GE2025: PAP adopts our ideas as policy but won't give us any credit, says SDP's Chee Soon Juan
GE2025: PAP adopts our ideas as policy but won't give us any credit, says SDP's Chee Soon Juan
Follow our live coverage here.
SINGAPORE - The PAP has in the past criticised the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) policy proposals, only to adopt several of them later, said SDP chief Chee Soon Juan.
'During elections, the PAP will slam the opposition for its alternative proposals, and after elections, it will adopt our ideas – but it won't give (us) any credit,' he told the party's supporters on April 30.
Speaking at a rally for Sembawang GRC near Sun Plaza just days ahead of the May 3 General Election, Dr Chee laid claim to three proposals by the SDP that have since become policy.
The first is an unemployment insurance scheme to provide retrenched workers with temporary financial assistance.
Initially criticised in 2016 by then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam as a 'populist policy', Dr Chee said that eight years later, a very similar policy – the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme – was announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in 2024 .
Second, the SDP had proposed a higher income tax for Singapore's top earners to offset a reduction of the goods and services tax (GST) for basic goods.
In 2015, the Government announced during the Budget that it would increase taxes on the rich, raising marginal tax rates for the top 5 per cent of income earners.
Dr Chee pointed out that the SDP had also called for a minimum wage policy from as early as 2001. However, the policy was rejected by former manpower minister Lim Swee Say 'as a policy that would erode Singapore's competitiveness'.
'Then, in 2012, the PAP introduced a progressive wage model, which is similar to our proposal. It just set the minimum wage of $1,000 for low-income workers in selected sectors,' he said.
He added that Health Minister Ong Ye Kung is now doing the same by criticising the SDP's policy proposals for healthcare and housing, claiming they are not feasible or realistic.
Mr Ong is helming the PAP team in Sembawang GRC against the SDP and National Solidarity Party (NSP) in a three-cornered fight.
During a PAP rally at the same venue on April 28, Mr Ong had scoffed at the SDP's proposals, saying: 'When something sounds so good, it is usually fake.'
Said Dr Chee, who is contesting in Sembawang West SMC: 'So may I remind you... first they criticise, then they copy.'
Earlier in the night, SDP's five-member Sembawang slate – party vice-chair Bryan Lim, 49; treasurer Surayah Akbar, 42; deputy head of policy James Gomez, 60; as well as party members Damanhuri Abas, 54; and Alfred Tan, 59 – also took turns to rebut Mr Ong's remarks on April 28.
They took issue with Mr Ong's claim that the SDP's housing policies appeared to be borrowed from the Progress Singapore Party's playbook, particularly the proposal to remove land costs from the prices of Build-to-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance flats.
Ms Surayah, Mr Damanhuri and Mr Tan pointed out that the SDP had proposed the non-open market BTO flat scheme much earlier, in 2019.
Non-open market BTO flats are Housing Board flats that are priced based on construction and administrative costs only, and exclude inflated land costs.
'To accuse the SDP of imitation is not only inaccurate, (but) it also distracts from the real housing issues facing Singaporeans today – runaway resale prices, housing insecurity for young families, and financial burdens on working citizens,' said Ms Surayah.
Dr Gomez said that young people want affordable housing to start families sans worries about costs and other expenditures.
'Increasingly, for young people, a home is a place to live, not just to be a stock to flip down the line,' he said.
'For young Singaporeans, what matters most is affordable housing to start their independent lives.'
Dr Gomez also reiterated SDP's call for mental health to be a critical component of Singapore's healthcare system.
He was backed by Dr Chee, who outlined a vision of Singapore that prioritises happiness and well-being over 'GDP growth at all costs'.
He said Singapore should be a place 'where success is not measured by how many foreign billionaires we can attract, but by how secure and supported every Singaporean feels', and where the Government listens and responds beyond election periods.
Dr Chee added that the PAP's path is one that 'leads us right back to the problems we are drowning in – an unbearable cost of living, crushing mental stress, (and) a government that gerrymanders instead of listens'.
