The 14th Parliament of Singapore was opened by President Halimah Yacob on 24 August 2020.

In many ways, this Parliament represents a new age of politics in Singapore. This is the first time that there are 10 elected non Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament (MP). While this amounts to only 10 out of 93 elected seats in Parliament with the PAP holding an overwhelming 83 seats, this is still seen as a monumental victory for the Workers’ Party.

It is clear that the PAP has reservations about this Parliament with Speaker of Parliament, Tan Chuan Jin (Tan) warning MPs against being fractious. He further added that robust and passionate debate on issues can take place without MPs being needlessly quarrelsome. While Tan’s words are, at face value, true, one wonders if he is saying this because this newly sworn in Parliament contains more alternative politicians than before?

Yet, despite Tan’s warnings, it transpired that it was the PAP MPs that were fractious in the debates.

The first volley of attacks were launched against MP for Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC), Dennis Tan  (Dennis) of the WP by the PAP’s Murali Pillai (Pillai), MP for Bukit Batok SMC. In what appeared to be “using a sledgehammer to kill a fly,” approach, Pillai responded to Dennis’s questions to the PAP for its “petty” and “bad politics” during July’s General Election with a rapid escalation of aggression, accusing Dennis of suggesting that the incumbent PAP was using its “power of incumbency” against the opposition in an unfair manner instead of answering the questions.

Next up was none other than our Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong who was given the privilege of addressing Parliament which was also broadcast live by Channel News Asia and Facebook. While the address was ostensibly to deal with COVID-19 issues, it came across to some as an opportunity for self praise and a chance for the Prime Minister to have uninterrupted air time to slate non Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) politicians.

The catchphrase that has come out of this series of debates has to be the term “free riders” which the Prime Minister used to describe non PAP voters.This rightly incited the ire of Pritam Singh, who as Leader of the Opposition refuted Lee’s assertions.

A day after the general election of July 2020, Lee had said :“My team and I will serve all Singaporeans, whichever party you vote for……Whether or not you voted for the PAP, we will listen to you, do our best to address your concerns and try to win your support.”

In just two months, it seems that Lee has changed his tone where non PAP voters are concerned.

Lee also seemed to have confused statehood with partyhood given that all of the PAP’s policies are funded by state monies. State monies belong to all voters who have jointly contributed to the state coffers. This means that even though non PAP voters did not vote for him, they are still contributing to his salary and that of the rest of his party in power. Was Lee mistakenly suggesting that non PAP voters did not contribute to the state coffers?

Job creation and employment were also issues that MPs raised in parliament following Josephine Teo’s announcement on 26 August that the there will be a hike in the minimum salary criteria for Employment Passes (EPs) and S Passes amid the weak labour market conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to calls for the names on the FCF watch list to be made public, Minister for Manpower, Josephine Teo has said that the naming of such companies would be “counterproductive” and could actually frustrate the particular company’s attempts to hire local individuals.

One particular suggestion by a PAP MP, Chong Kee Hiong raised eyebrows when he suggested that Singaporean workers can be allowed to take up two vocations or allowed to take a second job in this economic climate.

These series of debates also saw Minister for Manpower, Josephine Teo seemingly emotional mid speech. She appeared teary in Parliament when questioned, leading some to wonder if she had cracked under pressure.

Arguably, the WP politician that faced the biggest roasting by the PAP was Jamus Lim. Could he perhaps be viewed as the biggest opposition threat? He was after all the darling of the pre election live debate between the PAP’s Vivian Balakrishnan, the Progress Singapore Party’s Francis Yuen and the Singapore Democratic Party’s Chee Soon Juan. His quick wit and his string of strong academic credentials might have made him the biggest target of all to the PAP who employed a vicious seven to one attack on him in Parliament.

Even the usually affable and popular Senior Minister and MP for Jurong GRC, Tharman Shanmugaratnam launched an attack on Lim by accusing Lim of assuming that he had the “monopoly over compassion“ –  an accusation that seemed over the top and reactionary. Has Lim’s maiden speech In Parliament hit a raw nerve with the PAP thus causing them to behave like school yard bullies?

Overall, it would seem that the PAP politicians are spoiling for a fight and hoping to break the WP politicians down. Is this a sign of things to come?

We will have to wait for the next series of debates to find out. Till then, we await with bated breath.

Please, Don’t Keep Me A Secret… If you enjoyed this summary, please recommend your family and friends to be a subscriber. For just $10 per month, you will get weekly curated news and a monthly Parliamentary update. If you know someone who would appreciate this, please get them to subscribe. A subscription package would also make a perfect present for a loved one while helping us bring you independent news coverage.

As we enter officially into the fourth quarter of the year, focus on the hiring processes of various companies and whether or not these processes are discriminatory towards Singaporeans continues unabated.

