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

“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.”