SPEECH BY MINISTER ONG YE KUNG, AT THE DEBATE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH, PARLIAMENT

Mr Deputy Speaker

1.             I rise in support of the motion.

2.             At each opening of Parliament after a General Election, it is customary for the People's Action Party (PAP) government to reflect on our continuing political journey, what the people have told us with their votes. We then take stock of where we are, and what we need to do from here.

3.             This is what I will do today.

GE2025 and its Implications

4.             General Election (GE) 2025 was held against a global backdrop of war and uncertainty. It was also the first GE since the leadership transition. The stakes were therefore very high – as the outcome would shape how Singapore responds to the challenges ahead; and would set the tone for our politics over the next five years.

5.             It was a hard-fought election. In the end, Singaporeans made a decisive choice. Singaporeans gave the PAP a clear mandate to govern. We held our ground and increased our vote share from 2020.

6.             At the same time, the Workers’ Party (WP) consolidated their ground in the constituencies they won in 2020, and increased their representation in Parliament by gaining two Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seats.

7.             We are witnessing first-hand this outcome reflected in the Chamber today. The PAP, with a decisive majority, and in a position to act fast and adapt to changes in our environment, for the benefit of Singaporeans. And at the same time, the WP is now the only opposition party in Parliament, with a sizeable presence to provide a check on the ruling party.

8.             This is the outcome Singaporeans chose. Voters have clear expectations of the role they want each party to play: The PAP, as the government they want; and the WP, as the opposition they want. Each party now has the important task of fulfilling the roles the electorate expects of us.

9.             How we perform our respective roles will influence our nation’s political development. This is just as critical as economic or social development.

10.          Because having the right politics that preserves our values, and maintains trust in the system of governance, is essential. It helps keep our social order intact, and allows individuals and communities to flourish. Without the right politics, our society will be broken, and no amount of economic growth or government programmes will be able to put things right.

11.          What is right for Singapore? And how should we, as elected representatives, do right by Singapore and Singaporeans? As we reflect on GE2025, these are my key takeaways, and there are four.

Desire for Stability

12.          First, GE2025 showed that Singaporeans value a stable and effective government that will safeguard our well-being. The uncertain global and economic environment was undoubtedly on Singaporeans’ minds when we went to the polls.

13.          Voters therefore leaned towards stability, choosing a government with a proven track record of steering the country through crises. We did so after September 11, the Global Financial Crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

14.          Given the global circumstances, I believe Singaporeans also want a government that not just takes care of domestic concerns, but also defends Singapore’s interests on the global stage, ensuring that Singapore stands tall amongst the community of nations.

15.          We – on this side of the House – therefore cannot be complacent. We will continue to step up our efforts to engage Singaporeans, understand the people’s concerns, and address them. We will uphold the PAP’s ethos, and always think and plan long-term, to serve the current and future generations of Singaporeans.

A Judicious Balance

16.          The second lesson is that our political system is still evolving. The GE2025 results show that Singaporeans want the PAP to remain in government, and to act decisively for Singapore. At the same time, the people also want an opposition in Parliament, as an alternative voice, and to provide a check on the government.

17.          Let me share a story. Not long after the GE, I went to a coffee shop and queued up for ‘tze char’. After I ordered, I chatted with fellow patrons, a middle-aged couple. They turned out to be my residents and they said “we live in Sembawang too”. We had a good chat, they were very friendly to me, and they said that opposite our house is Bukit Canberra there is a wonderful swimming pool, polyclinic and hawker centre. Finally, when they got their food and they were leaving, they said to me “Minister, I want to tell you that we did not vote for you because we have got to give the opposition a chance”. After all that friendly talk.

18.          That is the reality the PAP is facing. We may work hard, deliver for residents, who may even say they like us. Yet they vote for the opposition, while expecting that the PAP will still be returned to government.

19.          Voters like this couple did not form the majority in Sembawang during GE2025. If their numbers had been bigger, I might not be standing here today. Neither will Mariam.

