The Prime Minister will make several changes to his Cabinet and other political appointments and promote an office holder. Annex A gives the new portfolios of the Cabinet members and other office changes.  These changes are part of continuing leadership renewal and are summarised below. 

Promotion to Minister

Mr Masagos Zulkifli will be promoted to full Minister with effect from 9 April 2015.  He will be appointed Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and will continue in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Second Minister in both ministries.

Appointment of Ministers

<Pic Credit: AP>

Lee Kuan Yew’s parliamentary seat, which takes in part of Singapore’s financial district and Orchard Road shopping belt, is set to be contested for the first time in 27 years following his death.

Opposition groups such as the Reform Party and Singapore Democratic Party plan to run in the next national election in the five-seat district called Tanjong Pagar. The area stretches across south-central Singapore and includes two of the most expensive neighborhoods for luxury condominiums plus the downtown casino resort. A ballot is expected later this year, say political analysts and opposition leaders.

The death of Singapore’s first premier on March 23 at 91 marks the end of an era for Tanjong Pagar, a district he represented for six decades. Lee’s grip on the ward in what was initially an older, working class neighborhood reflected his impact on the Southeast Asian nation for a quarter of a century after he stepped down as premier in 1990.

“Opposition parties may find it an uphill task to make headway there because of the feelings of gratitude and respect for Mr. Lee that many constituents have,” said Jack Lee, an assistant law professor at the Singapore Management University.

More than 100,000 people lined the streets in pouring rain to bid farewell to Lee on March 29, capping a week of mourning where more than a million people waited for as long as 10 hours to pay tribute to him at Parliament House and other sites.

Less Willingness

The next election must be held by January 2017 but is widely expected to be sooner to capitalize on the 50th year since modern Singapore’s founding, with major celebrationsplanned around National Day in August. The current parliament, which began on Oct. 10, 2011, has a maximum term of five years. Elections are required within three months once it is dissolved.

The government has released a revised registry of certified voters for the public to inspect, the elections department said Tuesday in a statement. There are about 2.46 million voters on the list, it said.

The ruling People’s Action Party, or PAP, which Lee co-founded in 1954, has seen itssupport eroded amid a backlash against immigration and rising living costs. The party won by the smallest margin since independence half a century ago at elections in 2011 and lost a multiseat ward for the first time.

“While Singaporeans respect and honor the memory of the late Lee Kuan Yew, they are also acutely aware that the present generation of ministers are coming up with policies that make life very stressful and tough for them,” said Chee Soon Juan, who heads the SDP. His party is keen on contesting Tanjong Pagar.

[Pic Credit: Flowers left on Lee Kuan Yew's Parliament Seat; TODAY]

Several Members of Parliament are set to raise questions and suggestions on how to honour Lee Kuan Yew even more during Monday's Parliament sitting.

Some of the suggestions being made include dedicating a Founder's day to him, putting his face on Singapore's notes and coins as well as serious parliamentary questions about renaming Changi Airport after Lee Kuan Yew.

The list of questions to be fielded were released in the Order Paper and it shows that these questions have been fielded by various PAP MPs.

Here are the top questions on the order paper:

Parliament had already dedicated a special parliamentary session to pay tribute to Mr Lee Kuan Yew during the week of national mourning and many ground-up initiatives were launched petitioning for various things to be renamed Lee Kuan Yew. A petition calling for the airport to be made the LKY international airport gained over 12,000 signatures and was received by Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew who said that he would bring it up for consideration.

Through the decades, the PAP has run a vicious and relentless attack campaign against Dr Chee Soon Juan. With the GE around the corner, it is expected that the PAP will resort to this dirty tactic again.

To counter the propaganda, the SDP has published a new bookTeacher Thinker Rebel Why? Portraits of Chee Soon Juan written by people who know or have worked with the SDP secretary-general. Here are some of the things they said:

Dr Chee was not just content to speak up for the people. He was the guy who constantly and deliberately ran into the electric fence to remind us we were prisoners.

I resented him for it because I would rather pretend the fence was there to keep us safe. 
                      - Joshua Chiang, former editor of TOC

Chee’s mode of political action, situated in the liberal democratic value system, like Gandhi’s, is to challenge laws which are unjust and unfair in a way that seemed totally out of sync with Singapore’s political and social culture.                               

