What we lack are places where ideas stand on their own, before someone asks which side they came from.

Too often, we decide whether we agree with an argument by first deciding who owns it.

MidPoint wants to change that.

Politics give us positions but, MidPoint will explore how we arrive at them.

That is why The Palm, the Progress Singapore Party’s e-zine, is becoming MidPoint.

This change is more than a new name. It will reflect the kind of publication we want to become. One that examines arguments before assigning them to a camp, tests assumptions before settling on conclusions, and looks at Singapore from more than one familiar angle.

MidPoint is not about pretending every question has a centrist answer. Rather, it is where different points can meet.

Any argument almost always meets another argument, and this is healthy. A political instinct can meet economic reality. A new policy proposal must first meet the lived experience of the people affected by it.

Sometimes that produces common ground but at times, it produces a better reasoned disagreement.

MidPoint remains a publication of the PSP. The Party has its positions, values and arguments to make. But having a point of view should not require us to stop being curious.

That means asking questions even when the answers are inconvenient, and occasionally making room for perspectives that do not entirely agree with our own.

MidPoint will look beyond party politics to explore Singapore through essays, interviews, profiles and conversations on politics, economics, culture, the environment and identity.

Some pieces will articulate a clear policy position while others may simply ask better questions.

The new identity for MidPoint reflects that idea too. The red remains unmistakably PSP, with the word MidPoint slanting left. The red reaching the fourth of the 8 letter word drives PSP’s aspiration to reach the middle ground through our re-branded e-zine.

Meanwhile, the small letter “d” reflects a capital “P”, as sometimes an issue can appear different, depending on your point of view. The space around them matters, because not every worthwhile idea fits neatly into left or right, government or opposition.

We are writing for the Singaporean who watches before taking a position. The reader who may already have an instinct, but still wants to know whether it survives contact with another argument.

So perhaps the question does not always have to be:

“Which side are you on?”

It can also be:

“Where can we meet?”

Here. At PSP’s MidPoint.

Welcome to the next chapter of PSP’s e-zine.

We are committed to continuing the publication of The Palm.

In this fifteenth issue of The Palm, we respond to the measures announced by the Government to help Singaporeans live with the economic impact of the war in Iran and the poor employment outcomes of private university graduates, and Secretary-General Leong Mun Wai questions whether the incentives of ministers are aligned with the interests of ordinary Singaporeans.

Despite the parliamentary fanfare, the Government’s support measures are inadequate

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the Government’s $1 billion support package of temporary relief measures to help households and businesses cope with rising energy costs. Initiatives such as funding support for essential bus services covering 13 per cent of fare revenue will provide much-needed support to cushion immediate pressures. In particular, households may be most excited by the move to issue CDC vouchers early.

However, these measures may not go far enough, especially for self-employed workers such as school bus drivers and private-hire drivers. Unlike large companies, these individuals lack deep financial reserves and are highly exposed to sudden fuel price spikes. For this group, more targeted support is needed. Instead of broad cash payouts, the Government could provide fuel vouchers for petrol or diesel. This would ensure assistance goes directly to those who drive longer distances and face the highest operating costs.

Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad made a point in Parliament to “never waste a good crisis.” We agree with this sentiment. This crisis presents opportunities to, for example, accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by offering additional incentives for businesses and private transport operators to switch. The Government can also consider more innovative solutions to help Singaporeans during this crisis. For example, public transport hours could be lengthened to help workers who may otherwise be commuting by private-hire vehicles.

Nevertheless, the immediate impact of the sudden rise in energy prices is very real. It is difficult for households and small businesses with low profit margins to absorb an increase in fuel prices of more than 50% within a month. Some of the Government’s actions, such as having a highly-paid minister urge Singaporeans to use fans instead of air-conditioning and take public transport over driving, can also come across as tone-deaf. Beyond these exhortations, the Government must do more to support Singaporeans through this shock.

Job woes of private university graduates

The latest Private Education Institution Graduate Employment Survey revealed that fewer than one in two graduates have secured full-time permanent employment within six months, while more than one in five have not found any form of employment at all. These are worrying figures that point to a structural issue that cannot be ignored.

We believe that the Ministries of Education and Manpower must work more closely with private universities to improve employment outcomes for students. Curricula should incorporate meaningful on-the-job training, structured internships, and stronger alignment with industry needs so that graduates are equipped with relevant, employable skills.

The Government should also consider tying the licensing of private education institutions to employment outcomes. Institutions that consistently produce poor outcomes should not have their licences renewed, in order to protect students from investing time and money in degrees that do not lead to viable careers.

At the same time, Singapore must move beyond viewing a university degree as the default marker of success. The Government can do more to uplift non-degree career pathways by improving wages and progression opportunities. This will help ensure that students make informed choices, rather than feeling compelled to pursue degrees that may not deliver meaningful employment outcomes.

Are ministerial incentives aligned with ordinary Singaporeans?

By Leong Mun Wai

Amid the challenges many residents are facing, the Government is reviewing ministerial salaries, possibly with a view to increasing them. This raises an important question: are the interests of public leaders and ordinary Singaporeans sufficiently aligned?

Singapore’s ministers are among the highest paid in the world. The rationale is clear — to attract capable individuals and safeguard integrity in public office. These are important objectives.

However, when leaders are multi-millionaires and live very different lives from the average Singaporean, a gap can emerge. Do they fully experience the pressures that many citizens face — rising living costs, job insecurity, and social stress? Public policy works best when leaders are closely attuned to everyday realities.

There is also a question of incentives. Ministerial salaries are partly linked to GDP growth. In recent years, a significant portion of that growth has been driven by population expansion.

This invites a broader reflection: do current incentives sufficiently align with the outcomes Singaporeans care about? For instance, if population growth can be more readily increased through immigration than through long-term efforts to raise TFR, what does that mean for policy priorities?

These are not criticisms, but questions worth considering — because alignment between leadership incentives and societal outcomes is key to building trust and achieving sustainable progress.

In this fourteenth issue of The Palm, we discuss how the Government can further regulate fuel price changes to ensure that they reflect global price movements fairly, how Singapore can further increase our energy security, and question why the Government has ordered Terry Xu and The Online Citizen to publish POFMA correction notices in print.

More regulation over fuel price changes and increasing energy security

Since the start of the war in Iran, fuel prices, especially diesel prices, have surged sharply in Singapore. Diesel, for example, now ranges from about $2.65 to $3.93 per litre, and has become more expensive than petrol since mid-March. Given that 85% of Singapore’s goods vehicles run on diesel, rising fuel costs are likely to increase logistics and operational expenses. These cost increases are likely to be passed on to consumers, fuelling inflation for Singaporeans.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is concerned about the impact on businesses and households. While the Government has ceased new diesel car and taxi registrations from January 2025, the heavy reliance on diesel for commercial transport leaves Singapore exposed to energy price shocks. SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy, will face mounting cost pressures that could translate into higher prices for everyday goods.

In light of this, PSP believes more must be done to strengthen long-term energy security. The Government should accelerate the transition to electric goods vehicles by providing additional incentives for businesses to retire diesel fleets, while further increasing road taxes on diesel vehicles to discourage renewal.

At the same time, Singapore should aim higher on renewable energy. The current target of 2 gigawatt-peak of solar deployment by 2030 can be increased. The Government should provide stronger incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar panels, especially on private properties. This will not only lower emissions, but also reduce our dependence on imported energy and protect Singaporeans from future global energy shocks.

The Government should also consider regulating petrol companies more strongly to ensure that price movements at the pump reflect global price movements fairly. It is not enough for the president of CASE, who is also a PAP MP, to call on petrol companies to quickly reflect global oil price drops at the pump and exercise greater price transparency. The petrol market is arguably oligopolistic with only a limited number of operators. Only stronger regulation, such as recommended price changes or price ceilings based on market movements, can compel petrol companies to price fuel fairly and prevent them from raking in profits during a crisis.

Why do POFMA Correction Notices need to be published in print?

On 23 and 26 March, Terry Xu and The Online Citizen (TOC) were ordered under Section 11(3)(b) of POFMA to publish correction notices in print in The Straits Times in relation to two separate falsehoods. This is the first time such a requirement has been imposed.

While the Government has explained why correction directions have been issued in both cases, PSP asks: why is there a specific need to print correction notices for these particular falsehoods? This escalated step is in stark contrast to the lack of action taken under POFMA against hundreds of AI-generated YouTube videos targeting Singapore and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, which garnered millions of views.

Minister Josephine Teo said such videos did not warrant POFMA action because “it would be clear” they were fabricated, and most of the videos and accounts had been taken down by YouTube. But such a disinformation campaign would have been a textbook example of when POFMA should have been used. And do we really know for sure that it would be clear to Singaporeans that the disinformation campaign was propagating falsehoods? How did the Government reach this conclusion, when during the Second Reading debate of POFMA in 2019, Minister K Shanmugam cited examples of falsehoods propagated during the Brexit referendum that sound “outlandish” but were believed by a significant proportion of the British people?

The Government’s actions and inactions under POFMA deserve greater scrutiny. PSP repeats our calls in our GE2025 manifesto to reform POFMA and to use POFMA only in cases where there is a deliberate campaign to perpetuate falsehoods. The powers to declare statements as false and to order correction directions should be vested in the judiciary instead of the executive. Government ministers should not have the right to be arbiters of truth. If the Government wants to declare a statement false and compel individuals to state that they have spread falsehoods, such a decision should be subject to judicial oversight before it is carried out.

PSP On The Ground

Team PSP, led by CEC members Sani Ismail and Stephanie Tan, brought the spirit of Hari Raya to the doorstep during the final week of Ramadan by delivering Raya snacks and green money envelopes to Muslim residents in Tengah, Jurong West, Teban Gardens, Taman Jurong, Keat Hong, and Chua Chu Kang.

In this thirteenth issue of The Palm, we discuss how the Government can help Singaporeans live with the fallout of the war in Iran, how the Government can go beyond the recently announced MediSave changes to provide even more flexibility, and question when the supply of BTO flats will be enough for the eligibility age for singles to be reduced to 28.

Coping with the fallout of the Iran war

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) deeply regrets the loss of life and escalating violence following the strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran, subsequent Israeli strikes on Lebanon, and retaliatory attacks by Iran across the Middle East since 28 February 2026. Our thoughts are with all civilians affected by the conflict.

We are also very concerned about the wider economic consequences should the war continue. Disruptions to shipping and aviation and rising energy prices could persist and trigger another round of inflation in Singapore similar to the global price shocks that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Singapore is vulnerable in this crisis. Petrol prices have already spiked. More than 90% of our electricity is generated from liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchased from abroad, around half of which last year came from Qatar. Any sustained increase in energy prices or disruptions to shipments could therefore have significant effects on the broader economy.