20.          The PAP understands and accepts our voters’ desires for an opposition. That is why after GE2020, then-Prime Minister Lee formalised the position of the Leader of the Opposition. In GE2025, even before the campaign began, we said that the chances of an opposition wipeout were zero.

21.          We were right. The election outcome suggests that Singaporeans are judiciously balancing between having PAP as government and an opposition presence as a check and balance. Calls for one-third of the seats to be held by opposition did not sway voters. The WP in fact deliberately chose to contest fewer than one-third of the seats. I do not think this was solely for lack of suitable candidates. It was a considered, strategic decision, reading the mood of the electorate.

22.          Collectively, Singaporeans decided to maintain the Parliamentary composition of the previous term. I infer that voters must have felt that it worked well for Singapore in the previous term of government. After all, with a decisive majority, the PAP attended to important matters of state and could guide Singapore through a devastating pandemic crisis. On issues such as cost of living, the opposition amplified ground concerns in Parliament. Each played the role the public expected.

23.          Through GE2025, I believe voters are saying to us “Make this composition work for Singapore once again”.

24.          Any future shift from this current composition will no doubt be carefully weighed by Singaporeans. Voters’ judgement will depend on many factors such as the quality of the candidates on both sides; the performance of the PAP as the ruling party in leading the country, our sensitivity and response to ground concerns; the performance of the WP as a responsible opposition voice, as they characterise themselves; and the standards of honesty and integrity displayed by both parties.

25.          This is a dynamic balance; it is not fixed in stone. It is quite possible other opposition parties besides the WP will come in the next time. They certainly are working hard to remain players. This is part of our political evolution.

Keeping Populism at Bay

26.          The third lesson is that Singaporeans continue to be moderate and pragmatic in our political philosophy. Voters expect our politics and politicians to reflect that.

27.          Significantly, we did not see the surge in populism that has occurred in many countries. To be clear, every politician hopes to be popular. However, populism is an entirely different thing.

28.          Populists tend to employ an “us versus them” framing which pits one group against another. They gain support by presenting themselves as champions of “the people”, standing up against the elites, institutions, or outsiders.

29.          Further, populists offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, and appeal mostly to emotions. Upon closer scrutiny, people will realise these simplistic solutions do not work. But when people are disillusioned and disgruntled, they hope for a silver bullet and they may give these simplistic solutions a chance.

30.          Across the world, we have seen the rise of populism. It can be on the extreme left or right. For example, left-wing populism has a long history in Argentina. Heavy taxes on the rich and on businesses to fund social spending, and a fight for labour rights.

31.          There is nothing inherently wrong with those positions and policies. But when pushed to the extreme, businesses in Argentina prefer to set up elsewhere, jobs are destroyed, confidence evaporates, the currency collapses, and the economy goes into a tailspin. In the end, the workers and ordinary people are the ones who suffer. This has happened to Argentina many times over the decades, but the populist movement persists in the country.

32.          More common now is far-right populism, often attributed to higher levels of immigration. We see it in the US, Europe, UK, Australia, and even Japan. When the population starts to feel uncomfortable with the size of the inflow of immigrants, far-right politicians seize the opportunity to stoke nativist and anti-immigrant sentiments.

33.          Populism takes societies on the road to ruin – creating irreconcilable rifts between communities, and fuelling xenophobia and racism. With no consideration for the long-term consequences or broader impact on society, eventually, either the fiscal system goes broke, or society breaks apart.

34.          Let’s not think Singapore is immune to populism. We have witnessed populism in this Chamber too. Soon after GE2020, there were allegations by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) that our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India – the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) - allowed professionals from India ‘a free hand’ to come work in Singapore, and that was the cause of the employment challenges faced by Singaporean professionals.

35.          It was a seductive and simplistic argument, which took on an ugly racial tone. CECA-themed websites sprouted, filled with disturbing xenophobic views. Minister Shanmugam called out the behaviour in Parliament. As a former trade negotiator, I knew that the allegations were false and volunteered to deliver a Ministerial Statement on how FTA works, to debate the PSP, and clear the air. Minister Tan See Leng then explained what the government was doing to address the concerns of Singaporean workers, which were not caused by our FTAs.

