Singapore

Means testing for family income (MOH)

I hope MOH will review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for. To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated so that the patient and his family only need to give their consent for the hospital to access their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality.

This was my speech at the Ministry of Health Committee of Supply debate in Parliament on 12 March 2013.

—————

Currently, all hospitals and nursing homes conduct means-testing to determine a patient’s eligibility for government subsidies. Patients have to submit documentation to prove their income and that of their family members. These include up to three months’ of payslips, CPF contribution statements or income tax returns.

Obtaining salary documentation is onerous for some patients, including those who are not IT-literate, who do not have a SingPass to retrieve their CPF statements, or are odd job workers who are not issued payslips. Some need to contact their employers to request for letters to prove their income. Others may have difficulty obtaining the documentation from family members, who may not want to reveal their income or may be estranged from the patient.

All these present administrative and emotional burdens to patients, at a time when they are already saddled with worry and pain from their illnesses. As a result, many of them do not complete their applications and lose out on receiving subsidies that could ease the cost of their treatment.

I hope MOH will review its means-testing process to ensure that it does not burden patients or their family members, so that patients receive all the subsidies that they are eligible for.

To reduce the hassle for patients, can means-testing be conducted without the need for the patient or his family to submit their income documentation? The process should be automated so that the patient and his family only need to give their consent for the hospital to access their income records with CPF Board or IRAS. This is much more convenient for the patient, and it better preserves their confidentiality.

I note that this is already being done for CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme) applications. Can the same be done for all hospital and nursing home means-testing?

Measuring capital gains

Is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and wealth distribution among the population?

This is my speech in Parliament on 11 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Finance.

————-

It is common for high income earners to earn much more from capital gains and other investments than from their wages and salaries. In the United States, where income inequality is almost as high as Singapore’s, economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out that salaries and wages account for only about 9% of the income of the top 400 income earners; interest and dividends account for 16% and capital gains account for a sizeable 57% of their total income[1].

According to a reply from the Finance Minister to my parliamentary question on 14 November 2012, capital gains do not need to be reported in Singapore since they are not taxable.

This being the case, is there any official data on the total income of individuals in Singapore, including salaries, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains from the sale of properties, shares and financial instruments? If not, how does the government determine the total income of individuals in Singapore for the purpose of measuring the true income and wealth distribution among the population?

In the absence of mandatory reporting of capital gains, could the government explore ways to require simple but accurate ways to report and collect this data?

I think these are important metrics to measure. They could help policy-makers plan more effective and progressive redistributive policies for future budgets. These can in turn help to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, while balancing the need for Singapore to remain an attractive destination to work and invest.

——-

[1] Stiglitz, Joseph, 2012. “The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future”, p. 72.

Helping SMEs as they restructure

In order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap on. The government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months. I hope the government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans, and reduce reliance on foreign workers.

I made this speech in Parliament on 11 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

——————————

Many of the government’s productivity assistance schemes focus on helping SMEs improve productivity within their companies. In order to raise productivity on a larger scale within industries, the government should look into funding and building more common infrastructure and systems that SMEs can tap on. These large scale systems are often beyond the ability of individual SMEs to develop on their own.

An example of such a system is the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) developed by MOH. This is not only used by hospitals, but in the pipeline also many private GP clinics, to share patient information and increase the efficiency and accuracy of diagnoses.

Next, the government is one of the biggest buyers of goods and services from SMEs. It can better support companies as they strive to increase productivity, through the way tender requirement specifications are structured. For example, government tender requirements for the development and maintenance of enterprise IT systems sometimes specify that vendors’ personnel must work on-site, when some roles can be run from offsite using secure remote access, saving travelling time. Providing more flexibility in tender specifications for companies to innovate can result in not only improved productivity but can also reduce costs for the government.

