The three topics that this session centers on are class inequality, racism, and gender inequality. I shall be a little bold and reductionist and reframe these as a panel that is interested in the linkages between discrimination and inequality.

At the outset, as a representative of the Workers' Party, I should state the Party's position on discrimination: the Party opposes any form of discrimination, whether on the basis of age, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, or disability. Such views are reprehensible and have no place in our multiracial and multicultural society. The Party has also repeatedly championed antidiscrimination policies in our Manifestos past, including calling for more support for single-parent households, abolishing the retirement age, along with explicit laws to prohibit workplace discrimination.

Let me start by just making three quick points about the matters at hand, and I'll leave additional questions to the open discussion.

First, on class inequality. One possibly useful distinction between the political philosophies of the PAP and the WP stems from our differing views of how public policy should address inequality in class. On its face, of course, surely nobody will have any beef with the notion of meritocracy. The rub, then, comes when we map this ideal to the real world. The PAP tends to lean in favor of prudence and efficiency in social protection: that's why there are rigorous means tests, time-limited assistance, and relatively stringent criteria to qualify for state aid. At the Workers' Party, we lean more in the direction of accommodating flexible needs, recognizing structural and sociocultural impediments faced by the disadvantaged, and asking the advantaged to take a greater role in providing for the least well off in society. This stance, undoubtedly, comes at some cost to pure efficiency. Put another way, you can think of existing government policies as focused on ensuring that we weed out, as much as possible, the 1 or 2 welfare kings or queens that would abuse a more flexible and generous welfare system. In contrast, our angle is that we would rather admit those 1 or 2, but ensure that the remaining 8 or 9 get the sort of genuine help that they require. Now, to be clear: I do not think that either of these positions are untenable. But I do not believe that I have mischaracterized the governing philosophy of the two parties.

Second, on gender equality. The WP recently filed a motion on gender in Parliament, and I will not reiterate the proceedings here. Suffice it to say that there was broad agreement on the fact that-while we have made enormous progress over the past few decades in ensuring greater gender balance in all manner of socioeconomic outcomes-we still need to do more to usher in genuine gender equality. Again, if I may, I will draw a distinction between the stances of the two parties. I believe that the PAP approach leans toward the traditional notion of the family-marriage, kids, support for aged parents-as a key institution of society. While the WP certainly does not object to the importance of the traditional family, we believe that the state can play a more robust role in adapting to nontraditional notions of gender. The wife may be the primary breadwinner, and public policy should encompass the flexibility to cater to this arrangement. And if women choose to be homemakers, that is their prerogative, and the state should support that decision as much as it does women who choose to pursue their careers. Gender roles also extend to less obvious arenas. Dual-nationality couples should have a fast-track for the noncitizen toward citizenship status. And the public sector should be more proactive in advancing flexible work arrangements and equal gender representation.

Finally, let me close with some thoughts on racial discrimination. I should start by stating that I am very uncomfortable with any rigid notion of "race," since I am a Peranakan (and hence mixed-race myself), married to a Latina whose 23andme report includes something like two dozen different ethnic origins. We are raising a mixed-race child. Like the Party, I believe that we should move toward a post-racial society, and while we appreciate that we are not there yet, we believe that old CMIO classification can stand for review, that the ethnic integration policy can be reviewed more progressively, and that we should have a more open and candid conversation about our racial challenges, especially from the perspective of the lived experience of minorities. That said, we are not advocating for being blind to racial distinctions and divisions, as they exist today. But the question is whether the policies we have in place serve to greater entrench and perpetuate these differences, or help us move toward a society one where we can truly be race-blind.