At the rally, SDP chairman Paul Tambyah also shared a vision for a Singapore that includes a mandatory national health insurance scheme, a nationalised pre-school education programme, the removal of the PSLE exam, and greater freedom for individuals to pursue interests beyond traditional pathways, such as in the arts and culture.
SDP is the only party to have held rallies every night since they kicked off on April 24.
Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Tipsy Collective sues former directors, HR head; alleges $14m lost from misconduct, poor decisions
Find out what's new on ST website and app. This new lawsuit follows an earlier court battle reported by ST in September 2024. SINGAPORE – The legal battle over control of home-grown hospitality group Tipsy Collective has taken another turn. The company – now led by its majority shareholders, who gained control after a boardroom shake-up in 2024 – has filed a lawsuit against its former leadership, seeking to recover more than $14 million in losses and damages from a string of alleged wrongful payments, mismanagement and unauthorised deletions of company records. In its statement of claim filed on June 12, the plaintiffs – Tipsy Collective and three of its subsidiaries (Tipsy Bird, Social Room Concepts and Tipsy Collective Singapore) – are alleging breaches of fiduciary and contractual duties by three former directors, David Gan Jia Liang, Derek Ong and Reuben Low Kok Cherng, and former human resources manager Avril Lim Qian Jun. Mr Gan, who was the former chief executive of the group, founded Tipsy Collective with Mr Ong in 2019. Following internal disputes, the bloc of investors and shareholders who oppose Mr Gan has increased its collective stake from 59.39 per cent to 97.3 per cent, according to the latest shareholder records from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. Mr Gan currently owns 1.66 per cent of the company's shares, and Mr Low holds 1.03 per cent. As Mr Ong died in August 2023, his wife, Ms Melody Huang Bao'er, who is the administrator of his estate, was named as the second defendant in the lawsuit. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore SMRT to pay lower fine of $2.4m for EWL disruption; must invest at least $600k to boost reliability Singapore MRT service changes needed to modify 3 East-West Line stations on Changi Airport stretch: LTA Asia Live: Thailand-Cambodia border clashes continue for second day Singapore Etomidate found in blood of 2 people involved in fatal Punggol Road accident in May: HSA Singapore More students to get Smart Buddy watches; most schools to go cashless by end-2025 Singapore Vape disposal bins at 23 CCs for users to surrender e-vaporisers, without facing penalties Business Microsoft Singapore managing director Lee Hui Li dies while on sabbatical Singapore Kopi, care and conversation: How this 20-year-old helps improve the well-being of the elderly This new lawsuit follows an earlier court battle reported by The Straits Times in September 2024 , in which Mr Gan had sued eight parties – including investors and shareholders – claiming they had breached a shareholders' agreement and tried to unlawfully seize control of the company. The defendants – Indonesian investors Reino Ramaputra Barack and Santosa Kadiman, Singaporean Rudy Hartono Widjaja and four shareholder entities – rejected Mr Gan's claims. Instead, they pointed to alleged financial mismanagement under his leadership. They cited mounting debts and lack of financial transparency, and questioned the $6 million spent developing Tipsy Unicorn beach club in Sentosa. They claimed Mr Gan had caused the company to take out $8.7 million in loans, of which $6 million remained outstanding, and that the company owed $5.2 million to suppliers and nearly $1 million to Sentosa Development Corporation. Mr Gan failed to get an interim injunction to retain control of the company's board and subsequently lost his lawsuit against the investors and shareholders. On Nov 6, 2024, the board terminated his role as chief executive and removed Mr Low as director. On the same day, Mr Barack was appointed the chairman of the board of directors of Tipsy Collective. Mr Gan resigned from the board on Nov 15, 2024, while Ms Lim's last day with the company was Nov 17 of the same year. By December 2024, the financial toll of the leadership struggle had affected ground operations. More than 100 employees had faced delays in salary payments since October 2024. The company managed to settle overdue Central Provident Fund contributions and salaries only after four shareholders injected emergency funding. The group, which once operated 13 outlets, has since scaled down. At least four outlets have been shut since October 2024, and it is now left with five outlets. Now, led by its new management, Tipsy Collective is turning the tables on its former leadership with this latest suit. The first set of allegations involves unauthorised payments made. The plaintiffs allege that Mr