Lastly, the government should provide more incentives to help SMEs recruit local staff and talent. This is at the top of many SMEs’ wish list for Budget 2013, according to an ASME (Association of Small and Medium Enterprises) survey. I had earlier proposed a New Hire Wage Credit that will pay for a quarter of the salaries of new Singaporean hires for half a year, provided they have been unemployed or out of the workforce for at least four months. I hope the government will seriously consider this proposal because I believe it can help SMEs attract more Singaporeans, and reduce reliance on foreign workers.

Parenthood Priority Scheme

If the goal of the PPS is to raise birth rates, then it might be necessary to also include married couples without children, because many of these couples may be waiting to get their own home before having kids. Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 7 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development.

———–

In January 2013, the HDB introduced the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) to give priority allocation for new flats to “first-timer” married couples with children. Under this scheme, 30% of BTO (Built-to-Order) flats and 50% of SBF (Sale of Balance Flats) flats will be set aside for this group.

I agree that Singaporean couples with children should get priority in flat allocation, because they not only have to house themselves, but also their children.

However, the proportion of flats set aside for all first-timers remains unchanged at 85% for BTO flats in non-mature estates . This means that other first timers, including married couples who do not have children yet, will effectively have a lower proportion of the flats set aside for them.

The Minister has said that once the HDB clears the backlog of first-timer married couples with children, the HDB can extend the PPS to married couples without children. Will this mean that all first-timer married couples—with or without children—will be allocated 30% of BTO flats and 50% of SBF flats, or will married couples without children have a separate allocation? I think more clarity on this will help prospective home buyers better plan their flat applications.

To get a sense of the size of the backlog, for the BTO launch in January 2013 during which PPS was first offered, what proportion of PPS applicants had unsuccessful applications for previous BTO launches?

Can the Minister provide an estimate of when this backlog married couples with children is expected to be cleared, and when married couples without children can start to benefit from PPS?

Lastly, will PPS be a permanent scheme or will it only be in place until the current backlog of flat applicants is cleared?

Pricing of HDB flats

Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats, so new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices? Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats? More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or “market subsidy”?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 8 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development.

————–

The Minister said in February this year that the prices of new HDB flats have been “delinked” from resale flat prices by varying the quantum of discounts applied to the selling price. He said that HDB will continue with this pricing policy for as long as “property remains hot”.

What is the criteria he will use to determine if the housing market is cool enough, resulting in the prices of new and resale flats being “linked” once again?

Would HDB consider permanently delinking the price of new and resale flats, so new flat buyers are not at the mercy of resale flat prices, which the Minister has said he is not able to control?

I understand from the Minister’s earlier replies in this House are that the factors used to determine the selling price of new flats include the typical household income of the families who buy them, the market price of similar resale flats in the vicinity and the attributes of the flats including their size and location. He said that HDB applies a discount to this price and gives housing grants to eligible buyers.

Could the Minister share with us what is the exact pricing formula used to string all these factors together to determine the selling price for new flats?

More specifically, what is the formula used to calculate the discount or “market subsidy”?

For future launches, could HDB publish the price of each new flat before and after the discount, so that home buyers will have a clearer picture of the market price of the new flats, and discounts that they are receiving from HDB?

Childcare leave

Would the Government therefore consider granting parents about two additional days of Government-paid childcare leave for each child under the age of three? This will not only help parents of younger children, but also give greater benefits to parents who choose to have more children. In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

This is a ‘cut’ I delivered in Parliament on 7 March 2013 during the Committee of Supply debate for the Prime Minister’s Office.

——————–

Currently parents of Singaporean children under age seven are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave .

Younger children tend to fall ill more frequently than older children, particularly when they first start attending childcare. One bout of HFMD, which requires the child to stay at home for at least a week, can wipe out an entire childcare leave entitlement for the year. While the law provides for six days of unpaid infant care leave for children under two, the fact that it is unpaid renders it of little value to most employees.

Furthermore, whether a parent has one or three children under age seven, his or her paid childcare leave entitlement is the same.

Next, unmarried single parents are entitled to only two days of childcare leave, and employers are not reimbursed for this. It is ironic that single parents have fewer childcare leave benefits, even though they probably need them more than married couples because they have no spouse to share the childcare load with.

