Hansard, 2005-01-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2005) To (2005) Ms Indranee Rajah 19 Jan 19 Jan Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 23 Jan 30 Jan Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 23 Jan 29 Jan Mr Sin Boon Ann 26 Jan 04 Feb

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. The hon. Member, present to take her seat, will please come forward when her name is called.

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance:

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member of Parliament).

I welcome the Nominated Member of Parliament and look forward to her participation in the proceedings of this House.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17th January, 2005],

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.".' - [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address at the Opening of this Session of Parliament.

In his Address, the President said, "We must strengthen our economy. A thriving economy will provide us the resources to tackle all other challenges." I support this policy direction and commend the Government's intention to maintain a pro business strategy, keeping taxes low and Government trim. I agree that, in this way, we will encourage more Singaporeans to become entrepreneurs, to dream dreams, develop new ideas and pursue their passion. When they succeed, they will create more jobs for other

More conducive environment for entrepreneurship

I am glad to note that we are moving away from our old habit of "picking winners". Singapore needs entrepreneurs of all types, big ones, small ones, low tech as well as high tech. Studies have shown that economies with greater entrepreneurship experience higher growth rates, greater job creation and less severe boom and bust economic cycles. Entrepreneurship in Singapore is generally not entrepreneurship of necessity, but entrepreneurship of creativity and innovation. As the environment becomes more conducive, the threshold will be lowered for people to strike out on their own, try their hands at business. Our society will in the process also become enlivened and more vibrant.

I believe that Singapore is becoming more entrepreneurial as a society because both the people and the Government have made the necessary mindset shift. Although these are early days, the situation looks promising. I hope we will be able to have some measurable outcome in due course.

Towards a sustainable economy

Despite our economic progress in the last 40 years of nationhood, there is a nagging fear that our economic growth may not be sufficiently robust to withstand prolonged recession, international terrorism, unexpected calamities or unforeseen epidemics. Not everybody believes that we have a robust and sustainable economy. With our reserves, many people know that we can pump ourselves out of any cyclical downturn, but what if any of these terrible eventualities befall us? Such a fear will

To remain firmly rooted in Singapore, we must be convinced that our small population of four million multi-racial and multi-cultural people is capable of being developed into a sustainable economy, and an inclusive society which recognises different talents, abilities and needs, where we will all have a place.

Possible lessons from Nordic economies

In this regard, I believe the Nordic economies and Switzerland offer interesting lessons. They are, like us, small countries with small population: Sweden, 9 million; Norway, 4.6 million; Finland, 5.2 million; Denmark, 5.4 million; and Switzerland, 7.5 million. I think the annexures have been circulated for easy reference. They may have bigger land area but they also have harsh climatic conditions. It is true that Norway has struck oil but it appears that the reserves may last them, at best, another 20 years.

They are all highly developed countries in terms of physical infrastructure. Their people enjoy high standard of living. Their per capita GDP ranges between US$26,800 (Sweden) and US$32,700 (Switzerland). Their people are highly educated, highly skilled and their workers' productivity is high. They pay high taxes, but they are also progressively lightening their taxes to be competitive. Their cost of living and cost of doing business are high, like ourselves. But what is noteworthy is that despite being small like us, burdened with some of the same constraints we have, they have been able to register sustainable economic growth over a long period.

Impressive sustainable growth

Between 1913 and 1998, a period of 85 years, their GDP has grown by many-

Since these economies have shown such sustainability, perhaps we should take a closer look at their economies and societies to see if there are useful lessons for us. Perhaps the MTI could form a small task force to look into this matter, and should we find useful tips, we should consider introducing the same to our economy.

Some discerning features

Not being an economist by training, and having only one part-time assistant, we got whatever data we could find and try to make sense out of it. Interestingly, there are a few discernable features in these countries.

First, if you look at their R&D expenditure as a percentage of their GDP, you will find that Sweden spends 4.27%; Finland, 3.46%; Denmark, 2.52%; Switzerland, 2.57%. By comparison, our R&D expenditure in Singapore was 2.13% for 2003. So we are spending less than them.

Second, industries, ie, private sector, in these countries undertook a larger proportion of the R&D compared to Singapore. In Sweden, the private sector undertook 77.6% of the R&D effort; Switzerland, 73.9%; and Finland, 71.1%. Our corresponding figure in Singapore was 63.3%, 10 percentage points lower.

It is believed that when industries are encouraged to invest more in R&D, the economic impact and returns from such

Third, the literacy rates in these countries are all about 100% - one or two countries, 99% - whilst ours is 94.2%. Moreover, what is particularly impressive is that these countries generally have higher percentage of people who receive tertiary education and, consequently, a larger proportion of their workers have got longer years of education, and increasingly so. In Denmark, 39% of their people have got higher education; Finland, 41%; Sweden, 30%. In Singapore, our corresponding figures, including the diploma and degree holders, add up to 22.8%. So we still have some way to go to ensure that our workforce is even better educated.

Finding the critical success factors for Singapore

Besides investments in R&D and a responsive educational system that produces a well educated and well trained workforce, I believe there could be other critical success factors for durability and sustainability of the economies in these countries. These economies have produced today's Volvo cars and trucks, Saab cabriolets and planes, Astra pharmaceuticals, Nokia phones, Electrolux fridges and washing machines, Borfos and Oerlikon guns as well Rolexes, Swatches, Frank Mullers and other timepieces, whose names many of us cannot pronounce.

I hope the Government will continue to review and, if necessary, restructure our economy and take whatever steps necessary to ensure that our economy will remain robust and capable of sustainable growth, so that Singapore will become the home for our children and our children's children.

We Singaporeans have demonstrated through past recessions, the 911 crisis and SARS outbreak that we will rally behind the Government and stand ready to make the necessary changes to strengthen our economy and build a secure future.

I am reassured by the following words in the President's Address: "We must ensure that all Singaporeans benefit from our success as a nation. ... Therefore, no group should miss out on the fruits of our progress. ... We must help to uplift children from lower income families and others less well endowed, so that they can succeed in school and in their careers, and so break the cycle of poverty."

These are beautiful words, great words, and they paint the vision that gives life and meaning to and ennoble our quest to build a stronger, more robust and more resilient economy. This is the solemn promise the Government under the leadership of Mr Lee Hsien Loong has pledged. We look towards the realisation of this vision. Singapore will then truly be a land of opportunity for all.

Singaporeans and add to the wealth of our nation.surely erode and undermine the confidence and trust our people have in Singapore. It will also weaken our resolve and loosen the roots that bind us to our motherland.fold: Norway, 17.1 times; Finland, 14.8 times; Sweden, 9.5 times; Switzerland, 9.2 times; and Denmark, 11.3 times. It is even more remarkable when you consider that this period included the disruptions of the Second World War and, in the case of Finland, the regular "push and shove" of their Soviet bear neighbour.R&D activities are more tangible, and they result in economic growth.

Sir, the President said:

"The people are entitled to demand the best from their leaders. They also aspire to play a part, and expect to do so. Everyone who makes Singapore home will have opportunities to make a difference. Every contribution is valued and important. There will be unforeseen challenges, but so long as we stay united we will overcome them."

These are stirring words and I concur with the President, and hope that something can materialise as far as the Opposition is concerned.

In 2002, in that policy statement, the President said:

"In politics, we must

remake our policies to fit a new generation of Singaporeans and adapt our style and approach to stay in tune with the times. No policy is so cast in stone that it can never be changed, whatever the circumstances."

Since 2002, nothing significant has changed. The political situation remains the same - strict, harsh and threatening. Basically, all the strict laws, rules and regulations are still intact except maybe the revocation of the necessity to register with the Police to speak at the Speakers' Corner, otherwise, nothing has changed. There is a slight concession and it has no important significance because the popularity of the Speakers' Corner has not improved. The number of people wanting to speak at the Speakers' Corner has not increased. The Opposition was hoping for some form of glasnost to happen in Singapore, but nothing of that sort took place at all. Singapore is still a closed society as far as Opposition activities are concerned, despite the encouraging pronouncements by the Government.

The most feared piece of legislation in Singapore today is the Internal Security Act, or ISA. Under that law, the Government can exercise its administrative powers on any person in Singapore. A person can be detained without trial for a period of two years and that period is renewable at the end of every two years. This draconian law hangs like a huge sword of Damocles over the head of every citizen in Singapore. This law which allows detention without trial can be very easily implemented. It needs only the signature of the Minister for Law. That was the way the French citizens court operated during the French Revolution in 1783 - only one signature.

The nature of the ISA is entirely political. That is why there is so much widespread fear in Singapore even up to today. I will give an illustration. Two weeks ago, at the meet-the-people

If Singapore wants to be a lively, vibrant and dynamic society, then the element of fear upon its citizens must first be removed. As a first step, I call for the removal of the ISA. I have done this once before in this House. I now do it again. The ISA must be repealed. Its presence is incongruous with modern day Singapore, especially when Singapore wants to remake itself. Some might argue that the ISA can be used to combat the terrorists. Indeed, the Government has used the ISA against members of the Jemaah Islamiyah in Singapore. In the case of other countries, like England, where it had been fighting terrorists, in particular the IRA for many years, anti-terrorist laws are used to combat the IRA. Under the anti-terrorist laws, when terrorists are apprehended, they are tried in a proper court of law under the Anti-terrorist Act. And that law has proven to be very effective in England. The IRA has finally entered into some form of truce with the Northern Ireland government.

Singapore can do the same. The Government can quickly enact anti-terrorist laws and when they are legislated and in place, the ISA can be repealed. I am surprised that the Remaking of Singapore Committee did not assign to itself the duty to recommend to the Government to repeal the ISA. I believe that the time is ripe for the repeal of the ISA and suitable anti-terrorist laws enacted in its place.