 - Constance Singam, former president of AWARE
 

His prose is precise, his tone inspiring, and his idealism infectious. I have come to identify with his compassion and empathy for the lot of the poor, socially disadvantaged and politically disenfranchised, and to appreciate his perseverance in fighting for a fairer and better Singapore.

He opened my eyes to the tyranny of unjust laws imposed by authoritarian regimes and taught me that there can never be justice without freedom, and vice versa.  

   - Dr Tan Lip Hong & Dr Leong Yan Hoi,  SDP healthcare advisors

Soon Juan’s years as a lone wolf nibbling at unjust laws, policies and government, at huge personal costs to himself, restores my faith in politicians. For all that he has done, he deserves much more than just quiet support from us.

If Singaporeans continue to stay on the sidelines and watch others fight on their behalf, the comet would burn itself out and we would be thrown back into darkness.

                           - Dr Wong Souk Yee, NUS Lecturer   

But all those who have come in contact with him personally felt that the characterization of Dr Chee as a “near psychopath” was totally unfair.

He chose the path of civil disobedience when it was not popular and paid the price for his actions with many spells in jail. While these actions may have turned off many Singaporeans who are by nature risk-averse, I think that they showed a rare personal commitment to the cause of democracy. 

                                  - Prof Paul Tambyah, SDP healthcare advisor

March 8, 2011

Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew has retracted controversial remarks against his country’s minority Muslim-Malays in his latest book out earlier this year, after an outcry from the community.

“I made this one comment on the Muslims integrating with other communities probably two or three years ago. Ministers and MPs, both Malay and non-Malay, have since told me that Singapore Malays have indeed made special efforts to integrate with the other communities, especially since 9/11, and that my call is out of date.

“I stand corrected. I hope that this trend will continue in the future,” Singapore’s Straits Times cited the 87-year-old as saying in its report today, headlined “Malay integration: MM stands corrected”.

The book “Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going” was published in January by Straits Times Press and features a series of interviews with the island republic’s minister mentor between December 2008 and October 2009.

The book, based on interviews Lee gave to a team of seven journalists from The Straits Times, was published by Straits Times Press and launched on January 21.

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was an unprecedented figure, hence he was able to foresee that after his death, some of the citizens would suggest preserving his family home, erecting memorial monuments or naming certain governmental buildings after him.

Therefore, way before his passing, he had already stated his intention to demolish the family home so that the nation's resources would not be wasted; and there would not be any hinderance to his neighbours planning for development of their own properties. This has once again proven him to be a great leader with foresight. 

Actually, anyone who travel overseas often would know that LKY's name has already been associated with Singapore - whenever people talk about Singapore, his name would inevitably be brought up as well.

If the people of Singapore want to commemorate him, we should all respect his desire to maintain a good impression of Singaporeans both within and beyond the country itself; and to develop Singapore into a gracious society spreading worldwide, enabling every country in the globe to know that there is such a graciously beautiful island named "Singapore".

May the government stop wasting time debating which buildings to be named after LKY, or what monuments to be built - use these funds wisely for the benefits of the people!

The PAP Government continues to crack down on Singaporeans' right to fundamental freedoms.

The revocation of the use of Hong Lim Park, the prosecution of The Real Singapore bloggers, the arrests of two protesters outside the Istana, etc, in recent weeks are worrying indications that the PAP Government is trying to further stifle the development of democracy in this country.

Precisely at a time when Singapore needs to open up, the PAP is leading Singapore further down the path of authoritarianism. This will be severely detrimental to our nation's progress.

Freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly are not privileges that the PAP bestows on the people, they are rights guaranteed under the constitution that no authority may remove. They are means by which the people hold their rulers accountable. Cracking down on these rights will allow the PAP even more autocratic power and to rule with even less transparency. This cannot be good for our future.

Background Story: HDB CAN NOW ENTER YOUR FLAT WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR URGENT REPAIRS

NCMP Lina Chiam from the Singapore People's Party has raised concerns in Parliament about the sweeping powers granted to HDB under the new amendments allowing officers to enter homes without permission.

Here is her speech in full:

All HDB officers should wear a recording device to prevent disputes when entering a premises to investigate or do urgent repairs.

SPEECH ON HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT ( AMENDMENT) BILL

Madam Speaker,

This amendments in this bill affects 87% of our citizens who live in HDB flats in Singapore.

