LO’s Speech: Debate on President’s Address on the opening of the 15th Parliament
Sir, I thank the President for his address. While the Workers’ Party is in opposition, we call on Singaporeans to heed the call to build a better Singapore for ourselves and future generations.
Today, I will first highlight what the Workers’ Party sees as the international and domestic pressures facing us. After that, I will focus on the President’s call for a “We First” society, a term that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also used at the National Day rally last month.
The External Milieu
First, the international situation. I entered politics in 2011, and I remember that at the time, a newly retired Minister shed tears at a press conference over, I quote, “what globalization had done to Singaporean workers”.
This year, US President Donald Trump has challenged globalization more directly than ever before. His ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs in April put the brakes on several decades of an economic era that Singapore has ridden successfully, albeit not without discontent for some Singaporeans. For the foreseeable future, near-shoring, friend-shoring and protectionism are the order of the day.
We enter an uncertain and unpredictable post-SG60 world. Of great concern to us is what sectoral tariffs could be imposed on Singapore, especially for two industries that together contribute 40% of our GDP – pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. To use the parlance of the late US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, the imposition of additional tariffs on Singapore exports to the US more of a known-unknown rather than an unknown-unknown.
In the Asia-Pacific, we are in the throes of a geo-strategic transition. Recently, China showcased both its ambition as well as its alliances at a spectacular military parade commemorating 80 years since the end of World War 2. China demonstrated that it is ready to take its place as a leading power in the world.
China, a hugely successful economic power, is fast becoming a military juggernaut. It can no longer bide its time, nor hide its strength. To many, this must mean a diminution of US influence in the Asia-Pacific. But China appears to have considered that it need not behave like a hegemon and displace Pax Americana. China seems intent on deepening friendships and collaboration, thereby representing itself as a force for stability and cooperation, even as it stands up to America whenever it deems necessary.
As for the US, its current administration is re-calibrating the norms and values that traditionally underpinned its pre-eminent position in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. However, the US still retains significant goodwill from many Asia-Pacific countries. Its historical actions at the cost of American blood arrested the advance of communism. It provided an effective security umbrella that allowed Southeast Asian nations including Singapore to grow and prosper, and continues to do so.
There may well be enough space for the US and China to co-exist in the region, even as flashpoints such as Taiwan, and possible nuclear weapons proliferation in East Asia remain known-unknowns. What is clear is that defence spending is rising all around. We must brace for turbulence even as we hope that the turbulence remains only that, while we look to secure our future in a new strategic environment.
Sir, I ended my Budget speeches in 2024 and 2025 with calls to strengthen our national unity – a multi-racial national unity – in an uncertain world. A strong SAF, Home Team and a first rate diplomatic corps give us agency to think for ourselves and own national interests.
The current strategic environment is yet another reminder of how critical the Singapore Armed Forces, the Home Team agencies and MFA are. It also reinforces the importance of National Service. The security that our people in uniform provide is an important strength for Singapore. I repeat this call today in light of the President’s address.
The Home Front
Domestically, SG60 comes at a unique inflection point for us. In the next few years, one in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 and labour force participation is not likely to rise. This is part of a long-anticipated transition – in fact the first Ministerial committee on aging was set up decades ago. However, living through a transition and being on the cusp of it, hit differently.
The job front is unpredictable – technology is rendering jobs obsolete quicker than ever before, middle-aged workers who change jobs report being unable to command the same salaries and anecdotally, young people are finding it tougher to secure good jobs. In addition, more employers prefer to offer short-term contract jobs rather than permanent positions.
Cost of living concerns continue to dominate as business profit margins get squeezed, particularly for smaller businesses that face steep rental hikes. Even our cultural capital is being hollowed out and in transition to something unfamiliar. From the slow demise of traditional foods to the closing down of cinemas and downsizing of bookstores - all this contributes to a sense of loss that weighs heavily on many Singaporeans. These emotions are not unexpected; Singaporeans do not want to become a people who must know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
We must try to preserve as much of the different strands of our cultural tapestry in our national interest, instead of resigning ourselves to the inevitably of change. Just as there is value is learning new things, there is value in remembering the past and the wisdom it endows.
At this critical juncture in our nation’s journey, how does the Workers’ Party define its Parliamentary role? Five years ago at the opening of Parliament then, I said that the Workers’ Party will chart an independent path and fulfil its duty as a loyal opposition. Our loyalty is to the people and to the nation. This term, fidelity to the three key functions of Parliament – to make laws, to check on the Government and to scrutinise the State's finances - will come into distinct focus.