I wish now to speak on the Opposition in Singapore. I believe that the PAP's

All political parties must have the benefit of the three elements to exist successfully: (1) the organisation of propaganda; (2) the selection of candidates; (3) the financing of capital. Needless to say, the PAP has arranged in Singapore that it has the complete benefit of all the three elements. But the Opposition parties are completely deprived of them. On top of the said three elements, there is still the element of fear which exists in the people of Singapore. They are fearful that something bad may befall them if they go against the Government. This perception of fear may or may not be there but the Government from time to time keeps it alive by threatening not to provide public facilities if a constituency votes against them. Come to think of it, it is really a miracle that, under these harsh circumstances, two Opposition Members can be elected to Parliament. I attribute it to the bravery and resilience of the people of Singapore! That is why Singapore is so great.

I would like to speak now a little about the election. First of all, I would like to

Opposition campaigns are often deprived of choice of rally sites during the short nine-day campaign. Rally sites have been drastically cut down, only one per constituency, although there is more than one candidate in that constituency. The list of complaints can go on. But above all, I say that for modern Singapore, where citizens are made to believe in meritocracy, the idea of the GRC is absolutely archaic and out of place. It demeans the minority or ethnic community in Singapore. I do not believe that Singaporeans are so racist that in time to come, Chinese Singaporeans will only vote for only Chinese candidates and that a Malay or an Indian candidate can never get elected to Parliament.

session, three university students came to visit me, and I asked them to write their names and addresses on a piece of paper so that I know who I am talking to. But one of them was so afraid that he did not even want to give his name and address to me, an Opposition Member. Even university students who are supposed to be educated and know better are in fear of associating with the Opposition. So the fear in Singapore is quite real. disdain for the Opposition is historical. The PAP was advised by Dr Albert Winsemius, amongst other things, in its development plan for Singapore, to crush the communists. Dr Winsemius, by the way, was a Dutch professor, invited by the World Bank to advise the Singapore Government in the early 1960s. The PAP did successfully crush the communists. The PAP did the job so well that it became a reflex action and went also against all other legitimate political parties that opposed it. The Opposition parties were so depleted that, even today, it has not taken root in Singapore. All Opposition parties in Singapore are of course legally registered and work within the framework of the law. But, nevertheless, when the PAP fights, it goes for the jugular. say that the system of election in Singapore is unfair to the Opposition. Two general elections ago, there were 22 single seats but, today, there are only nine single seats. The number of single seats may be further whittled down in this coming general election. At first, the number of the GRC seats was suggested at two or three. But today, the number of GRC seats in each of the mega constituencies comprises five and six. The election deposit, at one time, was only a few hundred dollars. But at the last election, it was increased to $13,000 per candidate. And with the passing of the Political Donations Act, whereby all political parties have to report the particulars of donors above the first sum of $5,000 donation, it makes it very difficult or almost impossible for the Opposition parties to raise campaign funds.

Mr Chiam, I hope all this has somehow got to do with the President's Address.

Yes. When Singaporeans in the past were allowed a free vote, they voted a Jew to the first post of Chief Minister, which was

GRCs are not only undemocratic but also communal in nature. At every election, the ethnic member has to appear before a race committee to certify that he is in fact an Indian, a Malay or other. If I were an Indian or a Malay, I shall object to that screening process. Anyone who is a Singapore citizen and is not barred by the conditions of the Constitution should qualify to stand as a candidate in any election. Why should the Singapore citizen, on top of his initial qualification and citizen, prove that he is an Indian or a Malay? The GRCs, I say, must be scrapped.

equivalent to Prime Minister in the present day. In 1981, an Indian opposition was voted in in Anson to break the PAP monopoly in Parliament. In the not-too-distant past, when there were only single-seat constituencies, Parliament was filled with sufficient representative numbers of Eurasian, Malay and Indian Members. In fact, I have been in Parliament long enough to have met many of them and have fond memories of them, especially Mr Eddie Barker, a Eurasian, the then Minister for Law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join the House in thanking the President for a speech that sets the Government's priorities in the coming years. I like the framework presented - the seven priorities of the Government. To me, Singapore's place in the world and a secure environment form the foundation for this particular framework. Quite unlike Mr Chiam, who spoke about the ISA and wants to repeal the ISA, I personally feel that the ISA is one of the pieces of legislation that forms the basis to ensure the continued security of Singapore.

The President moved on to talk about

the need to build the economy and the need to educate and train our people. These two priorities are the building blocks of the economic well-being of our

Sir, I find this vision appealing. In pursuit of the better standard of living, Singaporeans have been perceived to tilt towards the materialistic side. We ourselves have listed the five Cs as our pursuits. We coined the phrase "the Ugly Singaporean" to describe our behaviour outside Singapore, as some of us reverted to our old selves once we are outside the constraints of the rules and regulations of Singapore. Our people were condescending to the residents of our poorer neighbours. We have a sense of superiority towards new immigrants from the very same countries, such as China and India, where our forefathers migrated from. In particular, the local Chinese press almost enjoyed playing up the negative aspects of visitors from China, such as peidu mamas, KTV hostesses, making it even more difficult for the authorities to relax entry requirements for Chinese visitors and tourists.

Sir, the recession, as well as the downturn caused by SARS in 2003,

Sir, Mr Gan Kim Yong, in his motion, mentioned that Singaporeans are

Sir, what do Singaporeans worry about? Let me relate some of these worries.

Firstly, as individuals, we are concerned about our ability to adapt in a rapidly changing world. We are worried about our jobs. There is an acceptance amongst Singaporeans today that during one's working lifetime, one would be retrenched at least once. Even for those of us with a reasonably secure job, we harbour a fear that somewhere along the line we will suffer a significant pay cut. Interestingly, most Singaporeans do not blame the Government in this job market. We understand that this is beyond what the Government could do. Nonetheless, we are concerned that, as individuals, we would not be able to make much of a difference working alone. So, in a way, we are hoping that the Government could step forward to galvanise us as a team to come up with counter-measures to tackle these challenges.

Sir, we worry about our ability to maintain our current standard of living. As we age, we are concerned about our ability to afford the rising health costs of

Secondly, Sir, there is a realisation of the vulnerability of Singapore as a nation in a highly competitive world. As a nation, it seems that the era when we could make a good living just by being disciplined and working hard is coming to an end. For many years now, Sir, we have seen our factories being relocated to low-cost countries. In recent years, outsourcing has spread to technical and professional service jobs. At the ground level, we see this trend continuing without abatement. In the past, for those of us working in the multinational companies, we could pitch Singapore as a possible site for outsourcing. Today, it is a non-starter to even mention Singapore in such discussions. China and India are the preferred locations when MNCs take a pan Asia-Pacific view. It seems that there is no effective counter measure. Today, the destination for outsourcing that is Singapore has itself become the outsourcer, when we read about SIA and HP Singapore outsourcing their professional jobs to Malaysia and India. Even as the economy generates more jobs, these new jobs are likely to be in the service sector, with lower salaries and poorer career prospects, as the data from MOM have demonstrated. Furthermore, unless Singaporeans change our attitude towards service jobs, these jobs would continue to go to foreign workers. We worry a lot about our future, and we also worry for our children's future, because job prospects are not as good as we have experienced when this trend of outsourcing accelerates.

Sir, these two summarise the major concerns of Singaporeans. For those of us looking forward to some answers in the President's Address, we were slightly

Singaporeans have great confidence in our nation as a whole to overcome our challenges. One might say it is contradictory, that we worry for ourselves, we worry about the vulnerability of Singapore, yet, as a group, we believe we could overcome the challenges. The reason is that we have a very high respect for our political leaders. Singaporeans trust the political system. We trust that our Prime Minister would be able to lead us to a better tomorrow. True, it is hard to visualise Singapore being a land of opportunity at this moment. Nonetheless, we believe that the Government would be able to lay out the strategies to take us there. This faith in our leaders is a strength which Prime Minister Lee will find invaluable in forging the nation forward to become a strong, resilient and yet, at the same time, compassionate society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one major issue we need to resolve in our mind as a people is this: do we want more Government involvement or less Government involvement in our life? Why do I say so? In many speeches both inside and outside of this House, one could discern a viewpoint in Parliament that our people should become more self reliant. We hear that the Government does not have a monopoly on all the ideas and wisdom, that we should move away from being a nation of employees towards being a nation of employers. It seems that there is a school of thought in Cabinet that the Government should withdraw from the pervasive involvement in the past. In the President's Address, the Government did not make it clear which direction it would be going. To me, this is probably the one

I thank Dr Loo for presenting the analysis comparing Singapore versus the other nations. But Singapore is an island state without natural resources. If we compare ourselves with Finland and Denmark, one will know the big difference is that they have land and we have very little land. Nationhood was, in fact, thrust upon us. We have only about 40 years' history. As far as resources are concerned, ours is the ultimate Malthusian society. For those who have studied what is a Malthusian society will know that, in such a society, we would be dealing with declining marginal returns. And being burdened with declining marginal returns would have been the natural order of things for Singapore. It was the pro-active Government of MM Lee Kuan Yew that changed our fate. Unlike better endowed countries, as mentioned earlier, a pro-active government is a prerequisite for Singapore. It is not a choice.

