by

August 5, 2026

No comments

9 minutes

Read Time

Singapore

Parliament backs amended WP motion on Singapore’s future economy after 9-hour debate; WP MPs record dissent

The motion was passed with four amendments after a debate involving 24 MPs, including four political office holders.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Fabian Koh

Read a summary of this article on FAST.

Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.

Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST

FAST

SINGAPORE: Parliament on Wednesday (Aug 5) voted in favour of an amended motion calling for a more equal and inclusive economy in Singapore with a place for both local companies and global enterprises.

The original motion, tabled by Workers’ Party (WP) MPs Kenneth Tiong (WP-Aljunied) and Jamus Lim (WP-Sengkang), had called for an economy of the future that works for all Singaporeans and presented the opposition party’s vision for such a future and its own economic playbook.

Mr Edward Chia (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) proposed to amend it to reflect that the motion’s aspirations are aligned with the government’s Economic Strategy Review (ESR) and not pursued in spite of it, while recognising the role that global enterprises play in Singapore’s future economy.

The final version sought that “this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes in a more equal and inclusive economy, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to experiment, households and businesses to succeed, workers to thrive, and ideas and innovation to flourish; and in an economy powered by dynamic local companies, global enterprises, healthy domestic and external demand, and Singaporeans and Singaporean capital venturing abroad”.

Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time

Buzzword
Create words using the given letters

Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser

Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge

Word Search
Spot as many words as you can

Show Less

It was passed after a nine-hour debate, which saw 24 MPs speak, including four political office holders and nine WP MPs.

In the end, all 12 opposition MPs voted against the amendment that aligned the motion with the ESR, and against the amended motion as a whole.

The Nominated MPs present in the House voted fully in favour of the amended motion, with a total of five speaking during the debate.

AMENDED MOTION

During the debate, Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) Tan See Leng said the amended motion “captures the full combination Singapore needs”.

“These are mutually reinforcing parts of one united economic strategy,” he said, using a Chinese saying to exemplify the notion that the right timing, opportunity, place and people are elements often cited as requirements for success.

The government will play its part to maintain a trusted and open economy, invest for the long term, address genuine capability, financing and market-access gaps, and help workers prepare for change, said Dr Tan.

“Others must play their parts. Businesses must transform and invest in people, workers must keep learning, investors take informed risks, and entrepreneurs build, compete, persevere and accept the responsibility,” he said.

While the government “cannot guarantee that every venture will succeed, every job will remain the same, or every transition will be painless”, it can ensure that “Singapore remains a place where every person has a fair chance to try, a pathway to progress, and the support to recover from setbacks”, said Dr Tan.

“Our beloved Singapore’s success has never been guaranteed. Every generation had to build it – by staying open, learning faster, taking calculated risks, and pulling together when circumstances became difficult,” he said.

“The next chapter will demand the same spirit. The economy of the future will not be powered by one type of company, one source of demand or one government programme. It will be powered by all fellow Singaporeans who can build, lead, own, innovate, adapt and grow.”

“That is how we will secure the best future for Singapore. And that is how we will ensure that Singapore’s future economy truly works for all Singaporeans.”

In his closing speech, Mr Tiong explained why the WP cannot accept the first of the four amendments proposed by Mr Chia.

The change was to replace “notwithstanding” the ESR suggestions to “in line with” the ESR.

In his view, Mr Tiong said the ESR is “short of report cards and targets”, adding that there has not been a consolidated report card for any of the PAP government’s past economic blueprints.

“Separate the rhetoric about promises kept from measurable outcomes. Untracked, consistency is indistinguishable from repetition. Surely, in spite of the uncertainties, there are macroeconomic targets beyond top-line growth that we can commit to,” he said.

He said that MPs who support the review because they want a more equal and inclusive economy and an engine driven by dynamic local companies, already believe in the WP’s original motion.

“These are the ends the review is meant to serve. Voting for the motion says that and nothing more. It does not criticise the review and binds no one to our proposals,” said Mr Tiong.

“Our motion asks this house to commit to principles. The amendment asks it to commit to one set of operational plans.”

COMMON GROUND AND DIFFERENCES

In his speech, Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow, who is also Second Minister for Finance and co-chairs the Economic Strategy Review committee on global competitiveness, said he “found agreement with quite a few of the Workers’ Party’s economic ideas”, including how to better support SMEs and startups and build a stronger base of local companies.

“These goals are not in dispute, and the ESR report sets out specific recommendations, whether on more broad-based support for overseas expansion, or nurturing the next generation of Singapore global enterprises,” he said.

“While we can debate the details, it is clear that the suggestions from the Workers’ Party are not so much a different economic playbook, but instead very much in line with the direction of the ESR. So we have considerable common ground.”

However, one significant difference between both parties is in how they understand Singapore’s economic model, said Mr Siow.

“From the speeches I have heard, the Workers’ Party appears to believe that Singapore’s economic model is imbalanced and needs to be fundamentally reoriented. They have portrayed Singapore as a place where MNCs create wealth, and there’s some Faustian bargain where SMEs are held down, and Singaporeans receive the benefits through redistribution,” he said.

“I disagree with this characterisation, and this is not an academic disagreement, but one that is crucial to the policies that we will pursue. If the original diagnosis or assumption is wrong, the proposed remedy will send us in the wrong direction. The wrong medication may cause us even more harm than good.”

He cited Mr Tiong’s claim that the government has a universal land pricing model, and said it is “simply untrue”.

The WP MP had said in his speech that the government took such an approach for pricing land, and called for it to stop treating market land value as the natural price for every socially productive use of land.

To this, Mr Siow said Singapore’s framework is already differentiated, with land priced differently at fair market value based on its intended use, such as residential, commercial, industrial, community, educational or religious purposes.

“Now we can debate whether there is sufficient flexibility in the current framework, and whether there could be or should be further differentiation. But that is quite different from suggesting that the current framework is fundamentally flawed. On the contrary, our clear and transparent framework ensures responsible stewardship of our limited land resources,” he said.

In response, Mr Tiong pointed to the lack of measurable targets in the government’s past economic reviews, adding that the government “maybe has become a little bit averse to being measured”.

While the ESR report introduced the issue of artificial intelligence (AI), that is a “new exogenous factor that all countries must react to”, he said. “Adding new chapters and footnotes to an existing playbook does not make a new playbook,” he added.

Mr Tiong said there was a lack of details from the government about what the next level of economic targets are beyond top-line growth targets.

“The government wants us to react swiftly once the monitoring alarms are triggered. The review says so itself on AI and workers. It recommends monitoring the impact closely and adjusting policies where needed,” said Mr Tiong, adding that reacting swiftly is the basic expectation of any government.

To this, Mr Siow said that he had not heard a “great big idea” that would replace the ESR, from the WP MPs in their speeches during Wednesday’s debate.

“In fact, I see it very much as the Workers’ Party’s idea building on what the ESR has recommended. In fact, Mr Tiong himself during, I think, a press briefing, said that they were filling the gaps of what the ESR has set out,” said the minister.

He said that both sides were actually working towards the same goals and objectives, barring some differences in the details.

“Most importantly, we are in a very difficult world, a world where external competition has become stiffer. I think it is better for us to see if we can look for areas of commonality, areas where we are aligned, areas where this House can present a common front to Singaporeans,” he said.

“Better for us to be able to push together, rather than look for differences that perhaps don’t exist and find a wedge to drive into gaps where we do not see.”

Source: CNA/fb(nj)

Inbox