In the first series of Parliamentary debates post the general election of 2020, several members of parliament (MPs) have asked Minister for manpower, Josephine Teo to reveal the names of the companies which are on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watch list. Despite these requests, Teo was of the opinion that such revelations would be “counterproductive” and could actually frustrate the particular company’s attempts to hire local individuals.

Given that the watch list is meant to be a counter measure against unfair hiring practices, its relatively anonymity seems incongruous with its desired objective. Surely the companies on that watch list would be more mindful of who they hire if they knew that the public were watching? Wouldn’t publicity ensure more compliance to avoid public backlash and bad press?

In every situation, there are always two sides to the story and it would appear that the current focus on the number of foreigners in Singapore is causing some anxiety.

According to reports, some twenty expats (who were interviewed) have expressed worries over job insecurities and prospects as companies may be forced to look inward amid the push for local hires. An expat also raised a very valid concern – that of the rental market in Singapore. Many middle class Singaporeans may own an additional property (with mortgages) which are rented out to expats. If all these expats are forced to leave, these Singaporeans could be left saddled with a mortgage they cannot service without tenants. This raises the knock on effects of Singapore’s seemingly over reliance on foreigners which the Government has seemingly yet to fully grasp or tackle.

Another issue that has taken the press (both mainstream and independent) by storm is the high profile acquittal of foreign domestic worker (FDW), Parti Liyani by the High Court for alleged theft of up to $34,000 of items. The High Court case revealed certain disturbing lapses during the investigation and charging process. It also sheds light on the imbalance of power between affluent citizens and FDWs. Given that Parti’s employer is the influential Changi Airport Group (CAG) chairman Liew Mun Leong, questions have been raised if his prominence in society had made his family’s versions of events more believable than that of a FDW.

It has since been revealed that Parti had wanted to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) against the Liew family for making her work beyond the scope of her domestic duties in contravention of MOM rules. While this may well have been material evidence which could call the Liew’s motives in lodging a police report into question, it has now come to light that Judge Olivia Low of the lower court had repeatedly prevented Parti’s lawyer from raising the issue of his client’s intention to alert MOM regarding the illegal deployment.

In a press release issued by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), the AGC noted that one of the High Court Judge, Justice Chan’s findings was that there was reason to believe that the Liew family took the pre-emptive step to terminate the Appellant’s employment suddenly and without giving her sufficient time to pack, in the hope that she would not use the time to make a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about her illegal deployment to work for Karl Liew, the son of Liew Mun Leong.

Further, it has also been revealed that there have been serious mistakes made in the investigation process of this matter. From the handling of the evidence to the seemingly glaring inconsistencies in statements made by the Liew family, it did not seem like a strong case for the AGC to prosecute in the first place. Why then did the AGC make the decision to prosecute? This is something that the AGC should clarify to ensure good order and public trust.

While we are thankful for the judgement delivered by Justice Chan with his astute observations, we have to note that not every accused would have the same determination as Parti to seek justice till the very end or to have the good fortune of having the assistance of a non-government organisation such as HOME and friends who would support him or her regardless of class and financial standing.

This is something that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law must publicly and thoroughly investigate, failing which could damage the reputation of the justice system in Singapore.

Apart from the potential failings of the various Government agencies, concerns about the compliance of the mainstream media has also been raised. Former senior Straits Times correspondent Goh Eng Yeow  has taken the mainstream media to task for not asking“more probing questions” of those in power, seemingly offering  “flattering coverage” and taking “whatever these people say at face value”.

It is noteworthy that the public has demonstrated its support for Parti. A fundraiser launched online by local NGO, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) on behalf of Parti  has raised over $28,000 and met its target within a day.

Authorities could find itself the object of public outrage if it does not investigate this seriously. However, are they aware about public sentiments? Looking at what the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong , Ho Ching had to say about Liew Mun Hoong, could it be that the establishment is truly out of touch?

In a Facebook post on 7 August, Ho had cited a quote from an American author Zig Ziglar and praised Liew’s belief in “building people”. It is noteworthy that this was after Parti had already filed her complaints with the MOM about how the Liew household had breached MOM rules. Had Ho assumed that Liew was not guilty without a second thought? Did his social standing have anything to do with it? If so, is Ho representative of the ruling classes’ woeful disconnect?

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, the business of Brexit continues as British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson issues a one sided deadline of 15 October 2020 for a Brexit deal to be concluded without details of how this could be effectively carried out.

Despite initial hopes of a coronavirus vaccine, the World Health Organisation has sounded caution by saying that  it did not expect widespread immunisation against the novel coronavirus until mid-2021, tempering hopes just as research revealed encouraging early results from a Russian vaccine.

As campaigning for the US Presidential elections heat up, concerns have been raised about the use of doctored social media images to create polarising divisions.