far. It is too early to gauge whether this model will indeed drive greater cost efficiency and service quality for commuters, while keeping fares affordable. All stakeholders, including the government, should monitor this model closely over the next few years to assess its results. If it turns out that cost efficiency and service quality have not improved as a result of this model, the government should be prepared to explore different models, including having a government-owned National Transport Corporation take over the running of public bus services on a not-for-profit and cost-recovery basis, to ensure that service quality for commuters is not compromised.

Finally, Madam, I would like to record my thanks to Minister for patiently answering all my PQs (Parliamentary Questions) and responding to my speeches on transport over the last 4 years, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment

Parliamentary Questions for 13 July 2015

I will be asking Ministers the following questions in Parliament today (13 July 2015):

Questions for Oral Answer:

*7. To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) what accounts for the drastic fall in job growth from 28,300 jobs in Q1 2014 and 40,700 jobs in Q4 2014 to just 300 jobs in Q1 2015; (b) whether this trend has continued into Q2 2015; and (c) what implications does this have on Singapore’s economy.

*40. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government can provide a Gini coefficient trend line on income distribution for the past five years that includes the foreign population living and working in Singapore; and (b) how this Gini coefficient compares with other major cities like New York, London and Hong Kong which incorporate these segments of their populations in their Gini calculations.

*76. To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government is concerned about the recent record price of $31 million paid for a coffee shop in Bukit Batok which follows the $23.8 million transaction in 2013 for a coffee shop in Hougang; and (b) what measures is the Government taking (i) to mitigate the downstream impact of such high transactions on stall rentals and the price of cooked food in those coffee shops; and (ii) to prevent property speculation in coffee shops which many lower income residents depend on for affordable food.

Questions for Written Answer:

23. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is the Government’s foreign policy on the Rohingya situation in Myanmar which is causing a refugee crisis in Southeast Asia; and (b) whether the Government has raised any concerns on the situation with senior members of the Myanmar Government and Opposition and, if so, what are their responses.

27. To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider reducing the contribution rate of de-registered Category D (motorcycles) COEs to Category E (open) from the current 10% to 0% in order to return more COEs from de-registered motorcycles to Category D and mitigate the price of quota premiums for motorcycle owners, many of whom are from lower income groups and need their motorcycles for work.


The numbers next to the questions denote the order in which the questions will be answered (for questions for Oral answer). The above questions do not include questions on the MRT breakdown on 7 July as this disruption took place after the deadline for filing PQs.

Get my latest updates. ‘Like’ my Facebook Page.

Leave a comment