If the crisis results in prolonged inflation, we hope the Government will not rely solely on CDC vouchers and Cost-of-Living payments to cushion the impact. Structural measures to reduce business costs should also be considered, such as national guidelines on rent increases. We can also consider measures to reduce energy demand that could also help families, such as encouraging work-from-home arrangements where possible, and shorter work weeks, similar to what has been adopted in our Southeast Asian neighbours Thailand and the Philippines.

MediSave changes welcome, but flexibility can still be increased

During the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Health (MOH) on 5 March, Minister Ong Ye Kung announced that one of PSP’s policy suggestions in our election manifesto, which is to expand the use of MediSave, will be implemented.

In our manifesto, we called for withdrawal limits under the MediSave 500/700 scheme to be increased. These limits will now be increased to $700 and $1,000 respectively with effect from January 2027, and the scheme will be renamed the MediSave Chronic and Preventive Care scheme. MOH will also expand the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) to cover hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism and will study whether the CDMP can cover other chronic diseases such as eczema.

PSP is heartened by these changes. However, we can still make it more flexible to use MediSave. Currently, only under 1% of MediSave balances are withdrawn for direct medical expenses. We can allow more outpatient treatments, such as preventative and non-aesthetic dental treatments, to be covered by MediSave. To reflect our commitment to encouraging family formation among Singaporeans, we should also allow maternity and child-bearing medical fees to be fully claimable from MediShield Life without limit. This will help Singaporeans deal with rising healthcare costs.

When will the supply of HDB flats be adequate to reduce the BTO eligibility age?

During the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development (MND) on 4 March, Minister Chee Hong Tat said that MND would study ways to better support housing options for singles. However, we are disappointed that he declined to provide a timeline for lowering the eligibility age for singles to purchase Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

The Minister claimed that he could not give a timing on when the eligibility age can be reviewed “because it really depends on when we feel confident about the supply being adequate”. But the Minister’s claim is a red herring, given that the Government has full control over the use of state land for HDB flats and the supply of HDB flats each year in Singapore.

The Government has in fact reduced the supply of BTO flats from about 23,000 in 2022 and 2023 to under 20,000 each year since 2024. Given that the expected number of BTO flats to be launched in 2027 will fall even further to 15,600, when will the supply of BTO flats be sufficiently adequate to allow singles under 35 to buy flats?

PSP urges the Government to commit to a timeline to reduce the eligibility age for singles to purchase BTO flats to 28, which we have advocated since the 14th Parliament, and increase the BTO flat supply if needed to meet the demand from this new group of buyers.

PSP On The Ground

Team PSP, led by CEC member Sani Ismail, continued his Ramadan porridge distributions to Yung Ping Road residents every Friday and Saturday.

On 14 March, Team PSP, led by CEC members Wendy Low, Lawrence Pek, Phang Yew Huat, and Dzulfadli Hassan, along with former candidate Harish Pillay, distributed dates and green packets to residents in Bukit Gombak SMC.

On 15 March, Team PSP, led by CEC members Sani Ismail, Stephanie Tan, and Dzulfadli Hassan, distributed Ramadan porridge to residents in Tengah.

In this twelfth issue of The Palm, PSP responds to our new record-low birth rate, the Government’s plans for immigration, and new data on wealth inequality in Singapore.

A new social compact needed on immigration

During the Committee of Supply debates for the Prime Minister’s Office, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong revealed that Singapore’s resident total fertility rate (TFR) sank to a record low of 0.87 in 2025, with only 27,500 resident births. In one generation, the number of resident births has fallen over 40%, from 46,916 in 1995.

We previously noted that statements by DPM Gan and Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow at the 2026 IPS Singapore Perspectives conference did not signal any shift in existing population policy approaches. Indeed, the Government has now doubled down on the existing policy of using immigration to make up for collapsing birth rates.

There will be about 25,000-30,000 new citizens per year over the next five years, an increase of 17-40% from the average of 21,300 new citizens per year between 2020 and 2024. There will also be about 40,000 new PRs per year over the next five years, a 21% increase from the 33,000 new PRs per year between 2020 and 2024.

Regrettably, there is no sign that the Government will pursue structural reforms to deal with our population crisis, even as the PM and DPM insist that “we cannot give up”. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has previously made many suggestions for structural reforms: from increasing the number of annual leave days and public holidays to improve the work-life balance for Singaporeans, to providing a Government-paid allowance for full-time caregivers of citizen children below age 7.

As the Government increases the number of new citizens and PRs granted, we must ask: what will this mean for our social fabric and national identity? Based on the latest Population in Brief report, citizens now only account for 60% of the total population, with some 9% of these citizens being first-generation new citizens whose citizenships were granted in the last 15 years.

The percentage of citizens has now declined for four consecutive years. Even though PM Lawrence Wong has previously claimed that citizens will not become the minority in Singapore, it is difficult for Singaporeans not to be anxious that non-first-generation citizens will become the minority in Singapore as the Government increases the number of new citizens and PRs amid collapsing birth rates.

A new work group chaired by Minister Indranee Rajah will address marriage and parenthood. PSP is not optimistic that the same ministers who have presided over the collapse of our birth rates will be able to deal with our demographic challenges. A proper national conversation is needed to confront this existential issue.

The Government must discuss with Singaporeans: What is the plan beyond 2030? How will we balance immigration, infrastructure capacity, social cohesion, and quality of life? How will population densities in different parts of Singapore be managed? What strategic policy changes do we need to increase our birth rate?

To its credit, the Government previously provided a degree of transparency on some of these issues through the Population White Paper in 2013. The new work group on population should do the right thing and publish a new Population White Paper, setting out our medium- to long-term population strategy through 2050 so that Singaporeans can have a serious, transparent national conversation on population.

More progressive taxation needed to address inequality

In response to parliamentary questions relating to the Ministry of Finance’s recently published Occasional Paper on income growth, inequality, and social mobility trends in Singapore, Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow urged caution in interpreting new data showing that the top 5 per cent of households hold about one-third of Singapore’s wealth. While PSP agrees that wealth statistics are difficult to measure, we believe more must be done to address wealth inequality in Singapore.

If anything, Mr Siow’s remarks suggest the disparity may be larger than it appears. The data revealed by the Government is collated from surveys, where wealth is generally under-reported. However, lower-wealth households are likely to under-report by smaller amounts, while higher-wealth households, especially those with overseas or complex assets, may under-report by much more. If under-reporting is disproportionately worse at the upper end, then wealth inequality may be more skewed than reported.

Wealth disparities are widening as Singapore attracts more ultra-high-net-worth individuals to settle here. The Government has been relying on a progressive tax-and-transfer system to reduce inequality, but the Paper showed that our tax system has scope to become more progressive. Before taxes and transfers, Singapore’s inequality is relatively low among OECD countries, but after taxes and transfers, we rank closer to the higher end. This suggests that we can improve our social policies so that they do more redistributive work.

Academic Ng Kok Hoe has pointed out that while the Government’s Occasional Paper argues that Singapore’s approach is cheaper and better value than Finland or the UK, this comparison does not account for CPF contributions in assessing tax burdens while including European pension contributions, which understates Singapore’s tax burden. It also appears to exclude major European public services when calculating benefits, and compares different timeframes. If we undercount Singaporean taxes and European benefits, the conclusions become questionable.

If the Government accepted these findings uncritically and believed that it is doing a good job on addressing inequality, it is unsurprising that Budget 2026 contained no significant plan to tackle wealth inequality or addressed Singaporeans’ concerns over whether rising wealth inequality contributes to higher direct costs in housing, food, and transport that disproportionately burden lower-income Singaporeans?

PSP believes Singapore can, and must, implement more progressive tax policies, coupled with a strengthened set of national social support schemes as we proposed during GE2025, to ensure growth translates into Progress for All.

PSP On The Ground

On 27 and 28 February, Team PSP, led by CEC member Sani Ismail, distributed Ramadan porridge to Yung Ping Road residents. These porridge distributions will continue every Friday and Saturday until the end of Ramadan.

Sani also distributed dates to Muslim households that he has previously visited in Tengah, Keat Hong, Bukit Gombak, and Teban Gardens.

PSP would like to wish all Muslims Ramadan Kareem and Selamat Menjalani Ibadah Puasa during this holy month.

Team PSP also organised a lion dance and lohei session on 28 February at Westwood Residences. An ice-cream booth was also available, which was well-received by residents, especially the children. We hope to organise more of such events to spread the festive cheer in future!

In this eleventh issue of The Palm, PSP responds to Budget 2026.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the Government’s 2026 Budget Statement, which contains several positive measures. However, PSP considers that the Budget still falls short on leveraging Singapore’s immense fiscal strength for the deep, structural reforms necessary to navigate our long-term challenges.

1. Budget Marksmanship and Fiscal Strength

The Government projects a surplus of $8.5 billion for the 2026-27 Financial Year (FY2026). But can we trust this estimate?

In recent years, the Government has underestimated the size of revenues and surpluses. For FY2025, the initial $6.8 billion surplus projection more than doubled to $15.1 billion.

This follows a consistent pattern. During last year’s Budget debate, then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai asked whether the Government would again collect about $8 billion more than originally projected in FY2025, after doing so in FY2022, FY2023 and FY2024. And indeed, we now see that FY2025 revenues have exceeded estimates by $8.08 billion.

Consistent over-collection erodes public trust. Government surpluses are money collected from households and companies. If the Government repeatedly underestimates its financial strength, the argument that “tax hikes are necessary” loses its weight. Singapore’s fiscal position is exceptionally robust, a reality the PSP has long emphasized.

We must strike a better balance between national savings and expenditure. Just as an individual who over-saves while neglecting their health faces long-term trouble, a nation that hoards resources risks ignoring its structural needs.

Despite having the fiscal space for bold structural change, this Budget has once again focused on temporary relief like CDC vouchers to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living. While helpful, such measures neither address systemic economic pressures nor strengthen long-term social security.

Ordinary Singaporeans are struggling with higher living expenses. PSP reiterates our call for permanent, long-term schemes to ease structural cost pressures for Singaporeans, such as:

• A credible minimum living wage

• Healthcare reforms to reduce the burdens of recurring increases in insurance premiums

• Policies to relieve financial pressures on families, like caregiver allowances

• Mandatory retrenchment benefits for workers

2. Strengthening economic security for Singaporeans in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We welcome Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s personal commitment to addressing AI disruption and opportunity by chairing the National AI Council. However, the Council currently consists only of Cabinet ministers. While it may draw on private-sector expertise, details remain unclear. We hope the Council will be strengthened by the inclusion of experienced AI professionals, including those based overseas.

Additionally, we believe the Government’s proposals to help Singapore strategically benefit from AI may not match the scale of the structural change underway.

AI and inequality

For example, Budget 2026 was silent on the burgeoning “AI divide.” A Ministry of Finance report last week highlighted that Singapore’s wealth inequality is now more pronounced than our income gap. As the AI revolution accelerates, the economic gains are likely to disproportionately accrue to wealth owners, such as shareholders of dominant AI model developers and semiconductor giants, rather than workers. Without intervention, AI risks turbocharging wealth inequality by funneling global productivity gains into the hands of a few.

