Author: Gerald Giam

There is one concern I hear from voters that I want to address head-on — the fear that your vote isn’t secret.

I’ve contested four general elections and I can assure you with full confidence: Your vote is secret. 投票是秘密的。

When you go to vote and present your IC at the polling station, you will hear the election official call out your serial number and name. Don’t worry. This is to allow polling agents — who are volunteers from both WP and PAP — to tick off your name to record your presence — not your vote. This prevents double voting.

When you vote, you walk to the polling booth alone. You put a “chop” on the box next to your preferred party. No one can see your vote.

At the counting centre, candidates and counting agents from all contesting parties are present to observe the count to ensure that everything is done correctly.

Once the count is complete, the ballot boxes are sealed and locked in the Supreme Court vault. Only a court order can release them — and this has never happened in Singapore’s history.

Six months later, representatives from all the contesting parties return to the vault to witness it being unlocked. We inspect the seals and confirm they haven’t been tampered with. Then we accompany the boxes to Tuas Incineration Plant, where they are burned — in full view.

“But the ballot paper has a serial number,” some may ask. That number is there to prevent fraud like ballot stuffing. Your vote remains secret because there is no opportunity for anyone to match your marked ballot paper with the electoral register, because the only time the ballot papers are seen by anyone is at the counting centre.

Ballot papers are placed face-up so that only the vote is visible. The serial number stays hidden.

I know there are many well-meaning opposition supporters who have doubts about the secrecy of the vote and do not hesitate to tell you so. Not only is this untrue, but could scare people from voting for the party they prefer.

Your vote is secret. And every vote matters.

If you are a civil servant, NTUC member, or simply worried that voting opposition will land you or your family members in some trouble, I will say this to you: Vote with confidence, not fear. Vote for what you think is right, and for the candidate and party that you believe will best serve your family and your nation.

I believe these are the candidates that the Workers’ Party has fielded in General Election 2025.

This was adapted from my speech at the Workers’ Party election rally on 24 Apr 2025. I would like to thank the thousands of civil servants who are doing their best to ensure Singapore has a free and fair election.

Committee of Supply debate in Parliament, 3 Mar 2025

National defence is the primary goal of National Service (NS), but NS should also be an investment in human capital. MINDEF should transform NS into a value-accretive experience for our National Servicemen by ensuring appropriate remuneration, relevant training, and stronger education and career integration.

First, Full-time National Servicemen’s (NSFs) pay should reflect their contributions to national defence. The median NS allowance should be raised to at least $1,600 per month. NSFs in their second year are fully trained, performing operational roles essential to Singapore’s security, yet they continue to receive an “allowance” rather than a salary with CPF.

The argument that duty and employment are mutually exclusive is flawed. SAF regulars are paid market salaries while serving the same national defence mission. NSFs make personal sacrifices, delaying their education, career and—consequently—sometimes even marriage and children, because of NS. Pay that acknowledges these realities will strengthen their commitment to national defence.

MINDEF should also help NSFs transition smoothly to further education by coordinating with universities to reduce delays between their ORD and the start of their studies.

Finally, NS training should, where possible, incorporate training that can benefit NSFs’ future careers, including skills training that can be applied in both military and civilian settings. This way, NS can serve as a launchpad for future opportunities rather than an educational and career detour.

Gerald Giam (Aljunied), 27 Feb 2025

Many mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) are under pressure. Some are in industries that are shrinking or being disrupted, where jobs are disappearing faster than new ones are created. Others see their roles changing because of automation or artificial intelligence.

Some even face the anxiety of being told to reapply for their own jobs as part of restructuring exercises, effectively forcing them to compete with their colleagues or external candidates for roles they have already been performing. Such practices not only create stress and uncertainty but can also serve as a way for companies to bypass retrenchment obligations while reshuffling their workforce.

While overall employment levels have continued to rise in tandem with a growing population, some displaced workers face difficulties transitioning into a new job at the same skill level and salary. Many struggle to break into growth sectors despite efforts to reskill, as employers often favour candidates with industry-specific experience or are younger. While most employers prioritise merit, some hiring processes may still be influenced by informal networks, creating additional challenges for mid-career jobseekers trying to break into new industries.

