Economic debate yields broad consensus and adds to ongoing discussion on the Opposition’s role

SINGAPORE – Nine hours of debate between the PAP and the WP on Aug 5 produced more consensus than conflict on the future of Singapore’s economy.

More than 20 MPs spoke on a motion tabled by WP’s Kenneth Tiong (Aljunied GRC), which called on the House to affirm the need for a more inclusive economy and how to drive such an economy.

The two parties reached broad agreement on a host of issues, such as the economic structure and what support workers need, after the WP accepted three out of four amendments that a PAP MP proposed to its motion.

Going forward, contestation will be on how those things get done – and over a deeper question the WP raised: Whether it should be Parliament, not the Government, that sets Singapore’s economic direction.

The discussion centred on a few main themes, including the place of multinational companies (MNCs) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the economy, and how to protect workers in the face of disruption from artificial intelligence.

Much of the debate focused on the structure of the economy and how much it should be driven by either MNCs or SMEs.

The PAP argued that MNCs remain vital to the economy, characterising the WP’s position as anti-MNC.

Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow said the WP had portrayed Singapore as a place where “MNCs create wealth, and there is some ‘Faustian bargain’ where SMEs are held down, and Singaporeans receive the benefits through redistribution”.

Of the four amendments to the motion that PAP backbencher Edward Chia proposed as part of his party’s response, one inserted “global enterprises” alongside local companies into a line describing how the economy should be powered.

He argued that the two are not competing choices.

Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) and Tiong subsequently clarified that the WP was not proposing a zero-sum shift away from MNCs.

Both parties landed on a consensus that MNCs and trade remain vital to Singapore’s next phase of growth, though Tiong said in closing that the WP sought an evolution towards younger local firms and away from how dominant MNCs and government-linked companies are in the economy.

On the topic of labour disruption – a subject that has dominated sittings in this term of Government so far – both parties also agreed that more must be done to protect workers.

WP chief Pritam Singh and Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied GRC) argued for legislating mandatory or minimum retrenchment benefits.

At the same time, PAP labour MP Patrick Tay said he lobbied in the House for the past decade to further strengthen the retrenchment protection regime.

The Government agreed with this need, but said it would consult employers and unions before deciding how to do so.

Instead, parties disagreed on solutions.

On the subject of retrenchment support, for example, the policies both parties argued for differed in design rather than intent. Both sides concurred that people who lose their jobs need more support – but differed on how support should be delivered.

The WP argued that its proposed redundancy insurance, which anyone who is retrenched would qualify for, offers better protection than the Government’s SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme.

The Government countered that its approach has always been to support re-employment, not unemployment.

As the Government moves to implement its plans from the Economic Strategy Review (ESR) report released in June, these areas of policy implementation will likely face continued contestation from the WP.

Beyond sparring with the ruling party on policy, the WP advanced an ongoing discussion on the role of the Opposition through its motion – the party’s first large policy statement of this term of Parliament, with its MPs seeking to collectively build an alternative vision for Singapore.

It was a response, albeit not directly, to a gauntlet laid down by the PAP late in 2025.

Coordinating Minister for Social Policies Ong Ye Kung had, at the opening of Parliament, challenged the WP to provide such alternative visions instead of tweaking at the edges of policy. He framed doing so as necessary for Singapore’s political development.

WP leaders said then that the party would focus on its long-held goal of being a check on the Government.

The WP has not framed the motion as an explicit response to Ong, and at a press briefing before the sitting, Tiong said the party was tabling it as part of its MPs’ responsibilities as elected representatives.

Both sides moved to frame the outcome. After the debate, Tiong posted on social media a list of the policy ideas the party had raised during the debate, in a counter to Siow’s statement that he had not heard a “great big idea” to replace the ESR.

But to the PAP, the WP’s differences on policy may not be enough to constitute a different vision for the country. Siow made the point in Parliament that he saw the WP’s proposals as building on the ESR.

The minister ended by urging the House to present “a common front” rather than “look for differences that perhaps don’t exist”.

How the public receives these arguments and decides to measure the opposition party’s performance will count at the next general election, and going by Siow’s response, the PAP will likely continue this line of argument against the WP.

The WP eventually disagreed with the first amendment proposed by Chia and dissented to the amended motion.

The amendment replaced the word “notwithstanding” with the phrase “in line with” in the motion’s first line.

The amended line read: “That this House, in line with the suggestions in the Economic Strategy Review on the future Singapore economy, believes:”, followed by two statements on how the economy should be more equal and inclusive, and how it should be powered.

Tiong argued that the change turned the whole sentence around and said his party did not want the ESR to be treated as the whole of the House’s thinking on the economy.

In doing so, the WP asked a deeper question – whether it should be Parliament, not the Government, that defines the principles of economic strategy.

The word “notwithstanding” in the motion meant that Parliament’s commitments were neither exhausted by the ESR nor derived from it, he said.

In short, Tiong was saying that the House should be able to commit to economic principles without them flowing from a plan by the Government’s executive branch.

Chia said, after tabling his amendments, that the ESR was not just a government document but the result of wide consultation with businesses, unions and workers – framing it as a national consensus.

But whether and how the Opposition gets a say on such national policy is the live issue that remains.