There were no pivots toward a more redistributive tax system in Budget 2026. PSP urges the Government to be bold in confronting the structural inequality impacts of AI head-on. We need a fiscal framework that ensures the “AI dividend” benefits all Singaporeans, not just those with the capital to invest in the AI capabilities of tomorrow.

Safeguarding entry-level jobs

AI threatens entry-level roles most directly. As we argued in the previous issue of The Palm, more must be done to protect entry-level jobs for Singaporeans. To prevent a “lost generation” of graduates facing narrower career paths, the PSP suggests that structured apprenticeships should be embedded into polytechnic and university curricula. Greater monetary incentives can be provided to companies that create entry-level opportunities

PSP welcomes the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore. We hope this will lead to more outcomes-focused retraining and reskilling programmes that are tightly aligned with industry demand. Training must translate into real employment outcomes.

Supporting Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in adopting AI

We must ensure that SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy but bear the brunt of rising costs, receive sufficient support to adopt AI. The Government’s tax deductions and grants for AI expenditures, may not be enough for SMEs.

We could consider retraining displaced local professionals under SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to help SMEs redesign workflows, automate repetitive processes, and integrate AI responsibly. We must prevent AI adoption from widening productivity gaps between firms and concentrating opportunity within a small segment of the economy.

3. Foreign Manpower and Local Job Security

PSP believes that the rise in qualifying salaries for Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders is directionally correct, but the Government has not gone far enough. We have long called for stronger measures to ensure job priority for Singaporeans, such as an increase in EP qualifying salaries to $10,000, employer CPF contributions for EP holders, an EP levy, and company-level EP quotas. Such measures would safeguard entry-level and mid-level professional roles for Singaporeans without keeping out genuine senior global talent.

4. CPF and Retirement Adequacy

One major highlight for the PSP is the Government’s announcement of a new investment scheme for CPF members in 2028. This aligns with the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), a recommendation made by the CPF Advisory Panel ten years ago. In our GE2025 Manifesto, PSP called on the Government to set up the LRIS as soon as possible.

We support this move to improve access to professionally managed, low-cost investment options that may help Singaporeans grow their CPF savings more quickly over the long term.

5. Climate Responsibility

PSP is concerned by the cautious tone struck by the Prime Minister regarding Singapore’s climate strategy should global momentum weaken.

As a responsible wealthy nation with high per capita carbon emissions, Singapore’s commitment to decarbonization should not be contingent on global momentum. It would be hypocritical if we did not maintain an appropriate price on pollution and continue investing in the green transition while investing heavily in AI, which places massive strains on energy, water, and other resources that may worsen climate change, which could threaten our very existence as a low-lying city-state. We must not retreat from climate action, even as others do.

A Sound Budget, But Not a Transformative One

PSP believes that Budget 2026 was a missed opportunity for bolder structural reform, given Singapore’s strong fiscal position and two consecutive years of larger-than-expected surpluses.

It is time to use our position of strength to build deeper economic security for our people. PSP will continue to advocate for policies that place Singaporeans at the centre of our economic strategy and ensure Progress For All.

PSP On The Ground

On February 7, Team PSP, led by CEC members Samuel Lim, Sani Ismail, and Stephanie Tan, distributed our very own PSP Otica-themed red packets to the residents of Teban Gardens, Taman Jurong, Nanyang and Pioneer.

Wendy Low, Head of PSP’s Women’s Wing, joined Leong Sze Hian, Dr Jeremy Lim, and Tay Kheng Soon at MARUAH’s Post Budget 2026 Dialogue on February 15. Wendy spoke on employment, employability, and the impact of AI.

Today is Chinese New Year’s Eve. PSP would like to wish all Singaporeans who celebrate a very happy and prosperous new year, and we look forward to continuing to serve residents in the upcoming Year of the Horse!

In this tenth issue of The Palm, PSP responds to the recommendations of the Government’s Economic Strategy Review (ESR), and share our wishlist for Budget 2026: more help for workers navigating AI-driven workplace disruption, and new ideas to address our demographic challenges brought on by collapsing birth rates and an ageing population.

Economic Strategy Review: Gaps in encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship, and consumer confidence

On 30 Jan, the ESR provided a mid-term update on their work. They have highlighted multiple challenges that are not new, from AI disruption to slower growth. What matters now is the Government’s policy response.

The ESR made seven recommendations, which include positioning Singapore as an AI leader, making lifelong learning a practical reality, and supporting firms in internationalising and proactively navigating transitions.

Ensuring workers are treated fairly in the age of AI

In Recommendation #6, the ESR has proposed to make lifelong learning a practical reality and empower every worker to take charge of their career. The ESR has also indicated that Singapore should broaden the range of good jobs in Recommendation #5.

PSP supports the Government’s efforts to broaden the range of good jobs and help Singaporeans upgrade their skills. The Government should strengthen jobs that are less susceptible to automation, such as nursing, plumbing, electrical work and phlebotomy, with better pay, career progression, and professional accreditation, so that more Singaporeans are incentivised to join these essential trades.

However, we question whether this will be sufficient for the much larger wave of worker displacement and churn that AI will bring. While the ESR has recognised that “the churn will be less destabilising if we strengthen transition support for affected workers”, we are disappointed that the ESR has not listed mandatory employer-paid retrenchment benefits, as PSP proposed in GE2025, among the possible efforts to strengthen transition support.

Mandatory retrenchment benefits would go a long way in helping workers navigate career churn and pursue lifelong learning with confidence. To further strengthen safety nets for workers, we can increase retraining allowances, and expand the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme to more displaced higher-income workers.

What the ESR left unsaid on job creation, entrepreneurship, and consumer confidence

It will also not be enough for workers to upgrade their skills if the jobs are not there for them. As DPM Gan Kim Yong himself noted, GDP growth may no longer guarantee job creation. Higher productivity often means fewer workers are needed. The ESR’s recommendations have largely failed to address broader questions around whether there will be enough jobs and how we can increase innovation, entrepreneurship, and consumer confidence to create more jobs.

We have already seen how AI has reduced the number of entry-level roles in many industries such as finance, law and consulting. The ESR’s emphasis on lifelong learning offers little reassurance if entry points into new careers disappear. Workers cannot reskill into jobs that do not exist. PSP hopes that in the upcoming Budget, the Government will do more to prioritise preserving and redesigning entry-level roles. It can do this through providing wage support, incentives for firms to retain junior staff, stronger monetary support to conduct on-the-job training for workers, and job redesign that ensures AI complements human learning.

In Recommendation #2, the ESR stated that Singapore needs to increase the availability of capital and access to top-tier talent and enhance market access support “to sustain a vibrant startup ecosystem with an entrepreneurial culture where people dare to dream big and take risks”. But it made no mention of how we can reduce the high costs of doing business in Singapore, such as rent, something that PSP has repeatedly called on the Government to address.

Since 2023, PSP has proposed that the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee should issue guidelines on commercial rent increases to prevent small businesses from being throttled by excessive rent increases. This is particularly important for F&B businesses, who have flagged concerns about rising rents and other costs, which have also been linked to the recent closures of many eateries. The Government should not only focus its efforts on supporting glitzy tech start-ups. It must also support small businesses in the F&B and broader service industry, which are vital in creating jobs in Singapore that cannot be offshored.

The ESR has also not addressed the issue of consumer confidence. A resilient domestic economy depends on households that feel secure enough to spend and plan their futures here. Persistent anxiety over jobs and incomes weakens domestic demand. We must lower living costs and strengthen the social safety net so that Singaporeans are more empowered to deal with economic uncertainties such as the loss of a job, and consequently, feel more confident about spending their hard-earned money.

How will the ESR’s recommendations impact population policy?

The ESR’s recommendations also did not address how Singapore’s population policy will be adjusted in an era where economic growth may not lead to job creation. However, statements by both DPM Gan Kim Yong and Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow, who both lead the ESR, at the 2026 IPS Singapore Perspectives conference do not hint at any changes to existing approaches to population policy.

In 2013, the Government released the Population White Paper, which charted a roadmap to 2030 to address concerns over Singapore’s low fertility and ageing population. At the time, Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was 1.2. More than a decade on, the conditions that prompted the White Paper have only worsened, with the TFR plummeting to 0.97 as of 2024, and likely even lower levels in 2025.

With 2030 now less than four years away, a serious national conversation on our population policies is again due, but the Government is sticking to old refrains. For example, Acting Minister Siow reiterated that immigration is crucial to keeping Singapore dynamic, adding that “immigration can only go as far as integration allows”. But how successful have our integration efforts been? Non-Chinese Singaporeans have voiced growing anxieties over the emergence of Chinese spaces in public life, such as the rapid spread of China-based retail and food chains that are often non-halal and Mandarin-speaking.

As birth rates continue collapsing, current population growth rates can only be maintained if the intake of new citizens, PRs, and non-residents is increased. If this happens, how will the legitimate concerns of minority Singaporeans who increasingly feel excluded in their own country be addressed? How do we preserve a coherent Singaporean national identity that is barely 60 years old?

Will the Government’s new economic strategies be premised on continued population growth? Or will the Government reconsider its population policy in light of technological disruption and the changing nature of economic growth?

Equally troubling was DPM Gan’s response to a student’s question on balancing global competitiveness and higher fertility. He joked that the student should “go work harder on having more babies”. This trivialises a serious issue. Procreation is not simply an individual responsibility divorced from social realities. Instead of pointing to falling birth rates as a global trend, the Government should be asking itself why the social circumstances in Singapore have led to some of the lowest birth rates in the world.

During the Population White Paper debate, then-DPM Teo Chee Hean promised Singapore citizens “good quality jobs” and “a high quality living environment” in 2030. Instead, 61% of Singaporean employees report feeling burnt out, while housing and COE prices hit record highs. Many want two or more children but do not because they feel unable to cope with the stress and cost.

We need more than jokes and recycled policies to address our demographic problems. PSP hopes that the upcoming Budget will include measures to reduce stress and help restore Singaporeans’ confidence in starting families. We can consider longer annual leave and more public holidays, as PSP proposed in GE2025. Otherwise, what is the end-game if we continue down the same path of endless economic growth and immigration amid collapsing birth rates?

The ESR’s recommendations fall short of progress for all

In GE2025, PSP called for “Progress For All”, where the benefits of economic growth are distributed equitably among all Singaporeans, and anyone who works hard should be able to live with dignity. The ESR’s recommendations fall short of progress for all as Singapore’s economy undergoes a structural shift that goes beyond productivity and competitiveness amidst the AI revolution.

While the ESR rightly calls on Singaporeans to adapt and upskill, this must be backed by stronger social protection. Broad-based transfers in the Budget such as CDC vouchers and GST vouchers can offer short-term relief for Singaporeans. If the Budget is a precursor to implementing the ESR’s recommendations, we hope that it will contain more substantive measures to strengthen the safety net for workers, reduce costs for businesses, and ensure the survival of entry-level roles, so that we can protect career pathways and support Singaporeans through economic transition.