36.          More constructive engagement helps build up our defences against populism. But the best defence against populism is for the people to reject it. To our great relief, that was what happened during GE2025. No party or candidate won any seat by proposing unsustainable social welfare programmes, tearing down institutions, or by stoking anti-foreigner sentiments. Instead, our better angels prevailed.

37.          But we must understand this: populism does not appear out of nowhere. It arises from genuine, understandable concerns among the people – over the inequality they see in society, or excessive competition for jobs and space from foreigners.

38.          Hence, the seeds of populism exist in every society. The question is whether these seeds are allowed to take root and grow. Anyone who peddles soft, partial truths, and easy but incomplete solutions waters these seeds; anyone who refuses the hard cognitive work of formulating rational policies provides fertile ground for these seeds.

39.          The PAP government’s job is to be keenly aware of what Singaporeans may be concerned about, address these concerns early, openly, and sensibly, and not let them fester and turn into something ugly that feeds populism. We did that hard work during the last term of government, and we will continue to do so.

40.          I should also add that although we kept populism at bay during GE2025, we came dangerously close when race and religion got mixed with politics. The Prime Minister himself had to call this out in the middle of the campaign. If things had played out differently, there would have been dire and lasting implications for the unity, harmony, and very fabric of Singaporean society. We will have more to say about this later in this Debate.

Substance and Standards Matter

41.          The final lesson from this GE is that Singaporeans are holding political parties to higher standards. This includes demanding more substantive information and arguments during an election.

42.          Digital media is here to stay. It has led to a torrent of memes and attention-grabbing short videos popping up online. Many offer nothing beyond a moment of entertainment or an emotional outlet. Some amount of such froth and frivolity is unavoidable during election season.

43.          But I do not think that the average voter has therefore become frivolous as a result. On the contrary, Singaporeans are becoming more discerning, demanding quality information on policies put forth by various parties.

44.          The fact that Singaporeans take their duty as voters seriously was particularly apparent during GE2025, when voters attended rallies or watched them online. Many turned to long-form podcasts, invested time to listen to candidates’ motivations and opinions, and left thoughtful comments and suggestions for candidates to consider.

45.          Voters showed us that they are not easily persuaded by slogans or catchy phrases alone. They carefully weighed in-depth opinions and substantive explanations of policy proposals; while populist and simplistic proposals were treated with suspicion.

46.          This willingness to take the time and trouble over political issues that we saw emerge during GE2025 may well be the defining characteristic of the Singaporean voter, but it cannot be taken for granted.

47.          Shortly after the hustings, the Leader of the Opposition appeared on a podcast with Keluar Sekejap in Malaysia, and said that the PAP avoided engaging on difficult issues during the campaign.

48.          I have a different view from Mr Singh. In fact, I think there was substantive discourse during the GE2025 campaign. When the issue of GST came up again during the GE, PM repeated the reasons for the increase. Ministers spoke at rallies and went on podcasts to further explain our policy positions.

49.          The fact that the subject of GST did not catch fire during the campaign does not mean there was no discourse. It means that the PAP’s explanations went at least some way to soothe people’s natural unhappiness over a tax increase.

50.          Hence, more importantly, political discourse should not just happen during election campaigns. A hallmark of good governance is sustaining it throughout the term. And we have been engaging Singaporeans in and outside of this House on issues such as housing, cost of living, and immigration. The WP themselves participated actively when we had debates in this Chamber.

51.          As politics in Singapore matures, this is what Singaporeans expect. They want to hear different perspectives, and see a contest of good ideas, so that the best ones can be used to take Singapore forward. This is a much more meaningful discourse.

52.          This is why alternative visions and pathways matter. The PAP has its set of governing principles and policies to take Singapore forward. Opposition parties can play an important role by setting out their long-term ideas, presenting clear alternative visions for governance, and outlining the pathways and policies to get there.

