SINGAPORE — As Parliament debated laws providing for the establishment of the S$8 billion Pioneer Generation Fund today (Nov 1), a last-minute proposed amendment to one of its clauses was filed by Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Chia Yong Yong, leading to an exchange between Ms Chia and Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo on whether the amendment was necessary.

Ms Chia had taken issue with the wording of Clause 3 of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill, which stated that the sacrifices of the pioneer generation would be recognised “by providing to them who are now elderly, and are or may be in need of financial relief, assistance and other support”.

Ms Chia felt that this created confusion, as it went against previous assurances that pioneers would not be subjected to means testing, to enjoy the benefits of the Pioneer Generation Package. “This phrase suggests that for a scheme to qualify for funding under the Pioneer Generation Fund, the disbursement of monies or provision of benefits to any pioneer must be subject to means testing or differentiation, on grounds of financial need,” she said.

She suggested that the phrase “them who are now elderly, and are or may be in need of” be changed to “pioneers” to erase any doubts. “This would also grant the government greater flexibility in designing and qualifying future schemes under the Pioneer Generation Fund,” she added.

In response, Mrs Teo, who is also the co-chair of the Pioneer Generation Taskforce, said that the phrase is an acknowledgement that pioneers are likely to be less well-off and to need greater assistance. “It’s meant to reflect a fact, and not to signal the government’s intent to restrict pioneer benefits to the financially needy,” she said.

She urged Ms Chia to reconsider tabling the amendment but the NMP persisted, despite Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob calling her out for the inadequate notice given. Ms Chia had filed the amendment in chambers yesterday, which Madam Halimah said was too late.

Nonetheless, the House eventually voted on the proposal — and they voted against the change.