PSP On The Ground

On 31 Jan, Team PSP, led by our CEC members, was on the ground distributing mandarin oranges and goodie bags at Keat Hong Food Centre, West Coast Market, and Jurong Spring, together with our resident God of Fortune. We will continue to spread festive joy in different constituencies in the lead-up to Chinese New Year!

In this ninth issue of The Palm, we share our thoughts on several key issues in a blockbuster fortnight in Singapore politics: the removal of Mr Pritam Singh as the Leader of the Opposition, the suspected food poisoning case at River Valley Primary School and the controversy over canteen food, the review of ministerial salaries, the Nominated MP scheme, and the number of BTO flats to be launched this year.

Does the office of Leader of the Opposition normalise political opposition or our one-party dominant system?

On 15 January, the Prime Minister removed Mr Pritam Singh as Leader of the Opposition (LO), after Parliament voted the day before that he was unsuitable to continue as LO following his conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges.

In Singapore, the Office of Leader of the Opposition is a position in the gift of the Prime Minister. It has not been institutionalised within the Standing Orders of Parliament, or the Constitution. This is regrettable and not in line with conventions in other Westminster Parliaments. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that the Leader of the Opposition should be chosen by opposition MPs, as the name implies. Parliament should also be the institution setting the eligibility conditions for someone to serve as the Leader of the Opposition, not the Prime Minister.

We believe that the LO position, in its current form, does not normalise the existence of political opposition in our political system. As a position that can be offered and withdrawn at the discretion of the ruling party, it instead normalises our one-party dominant system. This is not what we want for Singapore.

Does the Nominated MP scheme remain credible?

By Leong Mun Wai

I attended the sitting of Parliament on Wednesday in support of the Workers’ Party and the Opposition. I listened to all the speeches, including those by the Nominated MPs (NMPs).

The NMPs who spoke have fine backgrounds. One of them is a Senior Counsel. They can add value to Parliament. But their participation in the debate on the motion on Pritam Singh’s suitability to serve as Leader of the Opposition has further damaged the credibility of the NMP scheme.

On paper, NMPs do not belong to any political party. Their participation in the debate helps to undercut criticism that the motion is a partisan hit job.

But in reality, NMPs are appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament that is dominated by PAP MPs. Their presence in Parliament is arguably in the gift of the ruling party, similar to the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the new NMPs sworn in this week was formerly a PAP member who reportedly even attended one of the PAP’s tea sessions designed to identify potential candidates for elections.

In the last term of Parliament, we also saw an NMP resign and subsequently be elected as a PAP MP. This has never happened before. He is now an office holder, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Additionally, since the vote on the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in 2022, no NMP has taken a different voting position from the PAP MPs.

These recent developments have diminished public confidence in the NMP scheme as a non-partisan institution. If former NMPs are allowed to stand for election under a political party, and former political party members are allowed to be appointed as NMPs, can the public continue to trust that NMPs are not partisan in heart and spirit during their tenure? When NMPs speak, can the public believe that they are not speaking to audition for elected office in the future?

The best and most legitimate way for Singaporeans’ views to be represented in Parliament is through elected MPs who are directly accountable to voters. If the NMP scheme is to continue, its independence and non-partisan nature must be further strengthened in law, starting with a reform of the selection process. Otherwise, its role and relevance should be seriously reconsidered.

Where is canteen food headed?

By Stephanie Tan

I am deeply concerned by the suspected food poisoning of 60 River Valley Primary School students after they had lunch provided by the school’s central kitchen meal model operator.

Food safety now adds to the growing list of concerns about the new central kitchen meal model, which the Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE) rolled out to 13 schools across Singapore this year.

Students have already expressed dissatisfaction with the taste and quality of packed bentos and food dispensing lockers. Photos of the student meals at Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) have gone viral, due to their unappetising presentations and reminiscence of SAF cookhouse meals. Students from other schools have also raised issues with cold food and missing items. Operators have also faced questions about whether preparing food off-site would lead to compromises in freshness and food quality. These fears have apparently been realised.

In a previous issue of The Palm in October 2025, the PSP had suggested an alternative system where central kitchens operate within each school rather than from some industrial facility, following the examples of schools in Japan and Sweden. Not only will this ensure that food is cooked fresh on site, it can also balance the need for economies of scale that singular canteen stalls cannot achieve.

There is more to a school canteen than nutritional values or Health Promotion Board advisories. Our canteen ‘uncles’ and ‘aunties’ represent a human touch that have been sorely missed by students transitioning to the central kitchen model. For the longest time, our school canteens have been a microcosm of our own hawker culture, exposing students to a variety of local dishes from a young age. For many students, their school canteen is also the first time they learnt to buy things on their own and manage their own expenses. These are precious holistic developmental experiences that should be retained.

I hope Minister Desmond Lee urgently looks into alternatives to the central kitchen meal model.

Photo credits: [1], [2]

Why review ministerial salaries now?

By Lawrence Pek

The Government has announced that it has convened an independent committee to review the salary framework of political office holders, which was established by a review committee in 2012. At the time, it was recommended that the framework would be reviewed every five years, and the Government agreed with this. A committee was formed five years later, in 2017, to review the framework, but not in 2022.

In 2023 and 2024, when PSP’s then-NCMP Hazel Poa asked whether ministerial salaries would be reviewed, the Government said it would defer the review as we have other pressing issues to deal with and significant uncertainties and downside risks in the global economy remain.

These key challenges have remained unchanged, and still require the Government’s attention. For example, unlike Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam, we have yet to strike a trade deal with the US since tariffs were imposed in 2025, despite two key ASEAN meetings in May and Oct 2025 in Kuala Lumpur.

Since the reasons previously given by the Government to postpone the review remain unchanged, what has changed to merit a review of ministerial salaries now? Singaporeans deserve more clarity from the Government on this. On our part, we hope that the review will peg ministerial salaries to the median incomes of Singapore Citizens instead of the incomes of the top 1,000 Singapore Citizen earners, to better reflect the spirit of public service.

Are 19,600 BTO flats per year enough to meet demand?

The Government has announced that it will launch about 19,600 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats in 2026. Minister Chee Hong Tat has framed this as a “strong supply” of BTO flats that will “make them more accessible to buyers”.

However, a simple reality check on demand suggests the gap may still be significant. Based on the latest official population data, Singapore had about 3.66 million citizens and 0.54 million permanent residents as of June 2025, and every year, about 23,000 citizen couples register their marriages. Newly-wedded citizen couples form the bulk of potential BTO seekers, a pool that also includes singles and seniors. From this, we can see that the potential pool of BTO applicants exceeds the annual BTO launches.

Another way to view the strain on supply is through BTO waiting times. Although median waiting times have eased somewhat from pandemic peaks, it remains at about 4 years. A queue measured in years implies a backlog of demand that simply launching 19,600 units a year will not clear.

If the Government’s goal is genuinely to make public housing more accessible, the supply strategy needs to be explicitly tied to demand metrics, such as cohort sizes, marriage rates, and waiting-time targets rather than just headline launch numbers.

Happy New Year! In this eighth issue of The Palm, we share our thoughts on how we can strengthen rail reliability without burdening commuters, and reiterate our call for greater accountability for Temasek and GIC in light of their recent underperformance. CEC member Sani Ismail also shares his thoughts on the lessons for Singapore from the tragic Wang Fuk Court fire in Hong Kong.

Rail reliability should be strengthened without burdening commuters

Last week, the task force formed to improve rail reliability submitted its recommendations, which included full-day closures along MRT and LRT lines to accelerate maintenance works.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) recognises that more frequent and even full-day line closures may be necessary to allow MRT operators to carry out essential maintenance and renewal works on our ageing and expanding MRT network.

However, the inconvenience to commuters must be kept to a minimum. Singaporeans should not unduly bear the consequences of past underinvestment or delayed maintenance. This is especially important given that private transport alternatives are becoming more costly with rising COE prices and increased ride-hailing platform fees.

The reality for most Singaporeans is that public transport is the only option for getting around. We call on the Government to take a more commuter-centric approach and focus on providing genuinely viable transport alternatives during prolonged closures.

PSP has long highlighted the need to strengthen bus connectivity as a resilient backup to the rail network. In 2024, former Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai proposed in Parliament the creation of an inter-town skip-stop bus network to provide fast, direct connections between major towns. Such a network would be especially valuable during full-day MRT closures.

To date, the Government’s Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme has focused largely on express or “express feeder” services that connect nearby nodes, rather than delivering new bus routes that provide strong, rapid inter-town links. The Government should seriously consider a bus-based solution that leverages Singapore’s extensive expressway network to provide reliable alternatives when rail lines are shut down. While such a solution may be constrained by manpower shortages in the public bus sector, this could be alleviated in future with the deployment of autonomous buses.

A resilient public transport system requires not just reliable trains, but robust alternatives when trains are unavailable. Singaporeans deserve better.

Greater accountability for Temasek and GIC

A recent article by the Financial Times has put a renewed spotlight on the performance of our two sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), Temasek and GIC. Both have averaged just 5% annual returns over the past ten years in nominal US dollar terms. Without adjusting for the risk taken, their performance is among the weakest when compared to some 50 other SWFs around the world. For instance, Canada’s CPP Investments and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan have achieved annualised returns of 7–9%.

Temasek and GIC are structured as private commercial companies wholly owned by the Government. As a result, the Government does not generally interfere in their management. Even though both companies are managing public monies, they are not directly accountable to Parliament for their investment performance, even when they underperform.

PSP reiterates our call for stronger accountability for Temasek and GIC, which we made in our 2025 General Election manifesto. MPs should conduct private, closed-door hearings with Temasek and GIC representatives to scrutinise performance against reasonable global benchmarks. Redacted summaries can then be released to the public. Our reserves belong to Singaporeans, and those entrusted to manage them must ultimately be answerable to the people.

Lessons for Singapore from the Wang Fuk Court fire

By Sani Ismail

The tragic Wang Fuk Court fire in Hong Kong on 26 November 2025, which claimed 161 lives, was a sobering reminder of the devastating consequences when we ignore building safety.

It is natural for many Singaporeans to ask whether such a disaster could happen here, given that a large proportion of our population also lives in similar dense, high-rise residential buildings. A recent fire at Hong Lim Food Centre was another reminder that fires can, and do, happen in Singapore.

Wang Fuk Court was a housing estate over 40 years old occupied by many lower-income Hong Kongers. It was built by the Government but fully privatised, with owners responsible for overall estate maintenance, similar to executive condos in Singapore. The fire broke out while large-scale repair works were being carried out to maintain the aging estate. These works carried significant risks if not properly managed.

Given that in Singapore, residents are not responsible for the overall maintenance and upgrading of public housing estates, the lessons from the Wang Fuk Court fire apply mainly to private housing estates, which are aging. Over 30% of condos in Singapore are already over 30 years old. Many have lifts, waterproofing, electrical systems and other infrastructure that have exceeded their intended lifespan. However, management corporations (MCSTs) often struggle to get owners to agree to raise sinking fund contributions or approve costly large-scale replacement works, resulting in deferred maintenance and rising safety risks.