I welcome HDB's stance to take a more proactive approach to compel errant and stubborn residents fix the negative externalities of water seepage from ceilings , over-hoarding of goods and erecting permanent features that may cause structural damage to the building.

I support the stricter penalties for flat-owners who use non-HDB approved contractors which the amendments in the bill proposes and would also suggest that there should be stricter vetting of approved contractors for HDB flat dwellers.

Madam Speaker, it concerns me that the amendments to this bill may present many ambiguous areas in the law leading to potential abuse.

Under Clause 3, section 26A , authorized officers or persons may enter any premises at any reasonable time by giving a 24 hours notice to investigate or carry out urgent repairs of works.

A 24 hour notice period is too short. It is insufficient in cases where the owner of the flat may be away, or hospitalized or living overseas.

More effort should be made to contact him or her.

The notice should include text messages, phones calls as well as written notices to their place of residence .

Would the minister give us a reason why such a short 24 hour notice period and not a longer period of 1 week?

The bill should allow flexible time for HDB officers to investigate and carry out urgent repairs or works after office hours and even on weekends until 10pm.

Under Section 26B of the bill, HDB is given sweeping powers when it confers one or more authorized officers and authorized persons to enter a premise with force if necessary to investigate and carry out urgent repairs of works to prevent or remove the danger if there is reasonable grounds to believe there is imminent threats to public safety or public health. 
Under this bill HDB need not compensate the flat owners for any mistakes or intrusion as long as it had acted in good faith and in accordance with its rules

Considering the costs which may be prohibitive for flat owners or occupiers who may have to rectify the forced entry into their premises and also the huge hurdles to take HDB to court for any wrong doing ( perceived or real) Will there be sufficient safeguards for flat-owners.

Will HDB be held accountable , should the emergency not exist or not caused by a problem in the flat which forced entry has been obtained.

For this I would like to seek the minister’s clarification on what constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that there is an imminent danger in a premise which affects public safety or public health which warrants urgent repairs and

a) The definition of urgent repairs
b) The list of specific examples which warrant urgent ‘repairs’ , public safety
and public health.

The HDB employs many estate managers in branch office who are arts, science and business graduates who may hold dual roles as customer service managers and technical officers and may not have the expertise to inspect the damages .

The HDB officer who is assessing the damage to the neighbor should ideally be trained building science graduate to access if it warrants urgent repairs.

I would recommend to make it a statutory requirement for all HDB officers to wear a recording device before entering the premises , much like police officers who wear it nowadays for the prevention of disputes.

With the proposed amendments to the bill under section 56A and 56B authorized HDB officers are given police like powers to enter HDB flats which it suspects are flouting its rules.

Under Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s guidance and close supervision, NParks has built up deep capabilities in greening Singapore.  Not just in planting and growing trees, but also in transplanting them when necessary.

Last year alone, NParks transplanted 2,100 trees!

They were impacted by road works or flood alleviation projects, and had to be moved. For example, extensive road works are currently underway in Upper Thomson road for the upcoming Thomson Line.  Many mature trees were affected.  We try to save every mature tree and transplantation allows us to achieve that.

Transplanting mature trees is no easy feat. It requires considerable skill and effort by our NParks arborists.

First, they will assess if the tree can survive this major ‘operation’ by examining if it is healthy, and has a good and well-established root system.

Next, they will try to minimise the “water stress” a tree may face during a transplant, through methods such as trenching.

Post transplantation, the arborists will closely monitor the growth of the tree, giving it extra care through watering, mulching and supplementing with organic material.

[Pic Source]

The recent mathematics question, now popularly called the Cheryl's Birthday problem, seems to have amused (and stumped) the world. It first appeared on the Internet when it was reported as primary 5 level question.

The problem is that such difficult questions are not a rarity in exam questions for primary schoolchildren. These questions are meant to identify top performing students so that the Government can groom them for high-paying state positions.

Such a narrow practice of education feeds the fear in parents that their children's future well-being is tied to doing well in exams. This drives them to absurd levels of expectations where they engage expensive private tutors to help their children perform – even to the extent of engaging tutors to do their children's homework.

The MOE is only too happy to allow such a system to carry on because the billion-dollar tuition industry enables it to out-source the teaching of pupils to the private sector.