On the back of the opening of Parliament and our first sitting today, the Workers’ Party MPs – in line with our critical and inquisitorial role to hold the Government accountable – have asked topical parliamentary questions covering housing and specifically, the HDB Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme or VERS, jobs, education and specifically bullying in schools, employment, foreign affairs and transport to name a few.
With so much happening domestically and internationally, the opposition will primarily focus on the function that Parliament demands of us – checking the Government’s policies and actions. Mr Speaker, let me assure you that the Workers’ Party will not file Parliamentary questions to rack up numbers. Every question we ask is one that needs asking; especially since the opposition does not receive any special government briefings unlike the PAP MPs, and neither are there Parliamentary select committees to scrutinize the work of the various ministries when Parliament is not in session.
For example, over the last 3 months there has been a spate of MRT breakdowns. From July to date, there have been, at last count, 15 disruptions, some more significant others. Like anything mechanical, breakdowns do occur and this in and of itself is not the issue. However, many Singaporeans find this quick succession of breakdowns to be highly unusual, particularly after significant taxpayer resources have been expended to raise rail reliability over the last decade. This will have to be scrutinized in Parliament, including the findings and recommendations of the recently established task force under LTA’s purview.
Some Singaporeans think that when we ask questions, we are trying to embarrass the Government. The Workers’ Party does not see it that way. Checking the Government is a function of system design. This is something our early leaders understood and is an essential feature of the Westminster system we adopted from the British. To borrow an old tech phrase – questioning the Government in Parliament is a feature, not a bug. Embracing this feature will be an important priority for the Workers’ Party in this term of Parliament. Where alternative proposals and improvements to existing policies need to be raised, we will raise them accordingly.
If our fellow Singaporeans, workers and PMETs wish to suggest matters for us to raise in this House, please contact us. We welcome inputs which are backed by evidence. We also welcome organisations, including SMEs and corporates, to engage with us, with a view towards better policies for our economy and people.
We believe that the prospect of the opposition raising issues in Parliament has a strong nudging effect in getting the issues recognised and addressed by the Government. We thank all parties for their good faith engagement, most recently over the issues faced by platform workers. On this I have filed a parliamentary question to delve more deeply into this issue.
All Singaporeans are collectively interested in the betterment of our people. Engagement with the opposition and the Workers’ Party in particular, reflects a society that treasures, supports and makes effective use of a balanced political system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all voters who supported the Workers’ Party at the last General Elections, regardless of constituency.
A Singapore that understands that it is both Government MPs and opposition MPs who contribute to make Singapore worth fighting for, puts Singapore on a stronger footing for the challenges to come.
Mr Speaker, a united society is however, ultimately rooted in justice and fairness. The individual must feel a sense of belonging to Singapore and an affinity to the community around them.
National Identity – We and Me.
That brings me to the President’s call to put “we before me”. This is a theme that continues from the PM’s National Day rally. It is simple idea but a timeless one too. Singapore has wrestled with the ambit of such communitarian concepts in the past. But one can understand the significance of reiterating this call in light of present times.
In the late 1980s, the Government introduced what was originally referred to as a National Ideology, with the purpose of gradually developing a national identity. This led to a Government White Paper on Shared Values listing five propositions of what these shared values ought to be.
The White Paper on Shared Values was subject to intense debate over two days in this House. Former Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi argued that two values, first, "Nation before community and society above self" and second, “Regard and community support for the individual", slanted too heavily towards society and community, with not enough premium placed on the individual. He said and I quote, “People are afraid that these values would lead to a stifling of the individual. While individualism, per se, is not a good value to promote, over-emphasis on the community could lead to a stifling of innovation and creativity, and hence reduce our competitiveness. The line between the two has to be carefully drawn.”
Another PAP MP, Dr Ong Chit Chung shared that the most problematic of all values appeared to be "Consensus instead of Contention", as there was a fear or suspicion that the Government would use this call for consensus to browbeat critics, stifle creativity, and muzzle opponents.
Yet another PAP MP asserted that his conversations with students, grassroots leaders and business colleagues gave him and I quote “the distinct impression that many people scoff at the idea of a paper on Shared Values. Most of these things are obvious, they say. Is it necessary for Government to try to push yet another load of sanctimony down our throats?” Unquote.
The public reaction and the qualified cynicism aside, the vision of the White Paper itself was not objectionable. Despite reference to Singapore as an Asian society, the White Paper acknowledged that not everything Asian was good, and not everything Western was bad.
The Senior Minister of State, Dr Tay Eng Soon, sought to clarify that the Government neither wanted and I quote “blind conformity and compliance in the name of nation or of consensus” unquote, which he alluded to as a disease that I quote, is “not unknown in the East, and that tyranny of the majority may be even worse than individualism.” Unquote.