The Labour Force 2024 report showed that some 41,200 PMET residents are unemployed and, of these, 10,700 have been unemployed for more than six months. The data also shows that long-term unemployment affects PMETs more than non-PMETs. These PMETs are workers who have spent decades in their industries, built up expertise and contributed to the economy. Many have significant financial responsibilities, including housing loans, children’s education and elderly parents to care for.

When these PMETs get retrenched or step away from the workforce for a period due to caregiving responsibilities, re-entering the job market becomes a daunting challenge. Even those who are currently employed may be preoccupied with day-to-day operational work and get blindsided by technological changes that make their skills obsolete. A worker who had spent years in corporate operations, for instance, may find it difficult to transition into a technology-driven role without a structured pathway to bridge the gap.

Even if they secure interviews, they are often offered roles at significantly reduced salaries, making it difficult to maintain their financial obligations. Some are forced into contract or gig work with little stability or opportunities for development. The longer they remain unemployed or underemployed, the harder it becomes to re-enter the workforce, as employers perceive them as “outdated” or “overqualified” rather than seeing the value of their accumulated skills and experience. Some may drop out of the workforce completely after years of discouragement.

The government has introduced several schemes to help workers upgrade their skills and transition to new jobs. The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme provides Singaporeans aged 40 and above with $4,000 in SkillsFuture Credit, along with a training allowance of 50% of their average income over the latest available 12-month period, capped at $3,000 a month, for selected long-form full-time courses, and $300 per month for selected part-time courses. The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme, which bears similarities with the unemployment insurance schemes proposed by the Workers’ Party since 2006, will also offer financial support of up to $6,000 over six months for involuntarily unemployed workers taking part in job search and related activities.

On top of that, career matching services run by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and its partners help jobseekers refine their resumes and prepare for interviews, and in the future, as announced in this Budget, there will be an expanded network of job placement centres at all CDCs. These are important steps, but more needs to be done to ensure mid-career workers secure meaningful employment.

Training and reskilling alone does not ensure job placement. For mid-career workers facing immediate job displacement, waiting year s for the benefits of these programmes to materialise is not a viable option. Many are unable to afford the temporary drop in income that often comes with switching sectors, making it difficult for them to commit to full-time training programmes.

While some industries are shrinking, others—including healthcare, sustainability, and advanced manufacturing—are expanding. Mid-career PMETs should have clearer pathways to transition into these high-demand sectors through structured job placement and industry partnerships.

The Career Conversion Programme (CCP) is designed to help mid-career individuals transition into new jobs or sectors with better long-term prospects through training and salary support. This is a well-intentioned programme. However, there still remain deeper structural barriers that make it difficult for these workers to secure new jobs at comparable skill levels and salaries. The CCP requires employers to hire the workers before they can receive training, presenting the same barriers for jobseekers who are already struggling to get past the initial job screening process.

We need a more structured and targeted job placement programme where mid-career jobseekers can have their applications and CVs reviewed and refined by specialists in their field. These specialists can then actively match and recommend them to employers, including those enrolled in the CCP, increasing their chances of securing a placement. Once hired, these workers can then benefit from the CCP to receive the necessary training and salary support for a smoother transition into their new roles.

Additionally, WSG can introduce structured returnship programmes to help professionals re-enter the workforce after a career break, whether due to retrenchment or caregiving responsibilities. Unlike the CCP, which requires career conversion, these returnship programmes would provide a pathway to employment and mentorship, allowing mid-career professionals to rebuild industry-relevant experience without starting over at entry-level positions.

Conclusion

Mdm Deputy Speaker, mid-career and older PMETs need more structured redeployment pathways and stronger financial support for career transitions. They have spent years contributing to Singapore’s economy. Many have built businesses, trained younger colleagues and helped shape their industries.

Our nation and our economy cannot afford to overlook the experience and skills of these workers. Let’s give every Singaporean who wants to work, retrain and contribute the best possible chance to do so.