So, the real question is not whether the Government should be pro-active, but how pro-active it should be. To me, Sir, one size does not fit all in answering this question. In different spheres of our endeavours, the involvement of the Government should vary. I believe that, in the case of direct economic participation, we could do with less government. We should liberalise as much as possible and get out of the way for people to find niches to make a living. For instance, in the past, we forbade restaurants from overflowing into the sidewalks.

citizens. Following this, the President's focus shifted to balancing material aspirations versus emphasis on family, engaging our youth and ensuring everyone in Singapore would benefit from the progress of our nation as the ultimate goal of being Singaporeans. This framework, focusing on Singaporeans as individuals and as a community, is inspiring. It reiterates that, under Prime Minister Lee, the role of the Government would no longer be primarily focused on economic development but also, ultimately, on social and community development. Economic development is just an enabler, not the final destination. It suggests that the end objective of the progress of our nation is the development of each individual as a more holistic and wholesome individual. It envisions that working as a community, Singapore would be a more people-oriented nation, with warm-hearted people, caring and supportive, happy and self-assured. mellowed us. The recession taught us that we are not invincible as a country, as an Asian tiger. SARS taught us that the world is an inter-linked one. Furthermore, two tragic events demonstrated that, despite our own problems and anxiety about our future, Singaporeans have retained our love and compassion for our fellow beings. One, a small one, Huang Na's tragic death, touched the hearts of many Singaporeans. But it was the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26th December 2004 that buttressed my faith in Singaporeans as a people. When the tsunami struck, I was in Sichuan, China, attending an investment promotion conference. There, the news hardly made a ripple. Maybe Sichuan was too far away from the sea. Maybe the impact was not felt yet. When I returned to Singapore on 30th December 2004, the tsunami relief programme put in place by the Government was already moving into high gear. Private donations, both in kind and cash, were pouring in. The contrast was stark. The selfless outpouring of compassion towards the tsunami victims by Singaporeans was indeed heart-warming to witness. I got a first-hand experience when the Bukit Timah grassroots volunteered to raise funds for the Red Cross at the market and IMM on 2nd January 2005. Young or old, rich or poor, the generosity of Singaporeans is touching. While Singaporeans are still very much worried about our future, the tsunami has taught us that our problems are minor ones. It has taught us that ours is a blessed land. More important than the physical attributes of our small island, Singapore is a blessed country because of our people. As the political leader, Prime Minister Lee could not have a better people than Singaporeans to work with, to mould into the nation as envisioned in the President's Address.cautiously optimistic about our future. I would add that Singaporeans today worry a lot about our future. The recession and the enduring structural unemployment have left a permanent dent on our collective psyche. We have a better understanding of the realities of life. No longer are we cocky about our future. I still remember the days about 15 years ago when I interviewed fresh graduates from the university. It was common then to meet young people who would expect their salary to double in three to four years' time. And some of them were indeed getting it. Today, the young people are more realistic. With few jobs in the market, our young people are accepting short-term contracts of six months to two years. No longer are they waiting for the iron rice bowl jobs. our loved ones. We hear about the high cost of ineffective treatment, particularly of friends suffering from cancer, which drained the life-savings of individuals while making very little difference in their life expectancies.disappointed. Perhaps the Prime Minister would find other occasions to address these concerns. Just in case I present Singaporeans as worrywarts lost in bewilderment, there is actually one attribute about Singaporeans that will stand us in good stead. factor that will set the tone of Prime Minister Lee's Government. In answering the question, let us revisit the fundamentals.

Today, more and more outdoor refreshment outlets are approved. Liberalising bar-top dancing is another

Sir, in creating the environment for entrepreneurship, we should review the total ecosystem to ensure that it is possible for small businesses to form and to prosper. We should make sure that there is space left for them. If every niche is already occupied and dominated by an existing entity, it would be very difficult for new enterprises to survive. Sir, as such, I would urge the Government-linked companies to continue to withdraw from crowding out domestic entrepreneurs where possible.

To ensure that this takes place, Sir, we have to go beyond applying the 'yellow page' rule as advocated by Mr Raymond Lim. I see the involvement of Government in business as a natural outcome of our revenue surpluses in excess of expenditure accumulated in the Ministry of Finance as well as the various statutory boards. Once surpluses are accumulated, investment of such surpluses would be a natural order of things. And once we invest, the Government will get involved in business and therefore crowding out the private sector. Today, such surpluses are invested with Temasek Holdings, the corporatised investment arm of the Ministry of Finance. Sir, in the past, most

Furthermore, what is more important is the lack of job creation opportunity of this investment. My point is whether it is better to leave the liquidity in the private sector and thereby allowing private initiative to find a better use of the money than have it taxed and vested in the public sector, corporatised or otherwise. As it is, to me, Sir, the best jobs today in the corporate world are not found in the private sector, ie, not in the private companies. They are in the Government-linked companies (GLCs). This is not necessarily the best environment to develop a more entrepreneurial ecosystem as the risk factor for the individual involved is rather low. To prevent the balance from being tilted even more towards Temasek, I think there is a need to ensure that Government does not intentionally set up generating surpluses in our annual budget as well as for the statutory boards as their objective or one of their objectives. In my view, the best approach is to tax our economy just sufficiently to cover the needs of the Government, and no more. The various statutory boards should also not be allowed to keep the large cash hoards beyond their needs. Otherwise, they would be inclined to build monumental buildings for themselves. Where the trend of generating surpluses is evident, I would

Sir, while Singaporeans would like to see less Government involvement in running business in the economy, we would like to see more Government involvement in other domains where only Government can participate. Here, I am referring to infrastructure development, healthcare and education. We should learn the painful lesson in our attempt to corporatise, for instance, PSA. By changing the performance measures of PSA, we allowed PSA to lose focus on putting Singapore's interest first. Similarly, as we corporatised the utilities sector, we should learn the lesson of massive power outage we experienced recently. We should accept that there are certain prerequisite roles for the Government. And in some of these roles, we should not measure their performance by commercial terms, by the rate of return of investment. Healthcare is one of these areas.

Sir, Mr Gan mentioned that Singapore is at a crossroad. How we proceed from here will depend to a great extent the choices we make today. It is paramount that the Prime Minister seizes the moment and leads the nation with wisdom and boldness, to break with past practices, if necessary. So far, the signs are tantalisingly positive. I see the initiative on the integrated entertainment centre with casino as the centrepiece. I see the relaxation of entry requirements for students and visitors from China and other developing countries, as we emphasise tourism and education, as some of the key areas. We knew that taking such steps would bring some measures of chaos and disorderliness into our society. However, we should re-examine our institutional instincts and not be bound by moribund mindset. We should aim high so as to realise the vision for Singapore: the land of opportunity. By setting the seven priorities as laid out

good example. Unfortunately, the saga of the bars and KTVs in Joo Chiat is interesting and seems to present a two-mind view in these matters. It seems that while, at the same time, we would like to create more space, we are unable to tolerate more chaotic environment. Sir, in a sterile environment, as we all know, no new life form could take a foothold. Therefore, in the episode of Joo Chiat night life scene, what budding entrepreneurs would learn is that success does not depend on your ability to create value-add. It depends a lot on the press, whether the press wants to highlight the negative aspects of things. It depends a lot on who your Member of Parliament is. In this case, Mr Chan Soo Sen is the Member of Parliament for Joo Chiat.of these monies were reinvested in Singapore. Yes, it increases Government's involvement in domestic economy and making it harder for the private sector to compete. On the other hand, the liquidity is in the system. Now, under the new Charter, Temasek is also sprouting wings overseas. While reducing competition in Singapore, it is also diverting the liquidity out of Singapore. Of course, this is not a problem at the moment as the banking system is flushed with cash. In future, Sir, this might lead to a shortage of liquidity in Singapore. And a shortage of liquidity would make it harder for young struggling enterprises to survive and prosper. urge the Government to cut taxes and usage charges where possible.in the President's Address, I believe the stage is set for Singapore to realise our full potential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President, in his Address, has painted a broad vision for Singaporeans. While this vision is not entirely new or surprising to many, for me, it provided the comfort of familiarity and a refreshed viewpoint, both in its areas of emphases, as well as in its subtleties.

It has positioned our view ahead and, more importantly, our approach going forward more clearly. His address was less about "what" and "where", but more about "how". In particular, the words, "making Singapore a land of opportunity for our people, so that this will long be the place where talent, energy and vitality congregate" should strike a very strong chord for the business community and its economic players, as well as for the ordinary citizen. I want to dwell a little bit on the concept of opportunity.

Opportunity has first got to be created and recognised, in our hearts and minds, and then to be taken. In recent debates in this House on the subject of entrepreneurship, Members have passionately talked about the need for re-building this spirit. Our forefathers and mothers, as immigrants, came with a healthy dose of adventure, courage, enterprise, and, very likely, of fear and uncertainty as well. They did not know what lay beyond the horizon, save perhaps for the hope of finding a better place. The opportunity, though unknown, was imagined and created in their hearts and minds.

In the course of the recent past few generations of Singaporeans, we have modernised our country, added to our stock of knowledge, become facile with

We are familiar with the electronics growth in our manufacturing industry, those economic partners in those pioneering days were primarily American, European, and some Japanese. Those companies were themselves growing enterprises, looking everywhere for more markets and for more resources. Most of those companies forged abroad without formal economic support from their own governments. In fact, we farsightedly found it expedient to provide some of them the financial and fiscal incentives. Some of these companies, such as HP, GE, Motorola, Philips, Matsushita, still exist today, probably several tens or hundreds of times bigger in size than before, and they created for Singapore hundreds of thousands of man-years of work.

They came to Singapore and the Far East as manufacturers of goods, later as product developers and marketers. This led to the emergence and development of our current generation of local manufacturing companies, often under-value-labelled locally as the supporting

It is instructive to note that those SMEs that formed the supporting industries then were started by entrepreneurs who probably knew very little about how to do what they perceived to be the requirements of those MNCs. So how did they succeed?