He argued that the shared values must never be an excuse to stamp out individual ideas and aspirations that can lead to new achievements. His view was that we must always encourage individual excellence.
Are the Shared Values important today? I believe there is wisdom to them, because they foment and advance a unifying ethos. And there is evidence that many of us care deeply about what it means to be Singaporean.
In June 2020, the Government published information on the Singapore Together Emerging Stronger Conversations. That was a conversation series on Singapore’s COVID-19 experience and Singaporeans’ aspirations for a more resilient post-COVID-19 society. At that time, I filed a parliamentary question seeking details about the feedback given by 17,000 Singaporeans for those conversations. In our political system, where it is sometimes assumed that the proverbial bread-and-butter issues would dominate, one might have thought that the topics of Jobs and the Economy, and separately, Digitalisation and Technology would rank highest among the topics discussed. However, what ranked at the top were National Identity and Shared Values and Social Support. The issues encompassed under National Identity and Shared Values included protecting our vulnerable, support for volunteerism and how we might build a more compassionate and cohesive society.
So it is clear that the idea of “we” is important to Singaporeans. But I would assert that it certainly does not mean suppressing or minifying the importance and central role of the individual and his or her place in Singapore.
I would argue that “we and me” are perspectives that exist on a continuum. Both “we and me” matter to Singaporeans.
A binary treatment is limiting, while an overemphasis on one is not consistent with our lived experiences. We should aim for excellence as individuals and venture forth with confidence as individuals and be respected by society as individuals, regardless of race, language, religion, and backgrounds.
At the same time, an awareness of “we” beyond our comfort zones opens opportunities for us not just to be better, but to be the best versions of ourselves. A sense of personal fulfilment and purpose are more likely to be achieved when we contribute to something larger than ourselves and aim beyond self-enrichment and personal outcomes. Perhaps the most important point to be made here, is that Singaporeans are well and truly in the driver’s seat of shaping the Singapore they want to see.
A Multiracial Singapore
While Singaporeans may struggle today to list the five shared values of 1991 as naturally as they say the pledge or national anthem, the importance of living harmoniously in a multi-racial and multi-religious society is not lost on many.
Increasingly however, there is sense that being a member of a racial and religious group on the one hand and our identity as Singaporeans are both equally important. For some, like myself and those of my generation, being Singaporean and a part of the country and something larger, edges in importance compared to one’s cultural rootedness and sense of loyalty to our individual communities.
For some younger people, the Singapore identity can be said to have even transcended race. The former Chief of Government Communications was recently quoted in a podcast as saying that his younger colleagues did not make much of the fact that the squadron commander who led the flypast at this year’s national day parade was Malay. I would suggest that this shows that for a younger generation of Singaporeans, a democratic society based on justice and equality ought not to be declared just in words, but must be manifested in deeds. It may well be that the aspiration of the pledge has morphed, at least for some, into an expectation.
We should acknowledge and even celebrate such expectations as the ultimate reflection of a more united people than before. It portends a bright future for Singapore.
At the same time, we must be aware that our multi-racial reality can be a soft underbelly that malicious agents may exploit to divide us. Hybrid conflicts are already a reality and we can see how misinformation and disinformation, especially online, have been employed by some to fuel narratives that divide communities.
In speech, be it online or offline, it is easy to bully and intimidate others with rank, popularity and labels, and by punching down at those who may not have the full facts or see the world differently. It is much harder to take on someone your own size and bigger or engage an issue respectfully regardless the counterparty. But we should all choose the more difficult path of empathy and mutual-respect even as we agree to disagree.
In Singapore, we must actively fight the tendency to think tribally on a day-to-day basis. As we negotiate the way forward, let us remember to treat each other as equals. We must persevere and work on this as a responsibility of each generation and leave a better Singapore behind for the next generation.
This is even as we hold dear and celebrate our individual mother tongues, traditions, religions, and cultures. We do this in an English-speaking environment – one that goes a long way to create an accessible and welcoming global city for trade and investment; and an accessible and expansive public space for all Singaporeans. If we succeed in building on this foundation, we will not just shine, but survive and thrive well beyond SG60.
Conclusion
To conclude Sir, Singaporeans should be proud of our diversity, including our political diversity, and yet be united as one people. The Workers’ Party will continue to play its part. On behalf of all the WP MPs, I wish the Government and all civil servants well in this term of Parliament. We look forward to serving as the loyal opposition for all Singaporeans, and working for Singapore.
Thank you.
