PAP, WP continue to clash over opposition party’s economic proposals

SINGAPORE – The debate between the ruling PAP and the WP over the opposition party’s economic proposals has continued online following criticism by former senior minister of state Lee Yi Shyan.

In a Facebook post on Aug 16, Lee said the Workers’ Party seemed to present a fundamentally different approach from the Government in a motion in Parliament on Aug 5. The WP had tabled a motion on the future of Singapore’s economy and its MPs sought to present the party’s alternative “economic playbook” for the country.

“But look more closely and there is often no coherent, consistent and well-grounded plan behind its alternatives. This is not serious policy debate. It is political opportunism,” said Lee, who was Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry from 2012 to 2015. He retired from politics before the 2020 General Election.

His post was shared by sitting ministers such as K. Shanmugam, Chee Hong Tat and Ng Chee Meng. Shanmugam said the WP had put forward its views on the economy and then changed positions while Chee said he agreed fully with Lee’s views.

Lee’s comments drew a response from WP MPs Kenneth Tiong and Jamus Lim, who moved the motion.

Tiong, who is an MP for Aljunied GRC, responded in social media posts on Aug 16 and said that Lee had mischaracterised the WP’s arguments and presented a “false binary” of the trade-offs involved.

A central contention between the PAP and the WP during the debate on the motion was the opposition party’s position on the role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in Singapore’s economy.

Lee, in his post, said Tiong had called for an economic engine driven by dynamic local companies and healthy domestic demand, while Lim had said Singapore should “wean ourselves” from foreign MNC-led growth and “pivot towards small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as our home-grown economic engine”.

Lee said he was “taken aback” by these arguments, and while Singapore wants dynamic local companies and healthy domestic demand, neither can substitute for foreign investment and global markets.

He added that as the debate progressed, the WP’s arguments were put to the test and both Tiong and Lim “eventually backed down”, and the WP accepted the PAP’s amendments to the motion affirming the importance of both global companies and local enterprises, and both external and domestic demand.

The WP on Aug 5 accepted three of four amendments tabled by PAP backbencher Edward Chia, but eventually voted against the amended motion after dissenting to the first amendment which aligned the motion to the Government’s Economic Strategy Review.

Tiong said on Aug 16 that the WP did not suggest choosing between local enterprises and multinationals, and that Lee had mischaracterised the opposition party’s positions.

Tiong reiterated WP’s clarification in the House to Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow – who responded to the WP’s speeches then – that the party had not drawn this “false dichotomy”.

“What we suggested was to supercharge local enterprise: automatic support for new registrants, seconded experts, wider R&D tax deductions, grants to match MNC starting salaries, German-style internships. None of it, a zero-sum policy,” said Tiong.

Tiong added that the WP did not say that domestic demand alone can power Singapore’s economy, and pushed back against Lee’s statement that the WP had “backed down”.

Lee added in his post that the WP’s agreement that Singapore must continue attracting MNCs means the disagreement is largely over what should be done for SMEs and how existing schemes can be improved.

“Those are perfectly legitimate issues to debate,” said Lee. “But they do not amount to a fundamentally different economic strategy. After all the rhetoric about a ‘pivot’ and a ‘shift’, it was much ado about nothing.”

Lee also said the WP was “taking the politically easier position at every turn”.

He said the WP’s “formula” is this: If a government policy is popular, demand more of it; when it is unpopular, oppose it while playing down the consequences of the alternatives it offers.

“This is not legitimate differences over policy calibration,” he said, adding that the only genuine difference in policy between the parties is over the use of Singapore’s reserves.

He said the PAP has argued to safeguard the reserves for future generations, while the WP has argued for them to be drawn down for voters today.

Lim, who is an MP for Sengkang GRC, said in response: “If our vision is mischaracterised, then small wonder it doesn’t seem sufficiently compelling.”

He added that he is “disappointed that the PAP has chosen rhetoric over substance, in what could otherwise have been a serious debate about the economy”.

In his post on Aug 17, Lim also reiterated his party’s arguments on the economy and its relative positions on MNCs and SMEs.

He said the WP’s argument is not to reduce emphasis on MNCs but that Singapore’s current approach “will run into a wall of diminishing returns, and squeeze our workers and small businesses dry”.

“If we wish to reduce the risk of an economic heart attack, we need to focus on the pressing issue: how we can get an SME-driven innovation engine jump-started,” he noted.

Both sides also made points on the role of political debate as Singapore faces more geopolitical headwinds.

Tiong said the WP had tabled its motion in good faith, “on a question that needs sustained and complex debate about trade-offs if we are to reach good answers”.

He added that Singapore is “best served by a politics that puts policy first and leaves the point-scoring aside”, and that “democracy is built on a contestation of ideas”.

Lee said “serious times demand seriousness in our politics too”, and that it is easy to take positions that are politically attractive, but “much harder to make choices, confront trade-offs, and be honest about their consequences”.

That is the test of any credible policy alternative, he said, and at a time when Singapore faces some of the most difficult challenges in its recent history, that is the standard by which competing ideas should be judged.