Gan and Mr Ong caused the companies to transfer more than $4.2 million to themselves and Mr Low, or between entities, without justification. These included $1.49 million in payments, made in December 2020, and $2.8 million disbursed between June 2020 and May 2024. The suit alleged that the payments had no commercial justification and brought no benefit to the companies, and that the three former directors failed to recover the funds, causing significant losses to the group. The lawsuit also cited a string of poor business decisions that allegedly harmed the group financially. The development of Tipsy Unicorn – a 19,000 sq ft beach club on Sentosa's Siloso Beach that opened in September 2023 – is at the centre of these claims. The construction cost of the project ballooned from $4 million to more than $6.1 million due to lack of due diligence and planning. Court documents also noted that the claimants did not have sufficient resources to undertake the construction of Tipsy Unicorn. Despite the fact that Tipsy Collective was 'in financial difficulties and needed monies from shareholders to sustain its operations', Mr Gan and Mr Ong allegedly continued to undertake more projects, the court documents noted. Another alleged mishap flagged in court documents was the group's investment in Tipsy Flamingo Malaysia. The plaintiffs claimed the venture led to a loss of more than $1.3 million. The renewal of leases for underperforming outlets, such as Tipsy Penguin, Tipsy Bunny and Tipsy Flamingo, was also highlighted. These new leases apparently involved higher rents and service charges, further straining the group's finances. The lawsuit further accused Mr Gan and Ms Lim of destroying and withholding company records. Mr Gan allegedly deleted more than 4,000 files from the company's Google Drive and continued accessing company systems without authorisation after his departure. Ms Lim is alleged to have erased nearly 5,000 files and formatted her company-issued laptop, erasing all stored data. Both of them are being held liable for damages linked to the data loss, with the plaintiffs also seeking an injunction to prevent Mr Gan from using any confidential company information that may have been retained. Separately, the Ministry of Law's website showed Mr Gan was declared a bankrupt on June 19, in proceedings separate from the civil suit.
Independent Singapore
2 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
'Cai png now costs me S$6' — Local says everything in SG is becoming more expensive quietly but quickly
SINGAPORE: One frustrated local recently took to Reddit to vent about how everyday expenses in Singapore seem to be quietly inching up 'almost overnight.' In a post on the r/asksg subreddit, he wrote that the 'daily life in Singapore' has started to feel noticeably 'more expensive' in recent months, even though his spending habits have remained the same. The local clarified that he was not 'talking about big-ticket items' but rather the 'little things.' He said, 'Kopi is edging closer to S$2, cai png now costs me S$6+ even when I go light, basic groceries like eggs, tofu, and vegetables have crept up in price. Even my regular haircut went from S$12 to S$15 without any notice. 'It's not one big hike, but more like a slow crawl upwards in almost every category. I've started tracking my expenses down to the dollar and using budget apps, but even then it's like S$5 extra here, S$8 more there, and suddenly I'm over budget by mid-month,' he added. Ending his post, he asked other forum members: 'Is anyone else noticing this? If so, how are you coping — cutting back on anything, using deal apps, changing your habits? Or is this just the 'new normal' we're all quietly adjusting to?' 'New normal, and it will get worse.' In the discussion thread, many Singaporean Redditors chimed in to say they've noticed the same thing. Prices, they said, have been steadily rising across food, services, and everyday essentials. One commenter called it the new normal and doubted that things would return to how they were. 'Yes, I feel it too. It is the new normal, and I doubt we will ever go back to the old prices. UNLESS there is a recession (unlikely and hopefully NOT). Prices of cars, houses, and everything else will remain high and will only get higher. Go to JB to eat and buy groceries.' Another said, 'New normal, and it will get worse. Advice is to get out while you can, lol.' A third pointed out that this trend has been going on since the pandemic. 'Been tracking that way post-COVID. Not stopping soon, judging by persistent rental increases.' Meanwhile, a fourth user disagreed with the idea that prices had jumped overnight. They said the changes were gradual and clearly linked to the recent GST hikes. 'No, it happened very clearly during the first GST increase. Kopi at my usual shop went from S$1.80 to S$1.90,' they wrote. 