Image generated by AI

Gerald Giam (Aljunied)

4 February 2025

Mr Speaker,

The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (the “Bill”) seeks to address the complexities of race relations in Singapore. It introduces measures to regulate racial discourse, counter foreign interference and strengthen community cohesion. However, it is important this Bill fosters racial harmony without unintentionally stifling essential public discourse and silencing marginalised voices.

Open Dialogue Necessary for Racial Harmony

Racial harmony is a cornerstone of our society, and I think we all agree that it cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Enduring racial harmony requires genuine understanding and open dialogue among all communities.

However, the broad ministerial powers under this Bill risk deterring legitimate public discourse that is essential for fostering inter-communal dialogue to strengthen social cohesion. For instance, public critiques of systemic discrimination or policies affecting certain racial groups could be misconstrued as vilifying or denigrating others, even when the intent is to raise awareness or advocate for positive change. Forums discussing global events like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or domestic policies such as CECA—the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement—could risk being labelled as racially inflammatory, despite their role in constructive discourse.

It is important to distinguish between speech that incites hatred and violence—which should be prevented—and speech that fosters understanding and calls out racial inequalities—which we should encourage. Constructive conversations, including in public forums, are necessary for addressing racial issues and strengthening inter-communal trust.

While the Bill includes defences for private communication and calling out racism in good faith, individuals may still be uncertain about their practical application. The need to prove good faith intent or the private nature of a conversation could create hesitation to engage in discussions on race. This uncertainty may discourage open dialogue and cause such conversations to go underground, or in echo chambers within the internet.

Since the legislative intent as expressed during this debate may be referenced by the Courts, could the Minister clarify, with specific examples, the types of speech—including the ones I raised—that will or will not fall within the scope of this legislation?

I note that unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which explicitly prohibits the mixing of religion and politics, this Bill does not contain a similar prohibition on the mixing of race and politics. Can the Minister confirm then that members of the public can engage in public discussions on racial issues without an outright legal restriction?

Countering Foreign Influence

Foreign influence operations can exploit racial and communal fault lines, destabilising our society and undermining social cohesion. Countering foreign interference is a necessary component of maintaining racial harmony. The ability to monitor and regulate race-based entities, and to take action against harmful external influences, is an important step in protecting Singapore’s racial harmony and national security, and I acknowledge the government’s efforts in addressing this issue.

The Bill introduces measures such as designating entities and issuing restraining orders. The Workers’ Party supports the inclusion of these provisions. It is important, however, that these powers are exercised judiciously, with transparency and accountability, to maintain public trust. Ensuring that decisions are seen as fair and impartial will be crucial to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these measures.

Community Remedial Initiative

I support the introduction of the Community Remedial Programme (CRP), which offers an alternative to prosecution by encouraging participants to reflect on their actions and fostering rehabilitation. To be effective, the programme should engage participants in meaningful dialogue with members of other racial groups, allowing for deeper understanding and reflection on the impact of their actions.

Could the Minister share more details on the structure and content of the CRP? How will its effectiveness be measured to ensure it leads to genuine rehabilitation and behavioural change?

Consultation Process

Unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990, this Bill did not undergo the same level of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee. Instead, the government feedback unit, REACH, conducted a public consultation last year, but the feedback collected remains largely opaque, with only summarised data shared publicly. A Select Committee provides a more transparent and rigorous process, allowing for in-depth scrutiny, public engagement and expert input, particularly from minority communities most affected by such legislation.

The government’s Forward Singapore report underscores the need to strengthen our social compact through deeper citizen engagement. Yet, for an issue as fundamental as race relations, bypassing the Select Committee process weakens participatory democracy. A strong democratic system requires more than just electoral participation—it must also ensure meaningful avenues for policymaking input, robust public consultations and rigorous legislative scrutiny.

The government should uphold these principles by ensuring that future legislation of similar significance is subject to the full scrutiny of a Select Committee.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party supports the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, particularly measures to counter foreign interference, but we urge the government to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties and encourage open conversations about race. Thank you.

Image on inter-racial dialogue – generated by AI