All this comes at a horrendous price. Our schoolchildren are driven to psychological despair as they struggle to cope with their schoolwork and exams:

• 22% of Singaporean children between 6-12 yrs thought of killing themselves. (ST, Jan 2014)
• The no. of children warded for “aggressive, suicidal or hallucination tendencies” at IMH jumped by 35% between 2005-2010. Mental health professionals attribute these problems to academic stress. (CNA, 2 Feb 2013)
• One in three students say they sometimes think that life is not worth living because of the fear of exams. (FEER, August 2001)

Many children actually commit suicide as a result. One is 10-year-old Lysher Loh who jumped to her death when she fared poorly in her mid-year exams. (Read Why do we do this to our children?)

Of those who survive, the majority are conditioned to hate books because they associate reading and learning with exams. Experts warn that such a system deprives society of creativity and innovation, hurting our economy in the longer term.

In fact, studies show that overloading our pupils with work and tuition harm, rather than help, their school performance and acquisition of life-skills.

Even PAP MPs have voiced their concerns about the tuition culture but have not the courage to point out that it is the education system put in place by their party that is driving parents and pupils to such desperate lengths.

Let's stop the madness already. If elected, SDP MPs will work to reform and modernise our education system which is stuck in the past. Specifically, we will:

1. Remove PSLE. As pointed out, the stress of exams inflict horrific psychological trauma on our children. What’s more, it is not an intelligent approach to assess the abilities of primary-school students on a single exam.

2. Cultivate creative minds. Build confidence in children by helping them adopt an attitude of independent thinking, willingness to make mistakes, and persevere in the face of failed attempts.

The death of Lee Kuan Yew leaves his seat in Tanjong Pagar GRC vacant.  Recently a Bloomberg journalist asked me to comment on the suggestion that  Lee’s seat in Tanjong Pagar be left vacant as a mark of respect. Her resultant article can be read here.  Some commentators have suggested that the Opposition should boycott any by-election, giving the PAP a walkover similar to the ones it has enjoyed ever since Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency was included as part of Tanjong Pagar GRC.  In addition a lot of people have been asking me whether I think a by-election will or even must be called.

The fact that any one could even suggest that denying the democratic rights of the citizens of one ward to choose their representative is a way to show respect for the founder of our one-party authoritarian system goes a long way to explaining how far from being a democracy that system is and how far we have to go to become a developed nation in terms of our political and legal structures.

LKY’s seat had of course been effectively vacant for some time. For many years other MPs in the GRC had performed his constituency duties. Ill-health and advanced years also meant that his appearances in Parliament after his unopposed re-election in 2011 were mostly perfunctory.  In a democracy an MP who was incapacitated by advanced years or ill-health would have resigned to allow a new and fitter incumbent to perform the duties that he was no longer able to.

In addition because of LKY’s deliberate creation and reinforcement of a climate of fear, and the very real measures he took to crush anyone who stood up to him, the voters of his GRC have been denied the right to choose their representatives for several decades. Even in 2011, when every other seat was contested and our aim was to see Singapore’s first non-walkover GE , a team of independents ran out of time in filing their nomination papers and were disqualified.  The fact that the people of that ward have gone without choosing their representatives for so long means that there is a more urgent need to hold a by-election in his constituency now. But can the PM leave the seat vacant indefinitely in defiance of every democratic norm but as has been normal PAP practice until recently?

The short answer  and the absolute legal fact is that it would be unconstitutional not to hold a by-election unless the Prime Minister decides to call a general election within the next three months or so.

The argument ( thanks to Article 14) runs like this.

Article 49 of the Constitution states:

49.

—(1)  Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

It was established by the Court of Appeal decision in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG (2013) that the calling of a by-election is mandatory and not discretionary and that it has to be held within a reasonable space of time, normally three months.

The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) seems to contradict this requirement when it states in Article 24-2(A) that:

(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ [for a by-election] shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.

However this places Article 24-(2A) of the PEA at odds with the Constitution. Where this is the case the Constitution clearly overrides any laws enacted by Parliament, as stated in Article 4 of the Constitution:

4. -  This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Leaders of the SDP are presently in Kuala Lumpur to attend a conference this weekend that will coincide with the ASEAN summit scheduled from 24-27 April 2015.