'Then, for the second GST increase a year later, the same kopi increased in price from S$1.90 to S$2.10. When else have we experienced an increase in the price of a product so drastically in only one year?' In other news, a 20-year-old woman has alleged that her parents threatened to report her to the police for 'theft' after she moved out with a phone and a laptop that they had previously purchased for her. In a Reddit post published on Wednesday (July 2), the woman stated that she had recently left her family home and did not intend to return. She brought with her a phone and a laptop, which had either been gifted to her or bought for her by her parents when she was still residing with them. According to her, these items had long been treated as her personal belongings. Read more: 20 yo woman says parents accused her of 'theft' after she moved out with gifted phone and laptop
New Paper
9 hours ago
- New Paper
'Should CDC vouchers be per pax or per household?': Scheme sparks debate on fairness
A new batch of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers was rolled out in May, with Singaporean households receiving an additional $500 to help with daily expenses. But public response to the long-running scheme has been mixed, sparking renewed debate online over whether its distribution model is fair and effective. While many households welcomed the payouts amid rising costs, others argued that the current system, which allocates vouchers per household, disadvantages larger families. A Reddit post by Dizzy_Boysenberry499 in May titled "Opinion: CDC vouchers should be per pax and not per household" quickly gained traction on r/singapore, garnering over 1,400 upvotes and more than 300 comments. This was before the announcement that the one-off SG60 vouchers - meant to recognise all Singaporeans' contributions in the nation's 60th year of independence - would be given to individuals in July. These vouchers are also usable at all CDC voucher-accepting merchants. Netizens express scepticism "Imagine if a household has 5 people living in one address. This household is taking up less 'space' and yet they are being 'punished' because they get less voucher support per capita," wrote Dizzy_Boysenberry499. Redditor Auph agreed: "We vote as individuals, not by households. CDC vouchers should also be given to individuals, not by households. It doesn't make sense when $500 is shared among five house members vs $500 shared by a married couple." Some users went further, suggesting that wealthier households should receive less, and that financial assistance should be more targeted. "People that are doing well actually don't need it as much as the less well off," commented Redditor Ok_Set4063. Netizen CommieBird agreed: "This can't be emphasised enough. I'm okay with the principle of distributing vouchers and GST relief to those who need it the most. "Eventually the tax revenue has to come from somewhere, and the government shouldn't be building a society reliant on handouts." Questions were also raised about the long-term sustainability of the scheme. Some view it as a symptomatic response to the larger issue of rising costs of living, without actively preventing costs from skyrocketing further. Netizen ZaroPauper asked: "How sustainable is this voucher handout scheme that's touted to be a long-term plan?" "These vouchers are a band aid and lack proper targeting mechanisms," added Redditor ceddya. "No one's saying we should rush it, but I don't see why we can't have more discussion around other ways, like wealth taxes or making our income tax more progressive, to address the funding gap." Responsive measures are timely and effective Others, however, had a more positive take. Some defended the payouts as timely support that helps alleviate immediate pressure from inflation and strengthens local businesses. One user, InspiroHymm, suggested that the CDC vouchers are in fact a long-term measure to curb cost of living, by funnelling more money into the economy. "People always say 'do something permanent about cost of living'. In modern economics the only permanent measure is economic (GDP) growth, which boosts wage growth." "There is value in using band aids, especially when the source of the wound is by and large out of your control," quipped Reddit user vecspace. Government's decisions are for the benefit of Singaporeans In a press release issued on April 15, the Ministry of Finance announced that each household will receive $800 in CDC vouchers in FY2025 - $500 in May and $300 in January 2026 - on top of the $300 disbursed in January 2025. At the scheme's launch event in May, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was committed to helping Singaporeans cope with rising costs. He also addressed concerns about sustainability and such financial assistance as temporary measures. "I assure all of you that this is not a one-off exercise. The Government will provide the help for as long as it is needed. "We want to make sure that when we spend more, we are doing it for the benefit of Singaporeans, but the spending is also sustainable over the medium to longer term."