Bob Reiss, a successful entrepreneur and author of the book, "Low-Risk, High-Reward: Starting and Growing your Small Business with Minimal Risk", says: "Entrepreneurship is the recognition and pursuit of opportunity without regard to the resources you currently control, with confidence that you can succeed, with the flexibility to change course as necessary, and with the will to rebound from setbacks." Those early SMEs saw a glimmer of opportunity, imagined they could achieve success, and they acted.

Our forefathers, when they braved the high seas on the least safe of vessels, and the founders of those SMEs, certainly qualify to use the entrepreneur label. Many of these first generation SMEs today are themselves regional companies and a few even global MNCs in their own right. Some of them still have their founders at the helm.

An ecosystem is not organised just by economic transactions. Like all natural ecosystems, it thrives or not depending upon the interaction among all its participants in its environment, there is a more-or-less survival-of-the-fittest reckoning system, a continuous rebalancing that happens, and catastrophic consequences often happen when the status quo suffers a disruptive change.

Recognising this fine balance of any ecosystem, we need to preserve its

Our economy has grown in both breadth and depth. The first generation of MNC partners have come in the 1970s and 80s, and most have either expanded into the Asian region or even left Singapore, to where costs are lower and markets are bigger. The stakes are significantly higher now, for individual firms as well as for countries, for each investment decision taken or not taken, and each move made or not made can be a fairly defining and decisive one.

Sir, I think most Singaporeans feel that we do not lack leaders who have a proper grasp of a vision for our country. I also think the majority of our adult citizens would say with conviction that they are willing to work hard and to go the extra mile if necessary. So we must turn our attention to the question of who our future partners for development and success should be. The President has thrown some light onto this question. He called for us to work with our ASEAN

Our new economic partners of tomorrow would be more Asian than Western in nature. There would be new differences that could arise from this. In my view, the past MNCs from the US and Europe were leading corporations of their day with leadership practices in their areas of expertise. These may have been in manufacturing processes, quality systems, project management, legal contracting, IT, whatever. The new partners of tomorrow may not be that in advance of our own practices because the economic space is now more crowded; they may not have the resources like before because of extreme competition; or they may not even be as willing a partner.

high technology and complex systems, built an international city state, and in the process, won quite a few accolades in many fields of our chosen endeavours. Life has become more orderly on the surface and we depend upon working systems for maximum productivity and stability. We could do it because our early generation leaders had the vision, our people had the guts and were willing to go along, and equally notably, we could find economic partners to show us the way and to work with us through what was often at that time uncharted territory. The history of the Jurong Industrial Estate rising from our swamps and the subsequent growth of manufacturing in Singapore is a key testimony of this wonderful tripartite combination. Again, the opportunity was imagined and created in our minds, and then we acted on it as if by faith. industries. Today, slightly better terminology labels them as part of the value chain or even more accurately as part of an ecosystem, with each part providing its own essential value. chemistry. This is not to be interpreted to mean the same thing as an iron rice bowl, or that we do not touch the status quo. It is to mean that employers, Government policy-makers and stakeholders have the responsibility to try their best to create jobs and grow the web of relationships, not to destroy them. I do not think we can today repeat a forced systematic driving out of whole legitimate businesses or industries, however low value-adding they may be, just because they did not fit a masterplan. Mr Inderjit Singh mentioned yesterday about the NIH (or not invented here) syndrome used to deal with project proposals. I agree with him that there is a good dose of this in many places in our administration, and this may stem in part from internal competition for recognition, or from our misplaced notion of scarcity of resources. If we were less dogmatic about our policies, who knows, we may have spawned a local IKEA from one of our local innovative wood furniture makers in Singapore.neighbours for a common good, and at the same time, to cultivate our ties with China and India. With rising competition from gigantic regional countries, no more important the concept of a thriving cooperative ASEAN economic trade area than now.

This means that Singaporeans have to be able to create their own value in their ecosystems. In other words, we have to bring value and innovation to the table, and we have to be able to create opportunities and solve problems ourselves, or as a part of larger teams.

These are newer skills and this poses new challenges for a large part of our working population, as well as for many of our business leaders, as they are more used to the leading role played by our first generation multinational partners in industrialisation. In the next lap, Singapore firms will have to come to the fore and take the lead, and only then reap the benefits as our western MNC economic partners did before. This leadership will demand responsibilities beyond pure economics as there should be the concomitant corporate social responsibility as well.

A flexible and pro-business approach has also been re-emphasised by the President. Given today's high stakes game of winning business and investments, and accelerated by the global high technology world, I urge that every Government official, every decision-maker, and every regulatory department, act with extreme urgency and speed. One of the members of the international panel on university education was quoted in our media as saying, and I paraphrase, that "it does not matter whether a country is big or small, but rather, whether you are slow or fast". Can our Government departments make speedy decisions, even as they may not know whether the decisions made are right or wrong? Well, if it cannot be deliberately pro-business, perhaps it can be immediately flexible. So, I offer a twist to PM Lee's duck and hippo tale: if our bureaucrats cannot duck the proposal, at least be prepared to cheer "hip hip hurray"!

I have sometimes heard our civil service claim that most problems and issues we face in Singapore have been studied, and studied extensively and deeply as well. Indeed, we are all thankful for this rigour, and I would rather have that than no analysis and careful thought into our policies. However, every well-conceived analysis has to have a model or paradigm of decision-making attached to it. Just like the cold war methods of intelligence analysis spawned decisions pertinent to that era, they could not be effective against current-day 9/11 style terrorism.

The world has changed, not just in the political sphere, but also in the economic, business and social senses. If we admit that, then we must also admit that not every policy issue studied and implemented may necessarily produce the desired outcome for Singapore. This just means Government has to continually

Sir, I would like to bring up several questions for all Singaporeans to ponder. Firstly, do we possess the ability to imagine or create opportunities in our hearts and minds in the first place? It appears from the constant drone of feedback that this is perhaps our fundamental problem to begin with. Do we lack the education our forefathers and earlier entrepreneurs wished they had the opportunity to have? Our Education Ministry has tons of metrics to show how well our students and schools do. Do we also lack the opportunity to be exposed to the global community in this Internet and international media age? So if well-educated people, electronically connected to the rest of the world, cannot see the opportunities, something has not gone that right.

This then brings me to our future generation and our youth. The future world will pose many more questions and fewer definitive answers. Firms today are often unable to predict their own business levels beyond three to six months ahead. We will be less able to predict which technologies and business models will win in the market places of the future. That being the case, how must we approach our planning for manpower, skills and competencies? Our children must be

We must give our children a new context for survival and belonging. Their world is no longer one of "we are good, so we can get the business". Students of science and technology must also understand ancient history, culture and people. If our appreciation of the arts is limited only to that of Western high art form, they will not appreciate the art of the common folk in this region. So while I support the birth of the special schools for the arts, sports, special needs, etc, let us also ensure that our future generation is firmly plugged into our neighbourhood, so to speak. The renewed emphasis on sports participation in schools, rather than sports only to win medals to be put onto the school principal's report card, is another example of going in the right direction. To make Singapore our home, this home must be one full of life's experiences. Study alone cannot fulfil this task, but a broad-based holistic education can.

On the area of metrics, measures and KPIs, may I say that we already do too much benchmarking. Having measures and KPIs for everything does not necessarily result in better outcomes. It reminds me of an Olympic Games video which depicted some Olympic heroes and athletes in action. The caption read: "Speed is measured in seconds. Distance in metres. But we can't measure courage." I also recall what Mr Hsieh Fu Hua, the CEO of SGX, said among friends when he commented on what he got from school. He said that what made him, and what he took away, were more the

In closing, quite a few of our Members have spoken about the tsunami. I did not have the opportunity to experience the aftermath first-hand and so I cannot relate the personal tales as others have. Nevertheless, I have learned a few lessons which I now wish to share.

One, the survival of any community or country depends upon the mettle of the little people, the common people. This will ring true as we see happening in the reconstruction. Observers will be able to see for themselves if there is differential progress made by the various countries hit by the recent tsunamis, depending upon each community's spirit. Our youth today get passed from primary to secondary to tertiary schools, each one optimising their own organisation goals. For our males, the SAF takes over and they then pass them on to the real world. We lack the continuous community and organisational vehicles to transport them across all these organisational boundaries today. How then can we expect them to sink roots and to have them grow long and deep, so that when the floodwaters recede a new plant grows?

Two, we cannot ignore the gentle or weak signals, as they may portend a disaster yet to come. The reports of the tsunami, the lack of warning, the lack of sharing these warning signs, the lack of proper reporting, then lack of faith in the warnings, all show our custom to the status quo and our continued belief in the paradigms that brought us success in the past. More light-heartedly, I am not

Three, the tsunami shows also that knowledge is important to understand our complex world. The story of the 10-year old British girl who learnt her geography lessons well and remembered the tell-tale signs of an oncoming tsunami, and warned the people around her, is especially convincing. Today, this generation has been more or less fully educated about tsunamis, and it will be remembered because there was a context. We must really check what is learnt, not what is taught. Let us find new contexts for learning.

Four, the little girl's knowledge only had value because people listened to her. Would a Singaporean parent or adult have given the same credence to our 10 year-old? Talk about listening to the young! Yes, there is a big difference between listening and heeding. Action is only taken after we heed, not when we just listen.

Finally, while there is an apparent calm after this tsunami, there is still a real and present danger. Some of our statistics may show improvement in our country situation, but the underlying threat of future economic tsunamis still exists for us, and many of our citizens are still suffering various forms of hardship. Our reconstruction must continue.