Even when the works are approved, it is important to ensure that these works are carried out with residents’ interests in mind. Corruption is a suspected factor behind the tragedy in Hong Kong, given that Hong Kong’s corruption watchdog has arrested the current and former chairmen of Wang Fuk Court’s management corporation. This reinforces the importance of never allowing corruption to take root in Singapore as we start rejuvenating many of our ageing public and private housing estates.

I have previously written about the importance of ensuring that private homeowners do not defer essential maintenance works. I therefore support the Government’s review of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004, due to be completed by the first half of 2026. The review should draw lessons from the Wang Fuk Court fire to improve how large-scale repairs in private estates are managed. Measures such as mandatory building health checks, annual motions to transfer surplus Management Fund monies to the Sinking Fund, and mandating higher Sinking Fund contributions that can meet the actual or expected liabilities of MCSTs for upcoming major repairs merit serious consideration.

I sincerely hope that a tragedy like the Wang Fuk Court fire never occurs in Singapore. Essential maintenance must be carried out, but always with public safety as the paramount concern, and our zero tolerance for corruption must continue.

PSP On The Ground

Team PSP, led by CEC members Sani Ismail and Stephanie Tan and joined by Santa Claus, spread the Christmas joy by distributing Santa hats and fluffy toys to the residents and children of Pioneer, Nanyang, Taman Jurong and Jurong Spring during our Christmas walkabout on 13 December.

PSP organised two social outreach programmes during the school holidays, guided by our belief that our children should be given time and opportunities to explore activities beyond classroom learning. The first was a collaboration with Artsolute to organise a free puppetry class for residents on 20 December. Puppetry is a simple form of art which allows our children to express themselves creatively, build confidence, and discover that their stories matter! It is also a wonderful opportunity for us, as adults, to connect deeper with the children and understand their thoughts and feelings.

Our second social outreach activity was a free touch rugby class at Jurong Lake Gardens. Team sports are a fun way for our children to build their social skills and physical fitness, train their reflexes, and develop life-long healthy habits. We are glad that both our volunteers and the children had lots of fun, and we hope that this inspired the children to stay active and spend less time on their devices this holiday season!

In this seventh issue of The Palm, we respond to the Prime Minister’s speech at the PAP Convention 2025, reiterate our call for stronger legal protections for workers in the wake of several abrupt business closures, and share our thoughts on the passage of the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill.

What does it mean when the PAP “calls out” others or sets the tone for Singapore politics?

In his speech at the PAP Convention 2025, PM Lawrence Wong said that the PAP must “set the tone for politics in Singapore”. He warned how trust can be eroded with “a distortion here, a half-truth here, a little bit of a lie here”, and said that the PAP would call it out “each time we see something that crosses the line”.

Setting the tone for politics in Singapore is a combined responsibility of all political parties. As political parties interact, whether directly or indirectly, there are certain boundaries which must not be crossed for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. That is why we were disappointed that a full report on the outcome of Police investigations into the Bukit Gombak harassment incident in January 2025 was never released. A full disclosure would indeed have set the tone for politics in Singapore.

We agree that Singapore needs responsible politics. There is a fine but clear line between open and healthy debate, and irresponsible attacks that threaten peace and stability. Does the PAP Government apply the many legal tools that it has at its disposal to “call out” others in a neutral and consistent way?

For instance, in a reply to a question by PSP’s then-NCMP Hazel Poa in 2024 on the Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA), Minister Josephine Teo said that accredited media outlets have established practices to “quickly clarify any factual errors in a timely manner”, implying that these allow them to avoid being served a POFMA correction direction.

Consequently, a PAP MP who makes an inaccurate statement to mainstream media can be “called out” with a polite official statement, while an opposition figure that makes inaccurate statements to alternative media must bear the ignominy of having propagated “fake news” that a POFMA correction direction confers. That is the political landscape we face in Singapore.

We will continue speaking up for Singaporeans with honesty and courage, especially when we believe that political lines have been crossed, as we have done both in and out of Parliament.

Time for stronger legal protections for retrenched workers?

Recently, there have been several abrupt business closures that have left workers unemployed and owed wages, including the closure of Twelve Cupcakes and an art investment firm. These incidents show that the existing tripartite advisory on responsible retrenchment, which is not legally binding, is insufficient.

We reiterate our call for statutory retrenchment benefits to be implemented, with employees who have served at least two years entitled to a minimum of two weeks’ salary per year of service. The existing tripartite advisory merely states that “the prevailing norm is to pay a retrenchment benefit varying between 2 weeks to one month salary per year of service”, without any legal requirement for employers to pay any retrenchment benefits that would better protect workers when they face the traumatic experience of abruptly losing a job.

We also proposed in our GE2025 manifesto that there should be a clear legal framework to exempt retrenched employees from non-compete clauses, which unfairly restrict them from finding new work after losing their jobs through no fault of their own. Additionally, MOM should be given more powers to enforce employment laws and protect retrenched workers from facing unfair treatment, such as the retrenched Agoda employees who were threatened with reprisal if they reported issues to government bodies or trade unions.

We need more protections to provide more certainty and dignity for workers, and prevent them from getting the short end of the stick when businesses fail or restructure.

A fairer and more transparent workplace fairness dispute resolution process

We are glad that Parliament passed the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill on 4 November. While we are disappointed that the Government did not respond to the feedback we submitted on the bill in September, we were heartened that the Second Reading debate addressed some of the concerns we raised in our submission. For instance, we had called for anonymised WFA judgments to be published for transparency. Several MPs also made similar suggestions. Later, the Government said that it will work with the courts on making WFA judgments publicly accessible.

PSP will continue to engage actively in public consultations on policy changes throughout this term of government, and advocate for policy changes to achieve progress for all in Singapore.

PSP On The Ground

Team PSP, led by CEC members Sani Ismail and Stephanie Tan, was on the ground visiting rental flats at Blocks 116-118 Ho Ching Rd on Saturday 15 Nov. Stephanie and Sani also met a resident of Nanyang ward to follow up on her concerns over the enforcement of her maintenance order.

P.S. This is our last issue for the year, as we will be taking a break. We will return on 5 January 2026! Happy holidays everyone!

In this sixth issue of The Palm, we reflect on the Government’s new Jobs Nearby @ CDC initiative and give our take on the proposed introduction of mandatory caning for scammers.

Jobs Nearby @ CDC: An uncanny echo of PSP’s vision in Taman Jurong

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong launched the Jobs Nearby @ CDC initiative on 23 October 2025 at Taman Jurong Community Club in West Coast-Jurong West GRC, where we had contested during the last General Election.

The new programme is led by Singapore’s five Community Development Councils (CDCs) and aims to help residents find jobs close to home. It will feature localised job banks, job ambassadors, and career clinics in heartland areas, connecting jobseekers directly with nearby employers.

What makes this launch remarkable is its similarity to proposals made by one of PSP’s West Coast-Jurong West GRC candidates, Sani Ismail, during the General Election. Then, Sani wanted to facilitate the creation of more local jobs within the constituency and look into helping residents transition into relevant job placements.

At the time, the PAP’s manifesto focused on upskilling and national employment services, but made no mention of geographically targeted job creation. Now, just months later, the Government is putting into practice a concept similar to what Sani had championed.

It is encouraging that this pilot was launched in Taman Jurong, where the PAP faced strong political contestation from the PSP. Good ideas are not the province of any single political party.

We will not complain if the Government chooses to adapt some of our other worker-centric proposals into policy: increasing the minimum number of paid annual leave days from seven to 14, implementing a minimum living wage, and increasing the number of public holidays from 11 to 14. After all, when rational, constructive opposition parties compete against the PAP to serve Singaporeans, it is ultimately Singaporeans who benefit.

Caning scammers: an old response to a modern threat

Tomorrow, Parliament will debate the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which introduces mandatory caning for scammers and members of scam syndicates, as well as discretionary caning for scam mules who launder scam proceeds or provide SIM cards and SingPass credentials. The Bill will also remove mandatory caning for vandals, which was first introduced nearly 60 years ago in “a significant departure from penal practices”, as legal scholar Jothie Rajah observed in Authoritarian Rule of Law.

Mandatory caning for vandals was an innovation by the 1G PAP to contain political dissent. As Prof Rajah wrote, the law’s “disproportionate and violent punishment attacked the grassroots foundations of the Barisan [Sosialis]’s activists”, who had expressed dissent through graffiti and posters.

But the 4G PAP appears to lack the creativity of the 1G, as it clings to this old mode of social control to address the very different challenge of scams in 2025.

Caning was an effective deterrent against vandals in the 1960s because they were local, easily caught, and shamed by the punishment. But as the Police themselves have acknowledged, scams are transnational crimes, making them difficult to investigate and prosecute. Until a long-awaited ASEAN extradition treaty is put in effect, how effective can it be for us to use the rod against such perpetrators?

Even among those who can be caught and charged, the deterrent effect is unclear. Scam syndicates could simply adapt by recruiting women or older Singaporeans, who cannot be caned, as scammers and money mules instead.

This policy risks being more symbolic than an effective deterrent. Worse, it could lull Singaporeans into a false sense of security, by using the politically popular language of classroom discipline and retributive justice to convince the public that the Government is working hard to fight the scourge of scams.

In 1966, Lee Kuan Yew justified caning for vandals by saying that “a fine will not deter the type of criminal we are facing here”. Scammers and transnational scam syndicates, however, are motivated by profit. This makes financial sanctions, such as those imposed by the US to cut off scam syndicates from the global financial network, a far more relevant deterrent. The Government should explore similar measures against the global criminal networks that prey on Singaporeans.

We need to do more than giving scammers a good caning.

PSP On The Ground

Our former candidate for West Coast-Jurong West GRC, Sani Ismail, was on the ground visiting residents at Blk 517C Jurong West St 52 last week.

Today is Deepavali, a day that symbolizes the victory of good over evil and knowledge over ignorance. We would like to wish all our readers who celebrate a very happy festival of lights. Deepavali Valthukkal!

In this fifth issue of The Palm, we respond to the public transport fare hike and issues in education, including a recent report on teachers’ workload and schools switching to central kitchen catering.

Fare hike: rubbing salt in the wound for Singaporeans

The Public Transport Council’s announcement of a fare hike amidst record COE prices, persistent cost-of-living challenges, and over 20 train disruptions recorded this year feels especially jarring.

Public transport is the only option for many Singaporeans to get around Singapore. It must stay affordable and reliable, especially with private vehicle ownership increasingly beyond reach.

The decision to hike express bus fares by up to 50 cents is especially questionable. Of the 14 new bus services introduced under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme in the past year, six are express services that charge higher fares. Will such a sharp further increase in fares not further jeopardise ridership for a segment that we should be encouraging, especially since express buses are not covered by monthly travel passes?