Chairman Jeffrey George, Vice-Chairman John Tan, Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan, Assistant Treasurer Jaslyn Go, Media Liaison Mansura Sajahan and Young Democrat Tay Yuanqi are representing the party at the conference themed Regional Integration in Asia: What Can We Expect from the ASEAN Community?

The conference is organised by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD).

Dr Chee will speak at two sessions, the first of which he will address ASEAN's failure to build a regional community of democratic nations.

He is also scheduled to talk about the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) project which aims to form a single market that will encourage the open flow of labor across the region.

Dr Chee will raise the concerns of Singaporeans who are already under tremendous and unfair pressure from the influx of foreigners under the PAP's lax immigration policy.

Dr Chee Soon Juan warned that Singaporeans should be careful in believing that the PAP has withdrawn its intention to increase our population to 6.9 million.

In his Parliamentary speech in February 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong backtracked on the 6.9 million figure after Singaporeans expressed outrage over his intentions to expand the population size.

PM Lee then quickly assured that the future population would be left to “Singaporeans of tomorrow and not the Government of today”, adding that the figure would be more like 6 million.

Dr Chee, speaking at a Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats conference in Kuala Lumpur over the weekend, pointed out that Mr Lee's promise was betrayed by the Government's push for the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) which would, among other things, form a single market among ASEAN nations that would allow the unrestricted flow of labor across the region.

The AEC is being discussed at the ASEAN Summit currently taking place in KL and is expected to be in place by the end of this year.

How does the PAP cap the population size to 6 million when it allows the region's workers to freely come into Singapore? Also, how is this leaving for Singaporeans of tomorrow to decide when it is presently pushing for the AEC plan? It seems that the Government is saying one thing but doing another.

Dr Chee raised the concern that Singaporeans are already under unfair pressure from the influx of foreigners when it comes to jobs. There have even been several cases of workers faking their degrees to gain employment in the country.

Under such circumstances, planning for an even greater flow of workers into Singapore is the height of recklessness. “According to a survey, an overwhelming 80 percent of workers in the region said they would prefer to work in Singapore under the AEC,” Dr Chee said.

[Pic Credit: Singapolitics]

Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) Labor Day Message

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of our country. Ever since 1961, the old union was dissolved by the new government, the pro-PAP government's labor movement together with her party set up a new National Trade Union Congress (or NTUC as we know it). It was registered with the Registry of Societies on 17 August and incorporated on 6th September 1961.

Since then, our labour and political parties have moved as one. During the uncertain times of old, she has proven to play an important role in bringing a stable investment environment with ample employment opportunities. Because of the common interests of both the labour and political parties, they could propel Singapore forward together and meet their long-term productivity and development goals. In those days, the labour and political parties stood together for the people and protected the public interest. 

Today, things have changed. In the name of GDP growth, Singapore has opened its doors widely to allow an influx of foreign immigrant workers. The labour-political partnership, instead of working for the people’s interest, are now beginning to become a tool against the people. Instead of fighting for people’s rights; these organizations have compromised that purpose and tagged along with the political and financial sector for the pursuit of economic growth.

Clearly, this has shown that the leaders of the National Trade Union Congress, Minister, and the Members of Parliament of the ruling party represent the interest of the employers. While this is of course for the long term, the macroeconomic growth of Singapore, this represents a clear conflict of interest.  

The question comes – when there is a commercial and industrial labour dispute, in which capacity should the leaders represent? If they fight on the behalf of labour welfare, they may contradict government policy or cause harm to the interest of the employers. If they fight on behalf of the employees, then they’ll violating the spirit of the union, which is to fight for the people.

One may say that the leaders can fight for both the employers AND the employees. That is an ideal situation, but we find that reality is seldom the case. Eventually, there comes a point where they have to choose a side. The union leaders either have to abide by the mission of their political parties and employers and thus unable to represent the workers fairly.

After all, in the end, what is a labour union, but one for the voice of the people? A voice doesn’t have to be rational; it doesn’t have to be huge in scope; it simply must voice the sentiment of the people. It must give voice to those who cannot be heard. That is the essence of a labour union. 

So we see now in reality that the dream of shared prosperity has been shattered. The citizens of our country whom we laboured for must now bear the high costs of living in a First World country, yet earn the wages of a Third World employee. On top of that, our Singaporean brothers and sisters live with the constant fear that one day their jobs will be replaced by the influx of immigrants that are coming in droves.