Yesterday, this House heard a question on how to get our older citizens to engage in a more active lifestyle. My answer would be: by getting them to get into the habit when they were in school. Our changes must start with our young. Sir, I am very much in agreement with engaging and energising our young.

Our President did not just paint a picture of paradise, as was pointed out by one Member yesterday. To me, he

I support the motion.

adjust its methods, processes and, most importantly, our paradigms for Singapore. Personally, I actually see this happening already. This, too, our President has mentioned in his speech, when he said, "we will encourage more people to dream of new ideas, pursue them with passion, and open up new opportunities for our economy". These new dreams require different interpretations for sure, or our dreamers remain that, or they spawn a new psychiatric industry, or they take their dreams elsewhere. So I am glad to hear anecdotes that our civil servants are at least asking "why not". But do not stop there and then sabotage the idea behind the walls.prepared for many changes in their working lifetime, be able to cope with continuous learning as required, and operate in a multi-cultural environment. This in turn means that they have to be offered as many choices of study and learning as possible, and to be given as varied a school experience as we can give. I already see this beginning to happen.intangibles than the tangibles. I concur with him, since it is by chance, that we shared the same teachers. At that time, even the tangibles were not measured. US psychologist B F Skinner said it more succinctly: "Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten."saying that a spouse's constant nagging is a gentle signal, but when that nagging stops, often a tsunami follows.painted a picture of the continuing work that needs to be done by all of us. It is a picture of opportunity, perhaps on a canvas unseen, but it is certainly for us to seize.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. We want Singapore to be a land of opportunity and, for today, I would focus my comments on one area of this great endeavour, namely, the area of community development.

I have a habit of analysing things in terms of supply and demand. In general, many of the actions of Government Ministries in the Addenda that they released would help promote new investments, anchor existing ones, lower barriers to activity and participation of various kinds and strengthen defence against predictable threats. In doing so, they help increase the likelihood and supply of opportunities.

Achievement comes from Singaporeans taking full advantage of the growing supply of opportunities. In other words, fostering a strong demand for opportunities is equally important.

I think there is an innate ability among people to see opportunity, especially when the word gets around. There would be the more well-informed, the ambitious and the entrepreneurial who would be quick to seize the first-mover advantage. Then there would be the broad body of the population who would also get in the act when they sense the benefits and are clearer about how to extract those gains. They would form that demand for opportunity.

I asked myself whether there are conditions in the overall social environment that would help maximise

An unstable society risks breaking apart and a divided society would not be an attractive place to live, work, play or to bring up the next generation.

What are the key risks to our stability? First, when some groups feel left behind despite their best efforts, especially economically. Next, when some groups are influenced ideologically to do irrational things.

I wish to confine my comments today to the first type. When we listen to the heartbeat of our economy, we know that the less-skilled and the older workers face particular threat of displacement. There is also a certain correlation between the two groups. When we look at our demographic trends, we see a rapidly ageing population. What this means is that more such individuals and their families may face difficulties unless more could be done to help them move over to higher ground faster.

In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, the saying "Time and tide wait for no man" has taken on a whole new sense of urgency. That disaster showed that those who escaped had the initiative to run for their lives, while those who perished were caught unaware, or had stood transfixed by the change, or who could not get out in time. These are also important lessons for all who have to deal and live with the great forces of economic and technological restructuring. In this connection, even as the Government and the NTUC continue with many efforts to help workers prolong their working lives and improve their employability, I think more must be done.

The Community Development Councils already run schemes that help families in financial straits and those seeking employment. They also work with and support initiatives of the grassroots organisations and voluntary welfare organisations in addressing the needs of the poor in the local communities.

In helping, we should continue to concentrate on a family-focus, family-centric and 3P approach - the 3Ps being public, private and people sectors. From experience, many of these persons needing help have a whole host of issues and problems. Becoming unemployed is one of the problems. They are often also in serious arrears with their rents, utilities, conservancy and other necessary payments. Their financial situation affects the mood at home, demoralises the children in their studies, and so on. Efforts to help them from any one angle, such as job placement, is often undermined by urgent and entrenched problems in the other areas. A family-centric focus gives the best chance of assessing the real attitude of the help-seeker, his will to improve and the best chance of stabilising the environment as that family works at improving their lot.

The expertise needed to counsel, tutor and correct, does not lie solely within the public sector organisations. This is recognised. Hence, there is ongoing tie-up between the CDCs, grassroots bodies and VWOs for counselling follow-up. CDCs also check with employers, in some cases, whether such workers are staying on in their newly-acquired jobs. In many cases, the link is sequential, meaning that the person is referred after he is helped financially or with job placement. And, even when it is concurrent, it may not be as integrated as it could be.

This partnership approach could be further strengthened to rally around the

this demand. And, if so, what could we do to nurture these conditions? I think there are two such conditions. There could be more, but I would speak on the two. One affects stability, and the other, robustness. family, forming a ring of encouragement within which that family would make the effort. Such an approach is by nature resource-intensive, as with all forms of intensive care. This also requires much closer coordination between partners, so that they mutually reinforce.

This will also help counter sob-story-assistance-shopping behaviour by some. The more we can synergise these efforts and improve coordination between Government, grassroots and VWO networks, the more we will be able to customise and target help properly, thus alleviating suffering in the present generation and fostering real recovery and hope for the future.

This way of community care is dynamic and goes beyond mere assessment of eligibility for ad hoc financial hand-outs and pain-relief.

I see a particular opportunity at this point in time. The overall economy is improving. Unemployment has dropped from closer to 5% to 3.4%, with fair prospects of coming down further. What is happening is that those who have been cyclically unemployed, ie, who got the sack because of poor business and not poor skills, are progressively finding jobs as the economy picks up and demand returns.

This means that we can focus more attention on those less employable but who want to help themselves, as the total number of unemployed moderates. This focus and intensive care is also essential, because the gaps and problems that we have to help this group of workers overcome are much more than those for the average cyclically unemployed.

With a more buoyant economy, I believe the Government is also in a better financial position to consider more help for such groups.

In an age of turbulence, such action will be increasingly crucial in leaving no

I move on to the second enabling condition, that which enhances robustness in society. To me, that enabler is an active citizenry.

A vibrant society and a land of opportunity and opportunity-seizing require more than stability. There must be robustness and vigour, alertness and agility, a spirit of enterprise, adaptability and a maturity in thought and behaviour. This comes about only when the people and groups in society make it happen. The more we can foster this process, the better it will be for us, because our society will gain more "bounce".

Ongoing development and recent events make me feel that Singaporeans and companies in Singapore are now more ready to become such active citizens and active corporate citizens.

The tremendous response from Singaporeans and organisations in helping those hit by the recent earthquake and tsunami is a good illustration. The donations were generous but, more importantly, the spontaneity was outstanding. Individuals and groups, formal and informal, took the initiative and volunteered, organised, mobilised and rallied for a common worthy cause.

The tremendous response of Singaporeans in turning out to support the team at the finals of the Tiger Cup is another example of social solidarity and suppport.

But beyond these big and visible events, there are many Singaporeans who

Singaporeans have seen what they are capable of, individually and in partnership, when they want to. What is important is that we do not let these opportunities become just a blip on the radar screen. We must build on the momentum and try to achieve sustained impact and improvement, lock in the gains and move society up a notch.

The opportunities are without limit. There are so many needs and possibilities in our community, short term and long term, that an energised citizenry (both individual and corporate) can address.

In this area too, we cannot simply assume that intention will result in achievement. To turn this opportunity into strength and advantage, we must now step up our efforts and investments to spur active citizenship and the closely-related area of volunteerism.

For example, better coordination between those who identify needs and those who manage volunteer networks will reduce attrition and improve outcomes. More focus on working with the school system to unleash the true potential of the Community Involvement Programme for students and teachers. Improving the skills of volunteer managers so that they effectively develop, empower and entrust volunteers with challenging missions that will lead to greater satisfaction and motivation. Helping volunteers form groups to exchange ideas, discuss problems and encourage one another will keep the fires burning. For companies, more recognition of their contributions to society will improve their reputation, and help them stay on as good corporate citizens. Hopefully, other companies will also emulate them.

These ideas are not new or glamorous, but fundamentals are like that. And when these fundamentals are taken seriously, they will yield good returns to society. In the light of developments and events that have taken place, now is the best time to put our foot to the accelerator and unleash the potential in our people. As we do so, our society will become more dynamic, resilient, passionate and compassionate. And it will be a society that is both willing and able to cheer and support its members as they boldly pursue their dreams in a land of opportunity.

Sir, I support the motion.

one behind in this generation and the next, and in keeping the social fabric strong and intact. This movement from "Relief to Recovery to Rebuilding" will require more and ongoing investment, coordination and much leg work, and I urge that more resources be so directed.have contributed their time, money, effort and expertise to causes and passions that they believe in. In the process, they have made this country a better place for all.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I support the President and the six broad outlines that he had addressed in his opening speech. In particular, I see more of the Government's policy focus on caring for the people - more than economic profitability this time round.

But before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to praise the efforts of the Government, the SAF, the doctors, nurses and relief workers, the volunteers and the many people of Singapore for coming together at a time of great international humanitarian crisis, to pour their heart and soul out, to contribute, to volunteer their time, effort and money to help our fellow humans caught in this great tsunami disaster.