In order to make our childcare leave scheme more effective and equitable, can the Government give all parents of Singaporean children, including single parents, equal childcare leave benefits?

Population White Paper: Debate with PAP MPs

After several PAP MPs made their speeches during the Population White Paper motion in Parliament, I responded to them on the issues of assisting SMEs and the use of foreign labour. This is the transcript of the exchanges.

—————

(Click here to read Mr Inderjit Singh’s speech, which I responded to below.)

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to address one point that was made by the Member that gave the impression that the Workers’ Party does not care about companies’ folding up because of lack of manpower. I share the Member’s concern for the well-being of our companies. But the question is not if companies should go through economic restructuring, but when. So I would say that there is no better time than now to go through this economic restructuring when our budgets are healthy. Economic restructuring will not come without costs. The Government must be prepared to bear significant part of this burden.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, if the Workers’ Party cares about SMEs, then I think we would not have seen this proposal of zero growth in the foreign labour, simply because if you have your feet to the ground, you would have got the feedback from the SMEs that they all are suffering right now, with the current policy of still growing but growing at a slow rate. We are not at a zero rate, we are still growing and yet companies are suffering. We just heard yesterday from the Chambers of Commerce that they too are going to leave Singapore if we do not address this issue. So I am surprised because the paper that was presented seems to show that you do not really care.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, if the Government really cares about the SMEs, they will help the SMEs go through the restructuring and bear the costs of that because that is where the long-term benefits will come to the SMEs, when they can benefit from a more productive environment and rely less on foreign labour.

Continue reading “Population White Paper: Debate with PAP MPs”

Population White Paper: Debate with Ministers in Parliament

Immediately following my speech on the Population White Paper in Parliament on 5 February 2013, several government Ministers rose to seek clarifications on the points I raised. This is the transcript of my debate with them.

——————–

Mdm Speaker (Mdm Halimah Yacob): Mr Iswaran.

The Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr S Iswaran): Mdm Speaker, may I seek a clarification from the hon. Member? Am I right to infer from column one of his chart that was distributed that the implication is that under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, between 2013 and 2020, there will be no new additions to our foreign worker pool in Singapore? Indeed, if anything, there may be a slight decline. And secondly, that there will be no new Singapore citizens or PRs?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for clarification. Firstly, under our plan, we have proposed a 1% increase in resident labour force growth. So, we do not envision a need to have additional foreign labour except if we cannot attain that 1% growth in resident labour force growth.

Mr S Iswaran: Just to be clear, the Workers’ Party is advocating zero foreign workforce addition for the next eight years, including this year?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Our goal is to reach that 1% of resident workforce growth as a way to — [Interruption by the hon Member Mr S Iswaran]. I will answer that question. Our goal is to reach that 1%, at least 1% of resident workforce growth. So, our priority is to make sure that we do all we can to increase the labour force participation rate so that we can achieve that 1%. If we can achieve that 1% without having the additional foreign labour growth, then that I think will be a bonus for us.

Mr S Iswaran: Mdm Speaker, I appreciate the Member’s clarification. I paid close attention to this table because it is a serious proposal. And I read the footnote because it is quite clear from the footnote that for the period 2020 to 2030, the Workers’ Party envisages some selective top-ups to compensate for any decline in the resident workforce. But there is no such clarification footnote for the period 2013 to 2020. So, it must be assumed that you are assuming zero foreign worker addition, and there is no new Singapore citizen or PR.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I think it would be reasonable to assume that. And I do not think there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. But that is not primarily our target. Our target is to make sure that we maximise the local workforce participation.

Mr S Iswaran: State it for the record.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Tan.

Continue reading “Population White Paper: Debate with Ministers in Parliament”

Restructuring the Economy to create a “Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs in foreign labour. Companies which are dependent on low wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure. Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation’s future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

This was the speech I delivered in Parliament on 5 February 2013, during the debate on the Government’s Population White Paper.

