Senior Parliament Secretary for Social and Family Development, and Culture, Community and Youth Eric Chua called out Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh for taking four years to respond to an email from a vulnerable couple and reminded MPs to not politicise the difficulties of the vulnerable.
“I don’t know what Mr Singh was trying to do, and I make no specific comment on his motivations, but I’m sure he and everyone in this chamber here will agree with me that people, especially the vulnerable ones that we serve, and their clients should not be politicised. Instead, there must be a sincere intent to help.”
Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Social and Family Development Melvin Yong (Radi Mas SMC) had sought clarification on whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) knew how Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai became aware of the West Coast couple who was featured in his post, and their personal difficulties.
Without checking his facts with the relevant Government agencies, Mr Leong had claimed that the couple were not receiving financial help from public agencies aside from a monthly Home Caregiving Grant. The man, 60, is blind, and his wife, 55, has mobility issues after she broke her ankle in a fall in 2023. The NCMP was issued a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) direction as MSF said the couple are receiving financial assistance from various agencies.
Mr Chua told Parliament that MSF volunteers contacted the couple to find out what had happened after Mr Leong’s post on Feb 12. This was because they knew the couple and had been helping them consistently, and knew that Mr Leong’s post contained falsehoods.
Couple in Leong Mun Wai’s post wrote to Pritam Singh four years ago
According to the couple, they did not approach the Progress Singapore Party or Mr Leong for help. Instead, they had written to Pritam Singh four years prior in 2020 but heard nothing since. The couple said Mr Singh contacted them on Feb 11 informing them someone would visit. Mr Leong then visited the couple on Feb 12.
Mr Chua said he did not know why Mr Singh took no action for four years and then informed Mr Leong about the case. It was also unclear if Mr Singh knew of or agreed with Mr Leong to highlight the matter on social media just four days before the Budget statement on Feb 16, he added.
“It is an old art in politics. Highlight one case, hopefully get attention. Colour perceptions, make people think negative thoughts about the government as a whole.”
“Interesting that this happened a few days just before the delivery of the Budget statement on the 16th of February. Perhaps to try to make people think that the government does not help those who need help,” he added.
Mr Singh sidestepped Mr Chua’s question about why he did not help the couple over the past four years. He confirmed he received a letter from the resident four years ago, although their address was not mentioned. He said he found the email while clearing his files in the office and decided to contact Mr Leong to help them.
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh left important questions unanswered
Did Mr Singh alert Mr Leong to the couple’s actual situation? Why did Mr Singh wait for four years to do so? Mr Singh, expectedly, left these questions, which were the crux of the matter, unanswered.
Mr Chua then reiterated his earlier word of caution: the vulnerable within the community should not be used as “Trojan horses, as pawns or as chess pieces”.
“…Every time I visit my residents in the rental flat families, I mean this situation, the specifics of their situations, really pains me. And for us to add further stress to the situation by subjecting them to such situations, it is neither good faith nor does it do any good for the actual situations.”
On the need for MSF to make the couple’s financial situation public, Mr Chua said the Pofma direction did not identify the couple in any way. He claimed disclosing the couple’s Central Provident Fund and MediSave balances was necessary to dispel falsehoods.
“I hope that we can agree that it is more important to first be assured that such individuals are indeed receiving the help they need, rather than to use them to prove or substantiate one’s policy or political arguments,” he said.
“When cases are publicised with errors of fact, they create the misleading impression that we as a society are failing those of us who are in need. Government agencies then have to set the record straight in the public interest.”
He added that disclosing personal data is in line with the Government’s instructions manual and the Public Sector Governance Act on data governance standards.