53.          For alternatives to be meaningful, they must go beyond tweaking at the margins of government proposals, or simply jumping on the bandwagon every time an issue goes viral. Singaporeans want to see clear, well-considered visions that allow them to weigh real choices about our nation’s future.

54.          We see this dynamic institutionalised in other mature democracies. In the UK, the Tories were in favour of Brexit; while Labour was pro-EU. There was a referendum; the Tories won. In Germany, the Christian Democratic Union is more conservative; the Social Democratic Party leans towards social spending; while the Greens champion environmental sustainability. In the US, the Republicans traditionally favour low taxes and a small government; Democrats, the opposite.

55.          These distinct futures entail very different sets of policies. Such as how government taxes and spends, how it grows the economy and creates jobs, tackles inequality, brings about greater social mobility, or protects the environment. Different political parties ought to make clear these differences in their pitch to voters.

56.          The WP has perhaps done this from time to time. For example, calling for zero growth in the number of foreign workers as opposed to a controlled inflow; or their preference for other forms of direct taxes instead of the broad-based GST; or spending more of the income from reserves on the current generation of Singaporeans, instead of an equal apportionment between current and future generations, which is the PAP’s position.

57.          The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned in a podcast, I heard, and has described Singapore as a ‘1.5 party system’ with WP as the ‘0.5’. I feel that if the WP is positioning itself as the ‘0.5’ in a ‘1.5 party system’, I think it needs to present a principled, consistent, and coherent approach to the main challenges facing Singapore.

58.          In a maturing democracy, voters deserve and want more than positions that agree with the PAP’s policies in general but suggest ‘let’s do a little more’, or offer something that appears to be more generous, more compassionate, and yet requires fewer hard choices. This falls short of being a real alternative. A real alternative promises gains with accompanying trade-offs, so that voters can make informed decisions and not be lulled into comforting illusions. The PAP, for example, we say, we must continue to fund healthcare with an ageing population. To afford that, GST has got to go up. That is a real proposal.

59.          In a mature democracy, these are the kinds of issues that should form the substance of political debate. It should be a design feature, not a bug.

60.          That way, a vote for the PAP is not just a vote for a government that is decisive and nimble, but also an endorsement of the PAP’s principles and tried and tested methods of governance. A vote for the opposition is not just a vote for checks and balances, but also the policies and directions that will follow from that vote.

61.          I should further underscore that each vote is also an endorsement of the character and commitment of the candidates standing behind the party’s banner. This is how our democracy should work. And if voters vote wisely, this is how we can continue to strengthen trust, accountability and good governance in Singapore.

Politics for the Long-Term Good

62.          Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, in the lead-up to and during the hustings, I appeared as a guest on several podcasts. On one of them, the host asked me in all seriousness: “Why can’t the political parties just get along? Someone comes with a good idea, you say, ‘Hey, that’s a good idea, let’s work on it together.’ Why can’t you do that?”.

63.          My response to him was along the following lines. I am elaborating a little more today.

64.          Humans are the only living things capable of living in large and complex societies, where different groups with diverse, sometimes diametrically opposed interests, aspirations, and affiliations can co-exist peacefully. One might hope that such harmony be a perpetual state of affairs.

65.          But harmony is never guaranteed. In fact, in earlier civilisations, humans formed tribes and kingdoms to compete against and kill one another. Tragically, this is still happening in some societies today.

66.          Our ability to co-exist in complex societies rests primarily on good governance. In societies with the right preconditions, democracy plays a big part. Various groups find their representation in political parties which then contest elections. The winners secure a mandate to govern in line with the vision and plans that they campaigned on.

67.          Not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but in a mature democracy, the minority will accept what the majority have chosen. The majority will also make compromises so that the minority can better accept the outcomes.

68.          As for the parties that lost, they will bide their time, and hope to topple the winner in the next electoral cycle.

69.          This is how a democracy works. What would have been brutal wars and bloodshed amongst competing factions is now replaced by political debate and a democratic contest between political parties. Better jaw-jaw than war-war. Contest, debate, compromises, and political parties trying to outdo each other are therefore inherent to our society and system of governance.