PSP is heartened that the price of the Adult Monthly Travel Pass has been reduced from $128 to $122. However, this still represents a significant upfront cost for many lower-income commuters. We call on the Government to go further and consider implementing automatic fare capping at a daily limit, such as $4 per day. This would be similar to fare caps in cities like New York and London that have made public transport more equitable.

Affordability and reliability must remain the highest priorities in our public transport policy, if we are to be a We First society focused on ensuring progress for all.

Are teachers’ high workloads inevitable?

The recent OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) has resurfaced the severe workload and stress faced by Singaporean teachers, despite the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) efforts to reduce administrative duties.

The survey’s findings are sobering, particularly for younger educators. 40% of teachers under the age of 30 plan to leave the service within the next five years. This group also reported feeling severe stress more often than their colleagues aged 50 and above, suggesting that the system is placing immense pressure on younger teachers in particular.

Ironically, one stressor is MOE’s push for new technology. Platforms like the Student Learning Space (SLS), intended to “customise and create meaningful learning experiences,” often inadvertently increase workload. Teachers must redesign lessons for these systems, a burden that is more likely to fall on younger teachers, who are often seen as more ‘tech-savvy’ and ‘energetic’. Furthermore, extra training for new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, adds to teachers’ already long hours.

Another source of stress is how teachers’ performances are appraised, which former MP Louis Ng has called “a competition”. MOE’s Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) is a stack-ranking system that evaluates teachers relative to their peers of the same rank, which means teachers not only worry about doing their job well, but also about doing it better than their colleagues. This pressures them to spearhead projects and events that may feel “pointless“ or “have little relevance to teaching and learning” to stand out. This pressure is particularly intense for younger teachers, as a low grade early on could severely jeopardise their career progression.

Ultimately, as we have previously discussed, stress is endemic in Singapore’s education system. With students and parents all engaged in intense competition through high-stakes examinations, it is not surprising that this would have knock-on effects on our teachers. We urge MOE to recognize this system-wide issue and implement holistic solutions to reduce academic stress for everyone in the education ecosystem: teachers, parents, and students.

Will centralised catering solve the problem of affordable, nutritious food for schoolchildren?

In recent years, schools have faced a shortage of canteen stallholders. Despite nominal rents, many school canteen vendors struggle with rising costs, as they cannot increase prices without school approval. Consequently, 13 Singapore schools will transition to a central kitchen catering model starting in January 2026. Under this new system, parents and students will pre-order meals which are prepared by a single operator in central kitchens and then delivered to schools.

The situation of school canteen stallholders is not unlike that of hawkers at social enterprise hawker centres, who are often contractually required to sell “budget meals” while facing the same pressures of rising costs. In both cases, the burden of keeping food affordable has fallen unfairly on the shoulders of small stallholders, instead of being better shared by the wider system including consumers and the Government.

It is time to reconsider whether the responsibility for ensuring affordable and nutritious food for our children—and the wider public—should continue to be placed on the shoulders of individual, small-scale stallholders, when this is a matter of public good. PSP believes that schools, or MOE, can consider contracting individual hawkers to operate a central kitchen to sell one high-quality, standard meal to all students. Under this approach, every student receives the same healthy meal regardless of their family’s income, while creating a more efficient system with economies of scale for individual hawkers to operate in schools. At the same time, such smaller-scale central catering would reduce the risk of larger-scale foodborne illness incidents that industrial central kitchens pose, something which the Government has acknowledged.

If schools choose to retain the individual stallholder model, there are practical policy solutions that can help lower operating costs for stallholders. In November 2024, PSP proposed that the Government should set up a centralised procurement system to secure essential ingredients, such as rice, cooking oil, and flour, for hawkers at lower wholesale prices. Such a system should also be extended to school canteen vendors.

It is time for the Government to step up and provide the necessary structural policy support to provide affordable, nutritious food for all Singaporeans, especially our children. This should be a shared public responsibility, not one that falls largely on individual stallholders or hawkers.

PSP On The Ground

Team PSP, led by Chairman A’bas Kasmani and Secretary-General Leong Mun Wai, distributed 1,000 tubs of traditional Indian sweets to spread the joy of Deepavali with residents at various Indian minimarts across West Coast-Jurong West GRC on 19 October. We thank the generous donor who made this event possible! If you would like to help sponsor a future event, we welcome you to write to us.

Also on 19 October, one of PSP’s former candidates for Chua Chu Kang GRC, Lawrence Pek, met a group of Tengah residents facing issues such as constant dripping with their central cooling systems supplied by SP Group. The plight of one of these Tengah residents, whom Lawrence has been supporting since 2024, was recently reported in the media. Lawrence has committed to continue meeting and supporting him and other Tengah residents who have had their quality of life negatively affected by problems with their central cooling systems.

Last week, Sani Ismail, one of our former candidates for West Coast-Jurong West GRC, distributed mosquito repellent at Jurong West St 73 and Jurong West St 81, where dengue clusters were recently reported.

In this fourth issue of The Palm, we respond to the Prime Minister’s speech in Parliament, where he pledged to build Singapore with the youth in mind, and reiterate why a relook of the COE model is necessary.

Will real action follow after the PM’s speech?

In a wide-ranging speech on 24 September, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong addressed the key issues Singaporeans will be facing for the next 5 years, and promised younger Singaporeans that they would have more fulfilling lives, greater social mobility and stronger safety nets.

We appreciate the Government’s introspection and frank acknowledgement of the challenges faced by Singaporeans. What matters most is whether real action follows. The reality for many younger Singaporeans is endless competition and being stuck on a treadmill, a metaphor that PM Wong himself used.

The treadmill starts early in Singapore. EveryChild.SG found that primary school students face higher academic stress than peers abroad. This is partly because Singaporean students must sit for the high-stakes PSLE at age 12, much earlier than students in other countries. For instance, students in Hong Kong take their first national exam at 18. Despite PSLE reforms in 2021, tuition spending still rose 29% from 2018 to 2023. With rapid technological change reshaping jobs, the Government should further refocus our education system from examinations by creating alternative pathways beyond the PSLE, such as piloting a 10-year through-train programme in some schools as PSP previously proposed.

Housing remains a source of anxiety for young working Singaporeans seeking to fulfil themselves by starting a family. Since Q2 2020, the HDB Resale Price Index has increased by 53.8% in just five years. As the market prices of HDB flats soar, so does the amount HDB must pay into the Past Reserves for State Land used for Built-To-Order (BTO) flats. In Financial Year (FY) 2024/25, this amounted to $9.3 billion, up from $7.5 billion the year before. This bill must eventually be paid by taxpayers and flat buyers, which is not sustainable.

We believe that HDB should return to its originally intended role as a provider of affordable housing. That is why we have proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS) which prices BTO flats without land cost. Only those who subsequently sell their flats on the resale market, and thus derive financial benefits, would have to repay land cost with interest. We have also proposed the Millennial Apartments Scheme, where HDB will provide affordable, high-quality rental apartments for young Singaporeans to rent on leases of 2-5 years, allowing young Singaporeans greater flexibility in housing options.

In March 2025, then-Minister for National Development Desmond Lee objected to the AHS, arguing it would prevent HDB flats from serving as a “store of value for retirement”. However, he failed to note that retirement savings, in the form of CPF monies, are being used to finance large mortgages. High flat prices thus transfer CPF retirement savings into housing, and the value of these savings are “locked up” in the flat at old age. PSP’s AHS separates the policy intention of providing Singaporeans with affordable public housing from the policy intention of CPF, which is to provide an “assurance for retirement”. It will enable Singaporeans to retain more CPF savings and invest them in ways other than property ownership.

The AHS will not crash the resale market as the annual supply of AHS flats will be the same as today’s supply of BTO flats, keeping AHS flats under 10% of total HDB stock even after five years. Furthermore, flat sales below market prices will be discouraged because AHS flat owners must repay deferred land costs, while strong demand from those ineligible for BTO flats, Permanent Residents, upgraders, and location-driven buyers will sustain prices.

With rising unemployment rates among younger workers, soaring housing prices, and an increasing sense of financial insecurity, many young Singaporeans are understandably worried about their futures. It seems contradictory for the PM to say that “we must do everything we can” to defy global trends of “tang ping” and “quiet quitting”, and yet continuing to pursue the same economic model. A deeper re-evaluation of our economic structure, as we called for in Issue #1, is needed to improve prospects for younger Singaporeans.

By a 10-year-old who loves art.

Time to relook at the COE model?

The old “Singaporean Dream” of owning all 5 C’s - condo, cash, credit card, country club, and car - is dead. Part of this is due to record-high COE prices making car ownership a distant prospect for most Singaporeans. Against this backdrop, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim proposed a more equitable COE system in Parliament, one that factors in discounts for people with disabilities (PWDs), parents with young children, and caregivers.

Earlier this year, PSP’s then-NCMP Hazel Poa had made a similar call for a fairer and more equitable COE system, proposing a credit-based bidding model for Categories A, B and D COEs. COE credits would be distributed monthly to Singaporeans and PRs based on factors like family size, age, disability, and contributions. Credits can be used to bid for COEs, gifted to others, or sold, allowing those who opt not to buy cars to use their COE credits to offset the costs of public transport. She also proposed a levy for additional vehicle purchases, similar to additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD), to increase the cost of multiple car ownership for wealthy households.

Regrettably, both proposals by the WP and PSP were rebuffed by the Government as being “subjective, divisive and benefit too few”, and with questions of “how do we pass such judgment on who needs a car more”. But the Government regularly passes judgment on who needs something more. This is most evident in our public housing policies. Priority schemes like the Family Care Scheme (Proximity) and the Third Child Priority Scheme (TCPS) explicitly grant eligible families a better chance of securing a flat than other families or singles. Various levels of tax reliefs are available for different groups like NSmen or working mothers. If we can identify groups of people with greater need for housing or tax relief, why would it not be possible to do the same for cars?

Besides the proposals discussed above, PSP’s then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai has also questioned whether the quota for Category E (Open Category) COEs can be re-allocated to other categories to increase the affordability of mass market and commercial vehicles. PSP has also supported the creation of a separate COE category for private-hire vehicles, even though the Government has since rejected this proposal. Singaporeans, too, have contributed other ideas, such as yearly COE renewals to lower the cost for seniors, and basing COE categories on the Open Market Value of a vehicle.

This shows that there are many ideas out there on how we can reform the COE system. It is time for the Government to have a serious discussion with Singaporeans on the COE system and make it work better for Singaporeans, so that we can achieve progress for all.

PSP On The Ground

PSP’s Pioneer SMC team was at Jurong Point on 28 September to distribute traditional paper lanterns to residents to celebrate the upcoming Mid-Autumn Festival. We were happy to play a part in passing down this festive tradition to a new generation of young children!

CEC member Sani Ismail also led a team of volunteers to visit residents at Blk 517 Jurong West St 52 and distribute magnets on 30 September.