———————–

Madam Speaker,

Over the past decade, Singapore’s population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. While GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the past decade, income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period.

The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson’s choice: Accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life.

This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will explain how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy.

The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a “leading city” that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities (White Paper 2013, 16). It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3 to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This in turn will drive up our population size.

Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration. But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living.

Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of?

The cost of population growth

The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the dividends and bonuses.

On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners, and their wage expectations must be lowered in order to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to accommodate a larger population.

Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030?

Productivity as a driver of growth

For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive. This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers’ wages. Our workers’ wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared with most other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore’s GDP went to workers’ wages (SingStat 2012, 9). In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share is 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada (OECD 2011). If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity.

But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets.

WP’s population proposal

Our population has grown from about 3 million in 1990 to 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by about the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050?

I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a “population growth forever” model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable.

Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island’s space. Eventually all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit. When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population growth because of constraints in Singapore’s physical size.

If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have much less room for error in planning. That would be a truly worrying situation.

It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem.

We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages.

The Workers’ Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth.

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers. (Click here for table.)

We will target to increase our local labour force growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.

How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 found that there are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped.

With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2 to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5 to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011.

Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government’s 1 to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5 to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.

In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 to 5.4 million by 2020, and 5.6 to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 to 6.9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core.

What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have “devastating consequences for many companies” and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected (CNA 2013).

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs in foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure.

Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation’s future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

Conclusion

Madam Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose this motion.

The Workers’ Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth. This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers’ Party’s plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

References

Channel NewsAsia (CNA). 2013. “Slower workforce growth will severely impact businesses: SBF”. 31 January 2013. Kristie Neo.

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 2012. “A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview”. August 2012.

Ministry of Manpower (MOM). 2013. “Labour Force”. Retrieved from http://www.mom.gov.sg/statistics-publications/national-labour-market-information/statistics/Pages/labourforce.aspx.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2011. OECD.StatExtrats. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/.

Saw, Swee-Hock. 2007. “The Population of Singapore”. Second Edition. ISEAS Publishing: Singapore.

Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat). 2012a. “Key Annual Indicators”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html.
Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat). 2012b. “Singapore in Figures 2012”. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sif2012.pdf.

White Paper. 2013. “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”. Singapore Government.

Punggol East By-Election: Rally Speech on 23 Jan 2013

We in the Workers’ Party take this election very seriously. That’s why so many of our members, volunteers and all our MPs have been out in force, campaigning for our candidate, Lee Li Lian, both on the ground and online. The Workers’ Party values every one of your votes in this by-election, because this by-election is so critical in bringing about progress to our beloved nation of Singapore. Help make history in Singapore. This Saturday, please cast your vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.

Voters of Punggol East, friends and fellow Singaporeans, good evening!

Thank you for coming to attend our last rally of this election. We are very grateful for your support. For those who are still deciding who to vote for, and have come to listen to what we have to say, I hope we can convince you tonight that Lee Li Lian from the Workers’ Party is the best candidate to manage your constituency and represent you in Parliament.

PAP leaders have made a number of statements in response to issues that the Workers’ Party has raised during this campaign. I am glad to note that, at least for these nine days, the PAP is listening, because they know their political survival in Punggol East is at stake.

On Sunday, Mr Heng Swee Keat, told the media that this by-election is “about electing the right candidate who can best serve residents of Punggol East” and “not about voting more opposition into Parliament”.

My response to Mr Heng is: Why can’t we do both? You have a chance this Saturday to elect the right candidate to serve you and also vote more opposition into Parliament, if you vote for Lee Li Lian.

Mr Heng also asked you to look at what MPs have contributed in their constituencies and in Parliament, and said you should come to a conclusion to “vote for the PAP to make the Workers’ Party work harder for you”.

I really don’t understand his logic. How can voting for the PAP candidate make the Workers’ Party work harder for you? If you vote for the PAP candidate, how will Lee Li Lian have the opportunity to serve you effectively?