It has always been my private conviction that in any moment of crisis, the people of Singapore - whether pro-establishment or otherwise - will always put their differences away and stand together as a united people to serve and care for the common good of humanity. To the people of Singapore, I want to say this: you make me proud of you as a

This is my implicit faith in the people of Singapore. Just take a look at our parliamentary colleague, Mr Chiam See Tong. Without fanfare and any public announcement, he stood with fellow Singaporeans for the tsunami victims and went around his Potong Pasir constituency to collect and quietly raised $33,000 for the Red Cross Tidal Wave Fund. You see, when required, non-government party politicians are always prepared to stand together with the people and the Government for the greater good of society and for national unity. We may not agree politically but we are all pro-Singapore, pro-society and pro-humanity.

Next, I will touch on the fifth and sixth points raised by the President. The President wants to encourage Singaporeans to balance work life and fulfilment in personal goals and family life. This is good in theory, and probably applicable to only those top 25%-30% of Singaporeans who are very established and successful in their career or businesses. But for the majority of the heartlanders, theirs is a lifestyle from two hands to a few mouths, with little spare cash to spare for luxuries and wants.

The last 10 years have been very difficult years for many Singaporeans. First, many people followed the past Government's advice to invest their money and CPF savings in the stock market and lost badly. Then the people followed the Government's drive for asset ownership, and now many people are

Now, especially with the Government intending to draw in more talent from all around the world, they are even more worried about their job security and promotion prospect. They ask: why is the Government allowing more foreigners in to compete with them for their livelihood and promotion? Yes, as a nation, we need more talents and foreigners to augment our population, but we must also be careful not to over supply the labour force with cheaper workers at the expense of our citizens' livelihood. The Government needs to draw a thin balance in this matter between the needs of businesses and the cost of living for individual Singaporeans.

When I went on a house-to-house visit in Choa Chu Kang, and I asked the residents and shopkeepers there, "How's life?" or "How's business?", a common theme in their reply is this, "Just surviving" - koay jit, koay jit, ciak buay pah, yao buay si, meaning can pass the days, won't die of hunger but eating is not fulfilling. I, and I think many Singaporeans, sincerely hope that the Government can and will lower the burden of Singaporeans living in Singapore further.

Sir, to encourage a more balanced and fulfilling family life, the Government could help by reducing entrance fees to our

To genuinely support family life and change Singaporeans' mentality that "there is nothing to see and nothing to do in Singapore", the Government should consider scrapping the entrance fees for Singaporeans bringing their families to these parks and facilities. Then, when it is free or at very low cost, more Singaporeans will take the effort to visit and spend time at these world-class facilities, rather than to take the effort to drive over to Malaysia for the long weekend.

On the last point raised by the President on engaging and inspiring a new generation of Singaporeans to commit and be active citizens, I would like to ask the Government what concrete steps it is taking to open up the Singapore civil society. What is the best sign of improvement to show the opening up of our political system?

I believe that it is high time for the Government to support and promote the growth of more civil societies and independent think tanks not closely aligned with the Government. Without outright cash funding, the Government can help out by allowing the free or low cost use of excess office space for these civil societies. With the promotion of a vibrant civil society, it is another sign of the coming of age of our society.

Next, the new Government under the leadership of our new Prime Minister

fellow Singaporean. Well done. To the Government of these people, I also want to say, please trust our people and have more confidence that we will rise up as a united nation in any crisis. The people of Singapore will be willing to set aside their personal concerns, differences and agendas, to be led by the Government for national unity and for the common good of society.caught in negative equity. They cannot sell their flats or property without still owing the bank money. Then the Asian financial crisis came and outsourcing became the norm, and many people lost their jobs. Those above 40 found great difficulties getting back to the workforce, with little job fulfilment and prospect, if they managed to get one. Theirs is where the stress is highest because there are many demands for their limited income - from housing, PUB, transport, children, parents, aged parents, etc. There are many mouths to feed with the limited income.world-class and world-renowned facilities like the Bird Park, the Zoo, Night Safari and Underwater World, just to name a few. We have very beautiful parks and very well-managed facilities. But for a family outing of six - two parents, two children, maybe with a grandparent and the maid - to one of these attractions, it can easily cost more than $100 per outing per family per weekend on one sunny Sunday. How many Singaporean families can afford such luxuries? should also take the opportunity to remove all the restrictions that our past Governments had imposed on the people. Reinstate the

rights of our citizens to freedom of speech, freedom of movement and assembly, as stated in our Constitution, and in particular, the right to public demonstration. Our people must be free to assemble and show their unhappiness or happiness over policies through peaceful and public means, as provided for in our Constitution.

How to build an active and concerned citizenry? The political apathy of our young is not innate, but because of a lack of choice - a lack of genuine choice. The lack of prospects for anything alternative to the governing party is turning young people off from politics and civil society. The lack of trust and faith in a fair electoral system and the hope that they could make genuine changes in the political arena are making them politically disinterested.

Just take a look at the Tiger Cup soccer game last Sunday. 55,000 Singaporeans turned up in red to support the Lions. Why? Is it not because they believe that their presence to support the Lions will make a difference in the Lions' winning or losing the game? There is hope and there is prospect for change in a fair game. Similarly, if our citizens and young know that their choice and decision do make an impact on society, they will make the extra effort to take on active citizenship.

Now, what is the best sign that the game is being played fairly? Show it in a free and fair election system. The political system and the General Elections must not only be free and fair. More importantly, as I have said previously, it must be seen by one and all - local and international communities - as free and fair. And what better way to silence all

If the Government is good, there is no need for it to be afraid of appointing or setting up an Independent Elections Commission to help conduct and promote our image of a free and fair election system, and face the competition from us - the weak and maybe a bit disorganised Opposition, as it is. This lack of a fair political system is the greatest disgruntlement any Singaporeans have against the past Governments. If the Government plays the electoral game fairly, and removes itself as the referee while playing in the game itself, it will silence both local and international critics immediately about any unfair electioneering activities.

Finally, as our Government helps to promote democracy in countries like Iraq, with the sending of our troops there to help in the election, or even in Myanmar to push for democracy there, it should also help to speed up our own democratic evolvement so that citizens of Singapore can truly live in our own democratic society.

With this, I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence.

the critics, myself included, than the setting up of an Independent Elections Commission, headed maybe by a retired judge or comprising people of public repute like retired CEOs, people of public standing, ex-NMPs, Government and non-Government MPs, appointed to this independent commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

We began this year with a heavy heart. Nonetheless, a sense of hope and optimism is palpable. Singaporeans have rallied around the plight of the victims of the tsunami tragedy, contributing generously and spontaneously. In Singapore, we enjoy an oasis of calm and

The people over by the window

During the run-up to Christmas, the atmosphere in Orchard Road was perceptibly celebratory. It was a time to shop and be merry! And so amidst the "ka-ching" of the cash registers, Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, had celebrated the year-end season. With the forecasted economic growth of between 3% and 5%, we have reasons to be optimistic. But are all boats lifted by the rising tide? In spite of our economic recovery, there are groups of people who do not, and who cannot, join in the celebrations. They have not benefited from our economic growth and progress and they need a helping hand.

They are the Singaporeans "over by the window". I borrow this phrase "over by the window" from a book by Ms Kuroyanagi, a Japanese author and Asia's first UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. She is referring to people on the fringe; those left out in the cold.

Surely, you may ask, are there such people existing in Singapore? After all, we have an extensive welfare reach. We do good work through our voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), grassroots organisations (GROs) and through the many assistance schemes. However, any social worker, any grassroots leader and

More often than we would like, they fall beneath our radar. Our social support fails to reach them. Some are not aware that they can apply for help or are unable to do so, which is frequently the case with the elderly, the minors, the mentally or physically impaired. Others refuse to request for help out of a sense of pride and independence but inevitably they cause unnecessary suffering to family members.

In the course of my work, I came across a family whose three children have not eaten for three days. There was also a baby whose birth was not registered because her young parents could not afford the $18.00 registration fee. Or the poor retrenched man with three bright daughters but was unable to pass a reading test, which is the prerequisite for his bus driver interview, because he could not afford reading glasses. He was told - come back when you have the glasses.

These are our people "over by the window". They can only stare into the party from the outside. Other such people by the window that I would hazard to include are our elderly destitute, the mentally handicapped, the physically disabled, the long-term unemployed and under-employed, the neglected minors, the abused (both adults and minors), the "un-integrated" amongst us (these are people with difficulty fitting into the mainstream such as those with severe autism, Asperger's), or what we deem as outcasts amongst us (prisoners, ex-prisoners) and also the self-destructed (drug, alcohol and gambling addicts). As you can see, they are all out in the cold.

An inclusive society - A review of the "Many Hands" approach

The challenge for us is how to improve upon our current welfare delivery system

Singapore's approach towards the weak, the poor and the helpless is the "many hands" system, a partnership involving our VWOs, the Government, GROs, community groups, religious groups, families and individuals. However, it is not an equal partnership and VWOs bear a substantial responsibility of managing and delivering welfare, with support from other groups. Yet, our experience in the last few years has shown us that depending so heavily on VWOs to identify and assist needy Singaporeans may not be sufficient. There is a limit to what these VWOs can do. There are still gaps. The Government can lend a hand to enhance the outreach. Hence, MOS and Mayor Heng's concept of dynamic community care, which was just articulated, is extremely encouraging. It is an acknowledged mission that there is a place for everyone in Singapore, ensuring that the less able are not left behind. I am much encouraged by two points that MCYS is paying attention to. They are: enhancing systematic case management and building up a "silver" industry in Singapore.