In this third issue of The Palm, we dive into the Agoda layoffs and the Ministry of Transport’s plans for the upcoming term of government.

Parliament also sits this week. We are looking forward to hearing Ministers answer questions on the train breakdowns, bullying, and traineeships, as well as MP Jamus Lim’s Adjournment Motion on COE 2.0.

Agoda layoffs: time for legally binding retrenchment benefits?

Last Wednesday (Sep 17), it emerged that around 50 Agoda employees in Singapore had been retrenched. These employees were instructed not to make reports with any government agencies, statutory boards or trade unions, and to refrain from bringing any mediation requests, claims or proceedings against Agoda on their retrenchment, or risk having their severance payments revoked.

Agoda’s actions rightly attracted attention from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), but are investigations or slaps on the wrist from the Government or the unions enough?

60 years after independence, Singaporean workers are still not entitled to any legally binding retrenchment benefits if they are laid off by their employers. Employers only need to meet one requirement: notify MOM if any employee has been retrenched.

PSP believes that the Government, unions, and employers should work together to implement legally binding retrenchment benefits for all workers, a call that we also made in our GE2025 manifesto. MOM’s upcoming update of the Employment Act would be a timely moment to do this. Workers are the backbone of our economy, and they deserve stronger protections when they face retrenchment.

Singaporeans at Agoda: just “part of a quota”?

A CNA article on the Agoda layoffs quoted an ex-employee who alleged that Agoda’s management had claimed, during internal town halls, that the Singaporean employees in Agoda’s customer experience group existed "mainly to satisfy the local workforce quota", so that the company could hire more foreigners under the S Pass scheme. These allegations, if true, show how companies can easily subvert the spirit of the foreign worker policies in Singapore.

For decades, the Government has pursued economic growth by getting foreign multinational companies to invest in Singapore. But we are now seeing the limits of that strategy. As costs increase in Singapore and cheaper options open up overseas, companies can easily eliminate the roles in Singapore and displace workers here, who are left without adequate protections like mandatory retrenchment benefits.

As a nation, it is time for a national conversation on how we can review our economic structure and manpower policies so that these can better serve Singaporeans. It is time to consider the harder options, like instituting policies that reduce the cost of rent and other barriers to entrepreneurship. It is time to do better by our workers.

More of the same for Singapore’s transport?

The Ministry of Transport (MOT), along with other ministries, outlined its priorities for this term of government in its addendum to the President’s Address last week. It read like business as usual.

There was no mention of any review of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system, even as upcoming cuts to Electric Vehicle incentives drove Category A COE prices to a new record of $119,003, the second all-time high recorded this month. And despite three more train disruptions since our last issue two weeks ago, there were no announcements of concrete plans by the Government to improve rail reliability — we will likely have to wait for the new taskforce to come up with them.

If the Government is serious about building a car-lite Singapore, it must do more for non-drivers. While waiting for new MRT lines to be ready, inter-town connectivity can be improved with long-distance skip-stop bus services, as PSP proposed in Parliament in 2024. MOT says that by the early 2030s, eight in ten households will be within a ten-minute walk of a train station, but our roads, even those in new towns like Tengah, remain wide and car-centric. In addition, if public transport continues to be unreliable, and takes two or three times longer than driving, the demand for cars will not fall. Singaporeans deserve better than what MOT has offered.

PSP On The Ground

Our CEC member Lawrence Pek conducted home visits at Tengah on 14 September, where he met residents to better understand their concerns. One Tengah resident shared about facing a job loss, and Lawrence listened and offered him advice. Through such visits, PSP continues to stay close to the ground and support Singaporeans in their challenges.

Lawrence also represented PSP at a townhall session with members of the private hire vehicle (PHV) driver community on 15 September, where issues such as fares and incentive structures were discussed.

PSP has actively engaged and spoken up for platform workers, who now constitute a sizable proportion of Singapore’s workforce. When the Platform Workers Bill was tabled in Parliament in September 2024, then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai spoke on the importance of equitable pay for platform workers. He had also proposed changes to the Code of Practice for Platform Services to create safer working conditions for platform workers. We remain committed to engaging and working constructively with all parties to improve the lives of platform workers together.

In this second issue of The Palm, we respond to the President’s Address, examine the negative impact of socially-conscious enterprise hawker centres on Singapore’s hawker culture, question what more can be done to prevent train breakdowns, and reflect on the closure of The Projector last month.

What does a “We First” society mean?

President Tharman addressed Parliament at its opening last Friday, where he said that “Singapore can only stand tall if we act as one people”, and that all of us must put “we” before “me”. We agree with him—but acting as one people does not mean thinking as one mind. The PAP does not have all the ideas and solutions to deal with a more complex world. Diverse alternative ideas put up by the Opposition, civil society, and Singaporeans in general make Singapore stronger, not weaker. We hope that in its new term of government, the Government will listen to all opinions so that our nation's best ideas can be adopted as policy.

The President also said that “we seek not just growth, but inclusive growth – a society where every citizen shares in the nation’s prosperity”. In line with the President’s message, PSP has always and continues to advocate for a society where there is progress for all. We will hold the Government to that promise over the next five years. The Government's pursuit of economic growth has arguably not translated into proportionate benefits for the average citizen in recent years, even as growth has remained the Government’s top priority. For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong recently signalled that it is “important for us to see how we can push our economy, at least for the next few years, to grow as much as we can”.

But will we pursue quality of growth and not only quantity of growth? Will growth translate into healthy real wage growth with fair job market competition and less under-employment? Or will growth come at the cost of an ever-rising population, a falling Total Fertility Rate, strained infrastructure, the loss of green spaces, and poorer mental health? Is this what Singaporeans really want?

The continued pursuit of economic growth through population growth has led to intense competition and a sense of vulnerability among many Singaporeans. We believe that the inclusivity and quality of growth should take precedence over headline quantitative growth as an end in itself. A strong Singapore is one where every citizen has a dignified livelihood and benefits meaningfully from progress. To be truly “We First”, we must build a more inclusive and compassionate society with stronger social safety nets, and ensure that no Singaporean is left behind.

Are socially-conscious enterprise hawker centres destroying our hawker culture?

Last month, veteran food critic KF Seetoh revealed that Canopy Hawkers Group, the operator of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, contractually required hawkers to provide free meals for low-income residents under a Pay-It-Forward scheme and budget meals at their own cost. Following public outcry, the clauses obligating hawkers to provide free meals were removed.

Since the socially-conscious enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) model was introduced in 2012, high costs and onerous contractual conditions have sparked repeated conflicts between hawkers and SEHC operators. Our then-NCMPs Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa had highlighted this when they raised a Motion in Parliament in November 2024 calling for a review of the Government’s policies relating to the management of hawker centres, which Parliament amended and unanimously passed.

Nonetheless, many problems remain. It is unclear why SEHC operators need to charge hawkers a $70 monthly fee to rent a mere 0.48 sq m of storage space, while turning average profits of $100,000 per year. Even though 50% of these profits are put back into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and/or their stallholders, such a system still effectively shifts the cost of promoting hawker culture onto hawkers.

It seems to be a recurring theme for the Government to shift costs onto hawkers. During the Parliamentary debate in November 2024, then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai pointed out that “the Government expects hawkers to provide cheap food as a safety net amidst the very high cost-of-living environment in Singapore”. Instead of the Government directly funding budget meals and free meals for low-income residents, it is the hawkers that are being asked, through the SEHC operators, to bear these costs. Is this fair to hawkers, many of whom are lower-income Singaporeans?

It has been almost a year since Parliament unanimously passed the amended Motion, which called on the Government to “continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres”. The recent Bukit Canberra saga shows the urgent need for the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres. We reiterate our proposal to phase out the SEHC model in favour of a new Government agency to manage all hawker centres in Singapore, which we proposed in Parliament last year. The Government should also pay for the discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders at hawker centres, if these discounts should continue, instead of expecting hawkers to bear the cost.

Our hardworking hawkers deserve far better support and fairer treatment.

Two days, two MRT breakdowns?

Two train disruptions were reported within the first two days of September 2025: one on the Circle Line (CCL) on 1 September and another on the North-South Line (NSL) on 2 September. These bring the total number of reported disruptions since the 6-day East-West Line (EWL) disruption in September 2024 to 34, with at least one every month in 2025. Train reliability has now fallen to its lowest since 2020. Disruption after disruption seems to be our new normal.

On 6 August 2025, Acting Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow promised improvements but maintained that “[t]rain delays cannot be eliminated entirely,” and only committed LTA to “conduct more regular exercises on how to support commuters in different service disruption scenarios.” It appears that the Government is managing the pain, not fixing the cause.

It is increasingly hard to believe that there is no systemic issue within SBS Transit and/or SMRT, when train disruptions have impacted every single MRT and LRT line this year. A Committee of Inquiry (COI) should be convened for a thorough and holistic examination into the causes of the train disruptions.

A COI after two major train breakdowns in December 2011 affecting over 200,000 commuters found that these disruptions could have been prevented with better maintenance. Could the same be true today? This question will remain unanswered for as long as the Government does not convene a COI, even though recent disruptions may have already impacted as many commuters as, if not more than, the 2011 breakdowns. We must not accept breakdowns as inevitable.

More can also be done to strengthen the resilience of our public transport network. For example, in October 2024, then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai called on the Government to introduce a network of long-distance, inter-town, skip-stop bus services. Such bus services would only stop at a few high-demand stops in each town throughout their entire routes to complement the MRT system in moving people between towns quickly. Regrettably, then-Senior Minister of State Amy Khor simply replied, rather bizarrely, that Mr Leong’s suggestion was “no different” from the Government’s existing plans.

We are not blaming anyone for the recent spate of breakdowns. Indeed, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the maintenance workers and service staff who work tirelessly to ensure that the public transport system continues to function. But we believe that Singaporeans deserve more transparency and accountability over public transport failings from the leaders of our public transport companies, the Land Transport Authority, and the Government.

Public transport is the only option to get around Singapore for many Singaporeans. The Government can and must do better.

Closure of The Projector - a canary in the coal mine?

The Projector, Singapore’s beloved indie theatre, closed without warning on 19 August 2025, citing rising operational costs and shifting audience habits.

This is a loss for Singapore. The Projector had been a cultural sanctuary, a gathering place for diverse communities, a hub for the city’s arts scene, and one of the few spaces in Singapore where alternative voices and underrepresented groups could find expression.

Less than two weeks after The Projector entered liquidation, so did Cathay Cineplexes. This reflects the harsh reality of operating in Singapore’s arts sector: if a commercial cinema chain with over eight decades of history and financial backing cannot survive, what more independent ones, which have to manage with even less resources while navigating censorship pressures?

In August 2023, then-NCMP Leong Mun Wai called on the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee to issue guidelines on annual rent increases for commercial properties, similar to how the National Wage Council issues guidelines on wage increases. We believe that such guidelines can prevent excessive rent increases from throttling smaller businesses like The Projector. Until the Government takes bolder action to rein in rents and lower operating costs for businesses, such closures will likely continue.