But if you vote for Lee Li Lian, you will be putting her to work. And she will work very hard for you, with the full backing of the Workers’ Party when she runs your town council and improves your neighbourhood. And yes, you will make the PAP work harder to win back the ward the next time round!

Mr Teo Chee Hean yesterday said that residents should compare what the PAP candidate has to offer with what other candidates can offer. He then listed out the material benefits that their candidate has promised to the ward.

This is a well-known PAP election tactic: Dangle material goodies before voters and expect them to take the bait like a fish to a worm. But I urge you: think carefully before you bite, because there could be a sharp hook behind it to catch you.

In any case, Dr Koh Poh Koon is not promising multi-million dollar HDB upgrading programmes, but more modest amenity improvements like new childcare centres and a job placement centre. Yet he cannot build these himself. He will have to work with the government authorities to get these built.

In her speech yesterday, Li Lian already identified many of the problems faced by residents in Punggol East, even down to the detail of having more halal food stalls in the ward. If she is elected, you can be sure she will raise these concerns with the relevant authorities to press them to take action, and if they refuse to take action, she can raise them in Parliament.

Last night, after our rally, Mr Teo Chee Hean wrote on his Facebook that “WP has avoided taking a stand on major issues, for example, population or foreign workers”.

I beg to differ with Mr Teo. Our Manifesto has large sections dedicated to these major issues. If you look at the dozens of Parliament speeches posted on our website over the past year, all our MPs have raised issues and stated their positions on the major issues of the day, including education, housing, transport, population and foreign workers.

Mr Teo feels that PAP MPs have offered more constructive suggestions, and have been prepared to take a stand. I think what is important for voters in this by-election to know is: What is Dr Koh Poh Koon’s stand on all these major issues?

In the last few days, we have been hearing announcement after announcement of goodies being rolled out by the government. Enhanced marriage and parenthood package. MediShield coverage for babies with congenital conditions. Paternity leave. More childcare subsidies. These have been things that the Workers’ Party and many other Singaporeans have been calling for. And now they are being announced just before this by-election. The timing is perfect, isn’t it?

This all proves that it is the voice of the people – through your vote – that is the most powerful force to move government policy.

However, there is one announcement which has been long awaited, and should have been made weeks ago. I’m referring to the government White Paper on Population. This was supposed to be released at the end of last year and it will be debated in Parliament in just over a week’s time. Why has this paper not been released yet? Is the PAP afraid that people will be unhappy with its contents and vote against them? Maybe the PAP wants us to hear only the good stuff before the election.

Voters of Punggol East, if you vote for Lee Li Lian in this by-election, you will get three key benefits:

Number one, you will get an MP who is energetic, enthusiastic and empathetic. Someone you can relate to. Someone who will work tirelessly to take care of you. You will get another Workers’ Party MP in Parliament who will speak up against poor government policies. She will pressure the government to improve – for your benefit.

Number two, you will get an experienced Party to run your town council and manage your constituency. The Workers’ Party has over 20 years of experience in managing town councils well. And not just small town councils, but a huge GRC town council in Aljunied. We know the ins and outs of running a constituency. Even when obstacles were thrown in our path to trip us up, we have still managed to ensure residents’ needs are well taken care of. Just ask your friends or relatives in Hougang and Aljunied.

And three, you will be part of a movement to bring about change to Singapore. Not just change for the sake of it, but real change that improves your life, and the lives of your children. With more credible opposition MPs in Parliament, you will have greater bargaining power to force the government to be more responsive to your needs and concerns.

Come join us on this exciting journey and play a part in shaping Singapore’s future.

Voters of Punggol East, this is not an ordinary by-election, just as Punggol East is not an ordinary constituency. It is special.

The Workers’ Party values every one of your votes in this by-election, because this by-election is so critical in bringing about progress to our beloved nation of Singapore.

Help make history in Singapore. This Saturday, please cast your vote for Lee Li Lian. Vote for the Workers’ Party.