Here, I am paying particular attention to the elderly amongst us. Unknown to many in Singapore, there are increasingly more elderly households in Singapore. The number of wholly elderly households increased from 10,400 in 1990 to 25,700 in 2000 - a rate of 9.4% per year. And 12.3% of all residents over the age of 65 years are not living with a spouse or children. Who are they and how many need customised attention? This is why I am enthused when I hear that more help is on the way with an enhancement in systematic case management. We should

Amongst the needs and requests that I come across from older residents, I find that the one that I am most hard put to address adequately is the request for jobs. Much as we want to enable more Singaporeans to continue working into their 60s and stay active, many today are unable to find employment. Hence, the mention of building up a "silver" industry signals a focus of attention to this segment. They need attention. One can no longer brush off this problem as too small in absolute numbers to merit attention, or fob it off by saying that their children and family members ought to take primary responsibility, or avoid the problem altogether by the fear that a moral hazard is created, as too many fall upon Government for help if it is too readily available. These older people who need jobs are generally beyond the age that most employers would consider seriously, generally less educated and less energetic. Once displaced, many are unable to get back into the workforce easily. A focused approach to tackling this problem is key to eventually dwindle down the numbers. An elderly earning his or her own keeps would see his or her self-esteem rise. For some, life may have dealt them a poor hand of cards. But for those who are prepared to help themselves, and are physically able to do so, we must have ways and avenues to reach out and lend a hand. Employer groups can be co-opted in. One example is the elderly directing traffic in multi-storey car parks in Japan. These silver-haired wardens are invariably smartly dressed in uniforms with impeccably clean white gloves. I am sure they carry out

I remember we used to have tax allowances for companies to automate, to raise productivity. Maybe it is time now to consider some tax relief for employers to retain specific jobs for some of the needy, less educated, physically deteriorated, older workers amongst our populace. Beyond what the Government can encourage employers to do, there are also other avenues that can be explored. Take the example of the itinerant hawker licences. Why do we not review the restrictions again with a view of further freeing up? Or even the way we tender out hawker stalls. Must it all be on a purely competitive and highest bid wins approach? If one is allowed to open a hawker stall with only elderly workers, I am sure it would find an appreciative and loyal following. I am sure the elderly amongst us can do a lot more than just clean the tables and clear the dishes. Or even

security. In response to such tragedies, Singaporeans' universal demonstration of love, empathy and support is indeed heartwarming. And to our NCMP, Mr Steve Chia, I would say that this is the only demonstration that we want to see, not massive demonstration on our streets, as he has just advocated, that we should allow. In response also to such tragedy, we see that the human spirit is indeed enduring and resilient. To the hon. Member, Mr Chiam, this is what I call an example of true resilience, not so much that there are still two Opposition Members in the Chamber.MP can tell you that Singaporeans "over by the window" are amongst us.so that we can identify these people, minimise their numbers and reduce the time they need to pick themselves up. As far as possible, we want to integrate them into our mainstream society. devote resources to locate and map out such families. Many families would not need any assistance. But awareness by their local community - the RCs, the NCs and the CDCs - is probably good enough. But then there are families that need particular attention. This is where focused case management would be extremely helpful.their job with pride. And I am also sure that an electronic sign may suffice in most cases and would displace them. But there must be a good reason why there are still so many of these traffic directors around.

relook the ways school and factory canteens are managed. Here, I am totally sympathetic with Mayor Amy Khor's point which she made yesterday that her mother brought her up with the income from a school canteen stall. Many of us have stories of grandmothers who raise a family with only their culinary skills, some peddled their cooked food door-to-door - the food being cooked in their own kitchens. My maternal grandmother is one. I hope the Government would take a comprehensive look at all these aspects when they nurture a "silver" industry.

Yes, a key plank has already been laid with the Minimum Sum in the CPF. But in most cases, much as we can deliver the message of telling those in need to cut back on their lifestyle needs and curtail excessive expenses, many will be hard put also to live on $668 a month. I also

Then there is also a role for all Singaporeans. Some weeks ago, a Filipino child wandered from her home and lost her way. She found a guardian angel in the form of an old woman who sold tissue paper. Her family was so grateful, they invited the old lady who was quite alone to spend some weeks with them. The old lady was naturally delighted, and she took out the invitation readily to enjoy the warmth from a family for a while. But her story pierced my heart, for it was a story of an old woman, a sad and sorry one. Because she was all alone and missed the bustling prosperity of Singapore. Need this old woman spend the end of her days in such loneliness and poverty? And how many more old Singaporeans are in such stage out there? Is there not more that we can do as a society to make all their lives a little better?

For the lonely elderly, the issue is not only about money for basic necessities. Based on the latest figures available on the MCYS' website, 86% of the recipients of the Public Assistance Scheme are the aged destitutes. There are 2,191 of them. Under this scheme, a single adult household receives a monthly allowance of $260, two-adult household, $455.

But beyond the cash, as a community,

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that our new leadership has the ability to lead all Singaporeans ably in the task of creating a Singapore to be a place for everyone. Let us put our money where our mouth is and apply the resources to reach out to these Singaporeans who are "over by the window".

With this, Sir, I support the motion.

read a paper that stated that a large proportion of the elderly live in households with only one breadwinner. However, I have not seen enough data to feel good about as yet. The medical and other expenses of supporting aged dependants would put a strain on singular breadwinners. Hence, for those older people that are still prepared to work, to take off some burden from their immediate family members, we must find ways to help them out. If the Government could put together a group of people to look into this, I know much can happen. No group must miss out on the fruits of economic success.we must review our current systems of reaching out and caring for them, caring for these lonely elderly. It has to be done on a consistent and sustainable basis. Maybe an "Adopt-a-Grandma/Grandpa" programme could help integrate these lonely senior citizens back into our community. They are in need of daily care and daily social support. Should we just leave this task to the VWOs? Or only to the Government? Yes and no. All of us have a role to play. The VWOs and the Government can only facilitate the process. But I believe the Government can do a lot more to pull Singaporeans together so that all Singaporeans, families and individuals can come forward and contribute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address in this House at the Opening of the Second Session on 12th January this year.

I am particularly interested and concerned about the subjects on building the economy, investing in the people and ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from our success as a nation. My contributions would certainly be matters concerning the welfare and interests of the workers and Singaporeans as a whole. I will focus my attention on Government policies that would affect and have impact on the working population, especially the lower income group.

The various Ministries have also in the Addenda to the President's Address spelled out their policies and programmes in relation to the key priorities of the Government. I look forward to further details on the respective implementation plans, the Budget Statement and its debate in February and March this year.

In the global economy, when we progress as a nation, there is a fraction of our population who could be left behind and requires the understanding and assistance of the Government. These people could be either less well endowed, not so fortunate and have not much education.

I note that the Government will maintain a pro-business strategy so that we can generate wealth and jobs for the people through new businesses. It is heartening to know that the Ministry of Manpower, in its Addendum, has mentioned that it will work with employers to introduce a new National Continuing Education and Training framework to upgrade our workers with relevant skills. The Ministry stated that in higher value-added industries, there would be some workers who are vulnerable to structural unemployment due to their lack of skills. It is gratifying to know that the Government will work hard to overcome this problem with social partners, like the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and employer organisations. These are workers who really need help.

Indeed, the media has recently given very extensive coverage to NTUC's Workplans for 2005. It aims to place at least 10,000 out-of-work Singaporeans in jobs and will continue with job redesign and wage restructuring efforts, among other things. It was also reported earlier that the Economic Development Board had unexpectedly exceeded its target for investments last year and it looked set to produce a bumper crop of 21,800 new

Nevertheless, it is important that the Government works with NTUC and its affiliated unions. At this point, in fact, I would prefer that the President had mentioned in its Address about NTUC and its affiliated unions because, as trade union leaders, we are very proud of NTUC and its leadership, rather than just simply mentioning unions and employers. It was also mentioned in the Presidential Address, as I said, and stressed in the Ministry of Manpower's Addendum. Yes, we must acknowledge the fact that the close tripartite partnership between the Government, employers and trade unions has been integral in our economic success.

To this end, we should work together to strengthen this partnership and ensure that businesses can get the skilled manpower resulting in more jobs for the people. We should work together to help workers who are affected by restructuring to acquire new skills so as to maintain employable.

Another area of concern is employability beyond retirement age in view of longer life expectancy. There is a need to focus our attention here on how to create opportunities or new avenues for the older workers in their 60s. I agree that, together, we have to find new ways to safeguard their income security through enhancing their employability and improving their competitiveness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the public sector, the workers in the civil service and statutory boards are feeling the impact of globalisation and its effects on their career prospects, including job security. With the Government's aim of working towards a balanced budget, policies such as economy drive, waste management, management of manpower, the

While employment or jobs for Singaporeans would be foremost in my mind when dealing with the concerns of workers, other matters could include the general terms and conditions, fair wages, rising medical cost and other forms of benefits.

The Prime Minister's Office, in its Addendum to the President's Address, will ensure that salaries and benefits remain competitive through annual salary reviews and regular benchmarking. It added that Ministries would have more flexibility to decide on terms and conditions of employment, and to promote family-friendly practices, such as part-time employment and flexible work arrangements. The managements concerned should continue - I say "continue" because we are already doing it - to discuss with the unions on the results of these reviews and before any changes are made so that both parties have a common understanding and appreciation of the issues involved. Management-union cooperation and mutual trust are of paramount importance.

In effect, with lower employment (or even full employment) - we have to be optimistic, we should not say that we will never reach full employment again - during our economic recovery, I hope Singaporeans could lead a better life and have more to share with their families and friends. This in turn will continue to foster community spirit, maintain racial

Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, I would like to make the following observations with reference to the contents of the President's Address and its Addenda. We must not, when implementing the planned programmes, overlook the middle-age workers' concerns and needs. Our unionists would not hesitate to point out that this group of workers needs special attention, to help them remain employable in the global environment today.