While we mourn its loss, The Projector’s closure should galvanize us to support the arts, stand behind alternative spaces, and support small businesses. Otherwise, we will be the poorer for it as a society.

Closure for the Bukit Gombak harassment incident?

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has concluded its investigation into the harassment incident involving PAP volunteers and PSP members and volunteers at Goodview Gardens on 4 January 2025. No charges will be filed in relation to this case. These include the allegations made by PAP officeholders that PSP members and volunteers had slapped, manhandled, and insulted their volunteers, and our PSP volunteer’s allegations that she was harassed and intimidated by PAP volunteers.

While we accept the conclusions made by the SPF and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and thank them for their efforts, we are disappointed that neither the SPF nor the AGC have chosen to release a full report on the outcome of Police investigations, which would have allowed “the whole truth to become public”, so that “the public can know what actually happened”, as Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling said in her Facebook post on the incident on 8 January 2025.

While we do not plan to pursue this matter further, closure of the case without providing a public report leaves many unanswered questions, which include:-

1. Whether PSP members and volunteers had engaged in physical violence; and

2. Whether PAP volunteers had engaged in harassing and/or intimidating behaviour.

Our full statement on the incident can be found here. Coverage on the incident in JOM can be found here, and in The Online Citizen here and here.

PSP On The Ground

In support of SG Clean Day on 31 August 2025, and as part of our commitment to sustainability and responsible stewardship of our environment, the PSP Youth Catalyst initiated a Park Clean-Up at West Coast Park.

Our youth members, led by CEC members Sani Ismail, Soh Zheng Long, and Stephanie Tan, spent their Sunday morning doing their bit to make West Coast Park a cleaner and greener space for the community. It was a meaningful act of service that allowed us to strengthen bonds between our volunteers at the same time!

We are excited to have you with us on this first issue of the digital version of The Palm by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP).

The Palm is PSP’s official newsletter, through which we hope to provide you with our perspectives on Singapore politics and policy, and keep you in the know of what we are doing on the ground. This is how we will continue to be a check and balance on the ruling party, together with you.

Every other Monday, we will send you a deep dive into the latest political developments in Singapore, inside and outside Parliament. In this issue, we will start by offering our perspectives on what was said (and not said) in PM Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally (“NDR”), and share what we have been up to since GE2025!

We hope you enjoy your read, and we look forward to hearing your views in the comments!

NDR 2025: Tough questions unanswered

PM Lawrence Wong devoted a significant portion of this year’s NDR to jobs and the economy. We welcome the measures announced to support Singaporean workers as Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) disrupts the job market for new graduates and older workers alike, such as more course offerings under the SkillsFuture Level Up programme and a new Graduate Industry Traineeship (GRIT) programme. However, we believe that more needs to be done to address the multi-faceted root causes of unemployment and underemployment in Singapore.

Unemployment and underemployment in Singapore are multi-faceted. Beyond the rise of AI, Singaporeans have been and are being displaced from their jobs due to different reasons. We believe that these causes fall under three broad categories:

(1) Transferring of jobs to citizens of other countries who come to Singapore for job opportunities.

(2) Offshoring of jobs to other countries with lower labour costs.

(3) Automation and AI making certain jobs redundant altogether.

Is SkillsFuture enough for older workers?

The Government’s main strategy to boost employability has been to encourage workers to upskill. Since 2015, the Government has invested billions to subsidise training through SkillsFuture. While the SkillsFuture Level Up programme launched in 2024 to support workers aged 40 and above is an improvement, real employability outcomes should be the ultimate indicator of the effectiveness of the programme.

Unemployment may not be alleviated by boosting the skills of workers alone if employers prioritise offshoring jobs to take advantage of lower labour costs over the skills of its employees, or to employ a citizen of another country in Singapore. An example of the former was when 80 Singapore-based Standard Chartered employees were retrenched in June 2025, and their jobs were offshored to India. If it is the latter, it may involve the displacement of a Singaporean worker and increase in social costs to maintain a non-Singaporean worker here.

For older workers, the key challenge may also lie not in upskilling, but possibly in overcoming entrenched age discrimination, which a recent IPS survey found to be a greater concern than racism or sexism. During the pandemic, nearly half of those aged over 40 who completed the SGUnited Skills (SGUS) and SGUnited Pathway Programmes – Company Training (SGUP-CT) remained jobless six months after upskilling themselves. This is a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed through active enforcement of the Workplace Fairness Act, to ensure that workers are not being discriminated against due to their age.

Traineeships, traineeships, and more traineeships for fresh graduates?

Another worrying trend is the lower rate of employment of fresh graduates.

The 2024 Graduate Employment Survey revealed some troubling figures. Only 79.5% of graduates secured a full-time job within six months, down from 84.1% in 2023. Polytechnic graduates fared worse, with only 54.6% securing full-time employment within six months, compared to 59.8% in 2023. Moreover, there is no further breakdown of the data on how many of these “full-time” roles are actually contract jobs of one year or more.

This rise in precarious employment, which encompasses part-time, freelance and gig work (and traineeships for that matter), has been linked to poorer mental health and delayed life decisions such as marriage and family. The decline in stable employment among young people is concerning given our already-low birth rate.

It is doubtful whether the new GRIT traineeships are sufficient to help younger Singaporeans. While traineeships were used to overcome severe but temporary job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic, today’s challenges are structural and long-term, with the IMF estimating that 38.6% of Singaporean jobs may be at high risk of AI automation. Furthermore, GRIT trainees will only receive a monthly allowance of $1,800 to $2,400. In an economic climate that emphasises cutting labour costs, the permanent availability of such low-paying traineeships could also possibly perversely incentivise companies to stop hiring full-time workers and rely on Government-subsidised trainees instead.

Will the Economic Resilience Taskforce answer the tough questions?

The Government has assembled an impressive Economic Resilience Taskforce, with five focus committees, four full ministers, and ten ministers of state to complete an economic strategic review by mid-2026. We hope that the Taskforce will conduct a deep re-evaluation of our economic structure, which may be what is needed to combat unemployment and underemployment caused by AI and offshoring.

Recent research has shown that blue-collar jobs requiring a physical presence or strong human interaction, such as nursing assistants or water treatment plant operators, are least likely to be disrupted by AI. Such jobs are also less likely to be offshored overseas. Yet, Singapore has for decades outsourced these jobs to lower-paid foreign workers. Can we restructure these blue-collar jobs to be more productive and better-paying, thereby becoming more attractive and viable career options for Singaporeans? If we look abroad, jobs like electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and technicians can be highly-trained and well-paying professions. We can explore how we can add more incentives to reward skilled tradesmen in our wage structure. The Government could also consider working with professional associations to enhance the prestige of these jobs.

We also need a serious review of our education system. Given that AI can now achieve feats beyond many humans, such as a gold medal in the International Mathematical Olympiad, it is ever more important for us to strengthen the skills that remain uniquely human, such as creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence, among our students. Besides a rethink of what we want and how to impart to our students, we also need to continue enhancing our highly regarded vocational education system as we push to professionalise blue-collar jobs to ensure that Singaporeans have multiple pathways to success.

Hopefully, the Taskforce will feel empowered by the PAP Government’s strong mandate in GE2025 to engage Singaporeans in these difficult but necessary conversations about the future of work. It is just not enough to simply repeat “jobs, jobs, and jobs” or “traineeships, traineeships, and traineeships”.

CDCs: the new Workforce Singapore to match jobs closer to homes?

PM Wong also announced that Community Development Councils (CDCs) will lead a new effort to match jobseekers with jobs nearer to where they live.

PSP supports this initiative. During GE2025, one of our candidates, Sani Ismail, advocated to bring new jobs to West Coast-Jurong West GRC so that more residents can work near where they live. This should be a priority, because it can provide Singaporeans with more job options, improve work-life balance, and reduce our carbon footprint as well. We hope the new CDC-led job matching approach will improve job opportunities for Singaporeans, especially closer to where they live.

We hope the CDCs will work with Workforce Singapore and the Ministry of Manpower to improve existing tools like MyCareersFuture, and enhance the job-seeking experience for Singaporeans, so that they can easily find jobs within reasonable commuting distance from their homes.

Can every Singaporean attain good health on their own?

At the NDR, PM Wong also encouraged Singaporeans to “watch what we eat”, “cut back on excessive sugar and salt”, and “exercise regularly”. However, the harsh reality is that these “simple” habits may be out of reach for many Singaporeans.

For example, processed foods like instant noodles, white bread, and luncheon meat may be the only affordable food options for low-income Singaporeans. While budget meals at hawker centres are affordable, they may not provide balanced nutrition, as they are often laden with carbohydrates or omit more expensive proteins such as meat. As for exercise, it may be difficult for working Singaporeans to find the energy or motivation to do so due to long working hours. Singaporeans work 44.6 hours per week, among the highest in the world. These systemic barriers cannot be overcome by individual willpower alone.

While we support the Government’s Healthier SG and Age Well SG initiatives to ensure that Singaporeans can age well with longer health-spans, we believe the Government can enact broader structural changes to create an environment that is conducive for Singaporeans to stay in good health for their entire lives. The Government should consider implementing our GE2025 manifesto proposals to increase wages and improve work-life balance. These include enacting a minimum living wage of $2,250 per month, adding 3 more public holidays, and reducing the statutory weekly number of working hours from 44 to 40 hours. To achieve real progress in Singaporeans’ health, we need a human-centric socio-economic system that empowers Singaporeans to live healthier lives across all income levels.

All in all, SG60 is a good opportunity for Singaporeans to reflect as a nation about what we are currently facing and where we are heading. We believe that all Singaporeans should be informed about the issues that affect our lives and livelihoods and participate in the national conversation. We at the PSP will continue to work with Singaporeans in speaking up on policy matters and push for a better, more compassionate, and more equitable Singapore.

PSP On The Ground

As Singapore celebrated its 60th birthday, PSP joined Singaporeans on the ground to show our love for our country.

On 2 August, volunteers and members of our Central Executive Committee (CEC) greeted residents with mini national flags at Teck Whye and Taman Jurong, including our Secretary-General Leong Mun Wai, as well as our newly co-opted CEC members Stephanie Tan, Lawrence Pek and Sani Ismail, all of whom were first-time candidates at GE2025 in May this year.

On National Day, residents of Jurong Spring were pleasantly surprised by concurrent flag distribution efforts by both PSP’s Leong Mun Wai and Sani Ismail, as well as the PAP’s Dr Hamid Razak at 505 Jurong West Market.

Regardless of our political differences, we are united by our commitment to serving all Singaporeans!

Not far from Boon Lay, Stephanie Tan also walked the grounds of Pioneer along with members of our Youth Wing.

PSP is excited to continue our groundwork and we hope to meet more residents soon. Please keep an eye out for many more initiatives to come, and do join us in serving our people together. You can sign up as a volunteer here!