GE2025
‘How many PAP MPs in Parliament?’ Pritam Singh rebuts SM Lee’s attacks on WP’s role in Income-Aliianz deal
On 28 April, WP chief Pritam Singh rebutted SM Lee Hsien Loong’s comments on WP’s abstention in the Income-Allianz deal, citing reasons recorded in the Parliament Hansard. Singh stressed WP was not in charge and noted that Lee sidestepped the issue of no labour MP speaking up in August 2024.
SINGAPORE: On 28 April 2025, Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh countered comments by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong regarding the opposition party’s position on the aborted Income-Allianz deal. Singh suggested that Lee “only wants to present one side of the facts”.
Speaking to the media during a walkabout in Tampines GRC, Singh explained that there was “good reason”, as recorded in the Parliament Hansard, for WP’s abstention from voting on an Amendment Bill intended to block the merger.
“Maybe the Senior Minister has forgotten about it … but I think that answer is very clear on the Hansard, and I invite the media to actually look at that answer,” Singh remarked.
Singh pointed out that Lee’s framing of the issue gave the impression that WP was responsible for government decisions.
“The way the Senior Minister characterised the issue is as if WP were in government or WP were in charge, but WP were not in charge,” he emphasised.
He added that while Lee laid out an interesting analogy during his rally, he had sidestepped the core issue raised by CNA—that no labour MP had spoken up during the parliamentary discussions in August 2024.
Pritam Singh: PAP MPs Outnumber Alternative Party MPs
Responding to Lee’s argument that six non-labour PAP MPs had filed questions regarding the deal, Singh highlighted the significant imbalance between PAP and alternative party MPs in Parliament.
“It puts into perspective the ratio of how many PAP MPs there are in Parliament and how many Workers’ Party MPs there are in Parliament. The ratio is not one to six, it is closer to one to nine,” Singh explained.
He stressed that even if Singaporeans were to vote all 26 WP candidates into Parliament, the proportion would still heavily favour the ruling party, with a ratio closer to three to nine.
“And that’s something that the voters have to think about very carefully,” Singh added.
PAP Has “Enough Space and Leeway”
Singh reiterated that the PAP government retains sufficient space, leeway, and focus to handle the pressing issues facing Singapore.
“The government has enough space, enough leeway, enough focus to deal with the issues of today and tomorrow,” he said.
At a rally on 27 April, Lee said the Workers’ Party had “nothing to do with” the blocking of the deal, highlighting that WP MPs had abstained from voting on the Amendment Bill when Parliament passed the legislation in October 2024.
During the debate, WP’s Sengkang MP He Ting Ru said the party supported the government’s action to block the proposed acquisition on public interest grounds, based on publicly available information. However, she noted concerns about the nature of the legislative process.
“However, we believe that the downsides to whether this Bill will be seen to be rushed and retrospective legislation-making, and this assault on legal and regulatory certainty that changing legislation in the middle of a major live transaction means that we would need to register our abstention on this Bill,” she explained.
WP’s Stance on Legislative Process
Later that day, WP reiterated its position on Facebook, questioning whether the urgent amendments were truly necessary.
The proposed deal, announced in July 2024, involved German insurer Allianz acquiring a 51 per cent stake in Income Insurance for approximately S$2.2 billion.
Public concern grew over whether Income would continue its social mission, leading the government to block the acquisition. Culture, Community and Youth Minister Edwin Tong stated that the deal was deemed not to be in the public interest.
Eventually, Allianz withdrew its offer in December 2024.
At Sunday’s rally, Lee addressed Singh’s earlier comments that no labour MP had raised concerns in Parliament about the deal.
Lee defended the NTUC’s position, arguing that the deal initially appeared reasonable to them.
He also noted that six non-labour PAP MPs had posed questions about the acquisition, compared to only one WP member, He Ting Ru.
Singh: Core Issue Was Sidestepped
Responding to these remarks on Monday, Singh accused Lee of sidestepping the real issue: the silence of labour MPs.
“The ratio isn’t one to six, it’s closer to one to nine,” Singh reiterated, referencing the disparity in the number of PAP and alternative party MPs.
He added that even if WP’s entire slate of candidates were elected, the PAP would still maintain a strong parliamentary majority.
Sylvia Lim: Parliament Must Remain a Check
WP chair Sylvia Lim also weighed in. She explained that WP’s abstention was a principled decision aimed at preserving Parliament’s role as a check on executive power.
“To suddenly change the law to affect a live transaction, this, business certainty-wise, is actually not good for Singapore,” Lim said.
She stressed that there are established parliamentary procedures for such matters, suggesting that the appropriate response would have been to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This would allow affected parties to be heard before passing new legislation, ensuring the integrity of Singapore’s regulatory framework.