To ensure that the interest and the welfare of our people, we must sever the ties between the labour, political and financial sectors. The union MUST be a union of the people! She must be independent so that she can play her original function of protecting the interest of our Singapore brothers. 

Instead of placing their party members in the leadership of the union to set their policy, the government must separate these two functions, and instead attempt to maintain harmony with the independent trade union leaders. This will ensure that the interests of our employees are not compromised, and trade union leaders can fight to attain First World salaries to meet the costs of First World living standards. 

As Singapore moves on to a new phase of her life, she needs constant change to keep up with the rest of the world. Whatever that has stopped working must be evolved, changed and even overhauled. Now this is the time when the voice of the people must be heard again; let us change what does not work anymore, and build a model that is ready for the future. 

Happy Labour Day!

With Best Regards 

Lim Bak Chuan Desmond 
Chairman of Singapore Democratic Alliance

----

There is every likelihood that PM Lee Hsien Loong will call for the general elections this year. This means that the SDP has only months to prepare for the watershed polls.

We are out in force combing the estates and visiting homes to drive our campaign message home. And that message is that we need change – change from the policies that are hurting Singaporeans and taking Singapore down the wrong path.

We cannot wait until the GE is called. By then, the elections would have been lost.

We need to start now, right now. There is much ground to cover and many voters to reach out to. Our Ground Operations and Training & Development Units are ready to sign you up and deploy you on the various exercises that we are conducting.

As we commemorate another May Day, we are only too aware that Singaporean workers have never been more vulnerable.

The facts bear this out:

• Our income inequality remains one of the highest in the industrialised world as the PAP continues to resist enacting a national minimum wage law.
• Even middle-income households find it difficult to make ends meet in a city ranked as the most expensive in the world.
• The Government insists on an immigration policy that indiscriminately lets in foreign workers, many of whom have been discovered to possess dubious qualifications and skill sets, to compete with local ones.
• Our workers work the longest hours without meaningful wage increase.
• Singaporean workers are the unhappiest in Asia.

As a result, productivity levels of our workforce continue to disappoint. With the Government stating that wages cannot increase without productivity rise, the outlook for our workers is bleak.

What Singapore needs now is enlightened governance. We need a government that realises that productivity can only improve if we take care of our workers' well-being and job satisfaction. In other words, it needs to generate well-paid, meaningful jobs for the people.

In addition, we need to improve labour laws that protect and empower workers. To this end, the NTUC, controlled by the PAP, is the biggest obstacle to improving the conditions and happiness of our workers.

My fellow Singaporeans,

Labour Day is a celebration of the working classes. We should not only recognize the contributions of workers – pledges must be made to better protect and promote their welfare and rights.

While the Government keeps assuring Singaporean workers that their real median incomes were growing, many workers feel that while price of their daily necessities keeps getting more expensive, their wages are not keeping up. The Hays Asia Salary Guide released in January 2015 indeed confirms that the salary growth in Singapore is failing to keep pace with the tight labour market. 

There is a general perception that the NTUC, which is led by a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, is just another arm of the Government. They call this arrangement 'Tripartism'. But in the face of strong corporate lobbying and Government pressures, the interests of the workers will always remain subservient to these.

Last year Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) accounted for 51% of layoffs. A large amount of unemployed and underemployed PMET have to unfairly compete for jobs in industries such as security, hospitality and healthcare sectors. As the Tripartite Alliance on Fair Employment Practices' (TAFEP) guidelines seem inadequate to better protect our older workers, there is a need to legislate policies to better safeguard the interests of such workers.  

Recent initiatives of our Government like SkillsFuture too, though well-intentioned, only gives our workers who tap on them skills and competencies that are needed for the jobs and industries that we have at hand today. Many jobs and industries that were labour-intensive and relevant in the past are no longer here today. What skills and competencies will the jobs of the future require from its workers? As we may have no idea what these may be, it may be better to develop the talents of our workers and have policies to support such talent acquisition.

From sluggish salary growths, to lack of bargaining-power, to insufficient investment in human resources, the challenges of the Singaporean workers are many. This Labour Day, we pledge to stand with the workers of Singapore and be their voice to advocate for better outcomes in these areas.

Happy Labour Day!

Chiam See Tong