70.          It was a serious response to a serious question on a podcast. My hosts made light of it, but I think they were disappointed, even worried.

71.          They may have good cause to be. We have seen, elsewhere, how political contestation has hardened into divisive politics often tied to identity, and driven deep wedges between communities. Voters and politicians alike take increasingly polarised positions. Politics then turns into an all-out struggle. The result is entrenched division and lasting discord.

72.          But this need not be the inevitable outcome of political contest. The true test of a good system of governance lies in its ability to hold a diverse society together despite disagreements, thereby strengthening unity and cohesion. To do this, society must get its politics right.

73.          All of us in this Parliament have a role to play, by conducting ourselves in a manner worthy of the trust Singaporeans have placed in us. I have gone through my takeaways from GE2025, to remind us of what these roles are.

74.          To my fellow Singaporeans, I say: Continue to be discerning, demanding of information, insights, and alternative visions and pathways for the nation, so that collectively, we can decide the kind of future we want, and who best to lead us there.

75.          To my fellow MPs, I say: Address the needs of our residents at the local level; discharge our roles as legislators in this Chamber; and most importantly, perform our duties with integrity and with honour.

76.          As for the PAP, the ruling party, we will always strive to address issues that are of deep concern to Singaporeans. We commit ourselves to be a government for all Singaporeans, including those who did not vote for us, like the couple I met at the ‘tze char’ stall, including those who are too young to vote, and including future generations yet to be born.

77.          We must uphold the principles of governance that brought us here. We must recognise the trade-offs in every policy move, and carefully balance the various considerations and then explain to the people our decision. Above all, we must always think long term for Singapore.

78.          And as for the WP, I hope you are, as you have described yourself, a loyal and responsible opposition, deserving of your significant presence in Parliament. That means remaining loyal to Singapore, to our people, and to the national values that have brought us peace, stability, and progress over the last sixty years.

79.          As the sole Opposition party in Parliament, the WP must justify its standing and develop its own alternative vision, policies, and pathways for Singapore. An alternative path and vision are the essence of democratic discourse, and also what a more discerning and informed populace expects to see.

80.          And there are some cardinal rules that all political parties must abide by, whether in or out of Parliament.

81.          Integrity in politics is crucial, on both sides of the aisle. Singaporeans have come to expect high standards of honesty and accountability from the government and the governing party. These same standards must apply to opposition parties, particularly those which present themselves as a serious alternative. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, the same standards must be upheld, both by the persons themselves, and by the public.

82.          Unfortunately, from time to time, we will have members that commit acts that are unethical, even illegal. Human nature being what it is, no political party is immune to that. But when that happens, how we respond as a political party matters. We need to acknowledge the shortcomings, take decisive actions, take responsibility, reflect and do what is necessary to prevent future occurrences. We have an overriding duty to preserve the integrity of our institutions, and of the political system as a whole.

83.          The President also spoke about needing to prioritise our unity and resisting any politics that seeks to divide Singapore and Singaporeans.

84.          Regardless of which side of the House we sit on, we must never allow foreign actors to influence what is for Singaporeans to decide. We must not exploit foreign controversies for domestic political advantage; nor allow foreigners to exploit our domestic politics to drive a wedge in our society.

85.          We must protect our common space. Reject populism. Never pit one group against another; nor sacrifice the common good for narrow interests or short-term political gains.

86.          I hope everyone in this Chamber will agree with what I just outlined.

87.          It is my sincere wish that both sides of this House will come together in this long-term endeavour to forge a strong system of governance for Singapore and all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion, or political affiliation.

88.          Only then can politics truly serve the greater good of our country. Only then will we continue to draw strength from our diversity, as we always have so far. That is, and must remain, our unique Singapore advantage. That way, Singapore will be better governed than most. We will stand tall in the world. We will remain proud to be Singaporeans – who sing the same national anthem, recite the same pledge, and call this little red dot home. And we will know, deep in our hearts, that we are unbreakable as one people

89.          Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.