I could not agree more that we have to engage the youth and help the elderly by making our programmes more attractive and effective, but please do not forget the middle-age group. They definitely need help to stay employable, and to take advantage of new jobs and new growth sectors as well. I urge the Government not to overlook the needs of this group of workers. You may call them the 40-something, or the 50-something, or simply the middle-age group, but they are the most vulnerable, in my opinion. For instance, these are the people with young families and their concerns are real, like housing loans and other financial commitments.

Workers in this age group need help to continue working into their 60s and to take advantage of the new avenues of employment. Many unionists have pointed out that, in times of restructuring and retrenchments, it is the middle-age group who tends to be the hardest hit. At this point, Sir, I would like to quote some figures from the publication by the Ministry of Manpower, just to remind Members of the House here. I am sure Members are aware that in the year 2003, the figure for the age profile of the labour force, aged between 15-19 was just

jobs. But this year's projected investments are expected to bring in fewer new jobs, falling to 18,000.framework itself and the other policies have inevitably caused some anxiety amongst them. These policies must be explained and implemented with care and concern for the workers affected. There should be early discussions and sharing of information between the unions and employers. Both parties could then work out communication plans and manage the transition smoothly without causing much problems or trouble to the parties concerned.harmony and political stability in Singapore. We all know these are necessary ingredients for attracting investments and economic growth. 1.6%; 20-29, 23.9%. But if you look at those aged 30-39, who are on the way to the middle-age group, it was 28.7%,

and those in the 40-49 age group, 26.4%, and 50-59, 15.2%. So I would say that easily 40% of this so-called middle age group are in this area, and we need to pay a bit more attention here because there is a tendency at times that we can go to extremes, with too much emphasis on the young and youthful, and the older people whom we have to look after, and we forget about those in the middle.

As for the education profile of the labour force, I also have some figures to quote where we really need to help them. For those with "primary and below", it is just 18.4%. But, together with the lower secondary at 13.4%, they add up to about 30%, and these are the people who are very lowly educated and definitely deserve help.

Sir, with more such workers facing these risks of being left out in the changing economy, my colleagues in the unions would like to see more incentives to be given to workers who go for training. I propose that the Government introduce such programmes for people who need to do a mid-career switch, if not similar, then one somewhat like what the army has for its career soldiers.

I want to reiterate the importance of having a closer rapport within the tripartite partnership. The Government's role here is critical. Constant communication through social dialogues, feedback sessions and consultation with each other is essential.

While the Government has a good track record in this, it must be seen to be more committed and involved. The NTUC and its trade unions have always been very pro-active, but it cannot be left to them to do everything. The Government must take the lead. More could be accomplished if the Government stepped

Finally, in my own simple analysis, it was basically the pioneering spirit of patriotism and the philosophy of tripartism which have brought us to what it is today. And, looking ahead, with the renewed spirit of entrepreneurship, volunteerism and more, we could continue to prosper and progress in the years to come in our land of opportunity. I am truly proud as a Singaporean.

up its role and presence. For example, Government's intervention would become necessary if employers do not take heed or cooperate at all.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.32 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

In his Address, the President said that a key ingredient of our success has been our faith in Singapore. I support this wholeheartedly. May I also add that I believe that this is not a blind faith that he was talking about, but a faith that is based on mutual trust between an enlightened Government and enlightened citizens. When I read sometime in October last year that Singapore had been ranked top in a survey conducted by the World Economic Forum on whether citizens trusted their governments, I

Firstly, is it good for Singaporeans to have such near perfect trust in the Government? Only 3% of Singaporeans said that they did not fully trust the Government, as opposed to most countries where more than 50% of their citizens said they did not trust their governments. For surgeons, 97% is as perfect as you can get.

Secondly, it also occurred to me that though Singaporeans trust their Government, does the Government reciprocate this trust equally? Clearly, an imbalance of trust can engender increasing apathy in its citizens. If the Government is so trusted, what is there for Singaporeans to contribute? To be fair to our Government, they have had the foresight to recognise the need for a more active citizenry, and organisations, such as the Feedback Unit, and committees, such as Singapore 21 and the Remaking of Singapore Committee, have addressed this issue. Unlike the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Inderjit Singh, I have faith in what these initiatives achieve. He said that they fizzled out. I do not think they fizzled out. They may not have galvanised the population into action straightaway, but I think the effect was, shall we say, more evolutionary rather than electrifying, and I believe that they made a big difference and are still making a big difference.

So, the Government certainly deserves our trust. Their long and outstanding, even awesome, record is very hard to match. But I think Singaporeans have come a long way as well. May I cite two examples.

The first is the URA's public consultation on land use which was conducted in December 2000 as part of their Concept Plan review. This is now

naturally felt very proud and privileged to be a Singaporean, and I still do. But certain thoughts came to my mind. recognised as a significant milestone in public consultation, both in the number of participants and agencies involved, and the openness of the process. One of the five questions that URA posed to the public was: "Would you prefer a larger living area or more parks and green areas?" When I saw this question, I felt it was unfair. I still feel it is unfair, because you are asking people to choose

between a material, measurable by personal benefit or gain against more parks and green spaces, which is a less quantifiable and common benefit. Surely human nature would, not just in Singapore but anywhere in the world, choose the first option.

However, I was very pleasantly surprised when I looked at the answers because a significant majority of Singaporeans chose the second, i.e., they chose more parks and green spaces over a more spacious living area. Many of them gave reasons. They said that in a land scarce country, it seemed fairer, more democratic, to share out the limited space rather than having their own individual living areas. They also said that a spacious living environment did not just mean more square metres to their flat because how many more square metres could they have: A more spacious living environment could be the sensation of space that you would get when you look out of your window and see green and parks.

So to me, this URA exercise showed to me and I believe, to other people, that Singaporeans are not apathetic, that they can think of the common good rather than just their own immediate interest and that they can think out of the box. About one-sixth of the people who responded also said: why can we not have both? Why can they not have more spacious living areas as well as green and parks? So I felt that they did very well. Obviously, this is a planned consultation exercise and

Sir, I come to my second milestone, which is SARS. The SARS crisis obviously took every one by surprise, Government and people. No one had planned for it and this was a life-threatening crisis. I would not go into details because many Members had already spoken about how both Singaporeans and Government came out very well with an enhanced mutual trust and respect for each other.

But I would like to say that for me, one of the key factors why I consider this a milestone in Government-citizen relationships is that Government was transparent and communicative and open throughout the crisis. The then Minister for Health and the present Minister for Health and the PM and DPM, despite the stress and pressure that they were under during this crisis, gave daily press interviews. And in these interviews, they did not just tell people that everything was all right. They admitted to shortcomings and mistakes and they admitted to not knowing the answer at times. This, rather than eroding confidence in the Government, to me, inspired confidence amongst Singaporeans that our Government was honest, open, trustworthy, and in contrast to the many other countries where, I am sorry to say, there was a gap in credibility and sometimes even a breach of trust between Government and people. I would not mention the tsunami disaster as a milestone because many people have already done so. But clearly, it is another one which has brought us to an even further height of mutual trust.

So through joint efforts of Government and citizens, we have reached a further level of public engagement. This is certainly, I consider, a reason for congratulation but it is not an end-point.

I would say, at this point, it appears to me that the logical next step to greater openness is greater access to information. The Prime Minister also mentioned in the same speech that, and I quote, "The US has a very active citizenry, always ready to organise themselves and solve their own problems, without waiting for the Government." In short, a proactive citizenry. I should like to point out at this point that the US also has a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which was created to allow citizens greater access to Government documents. Over 50 developed countries have a similar Act.

I am not suggesting at this point that we adopt this. I do not think Singaporeans either desire or feel the need to bring their Government to court in order to get information. But I believe strongly that there is a connection between this acknowledgement of a citizen's right to information that bestows on him or her a sense of equality, a sense of pride, a sense of responsibility, which then engenders the desire to contribute to make a difference.

The Remaking Singapore Committee had many good recommendations. One of them, I thought, was a Code of Consultation and I quote, "a public document providing guidelines and minimum standards of public consultation." It then went on to recommend that certain areas and topics should be defined and also what information could be divulged.

I should like to suggest, at this point, that we push the limits of this Code further by adopting a green lane rather than a red lane approach to access of information. Unless information is deemed potentially sensitive or likely to compromise security or religious or ethnic harmony or personal rights to privacy, it should go through the green lane. By the way, I know everyone is expecting me to talk about green issues. I think this is the only time I am going to mention "green" in my speech.

Singaporeans, I believe, are mature and responsible enough to handle this access to information. Any active citizen who had tried to have a constructive engagement with the public sector will sooner or later have encountered their tendency to press the "door close" rather than the "door open" button. This is addressed by other Members of the House.

I would admit, as others have, that their tendency to press the "door open" button is a lot more frequent now than it used to be and even if they press the "door close" button, they are more courteous about doing it. And sometimes, they give you explanations before they do it. And I would also say that there are many enlightened exceptions to this rule, including a couple of the Ministers who are here today and some senior civil servants, who have gone out of their way to press the "door open" button. If everyone was like them, I would not be making the speech here. But, unfortunately, they are still the exception rather than the rule. And the average citizen asking for information still feels that he or she is a practitioner, requesting for favours, taking up their time, rather than someone with equal rights to information. The standards put down that we have all heard, whether in direct communication or in a reply from one of the Ministries in the Forum pages, is, "You represent an individual or a

I do not deny that our policy makers see a much bigger picture than we can or do. But we would like to see the big picture too. Most of us would like to see a big picture if we could. However, as individuals or even groups such as NGOs, SMEs and VWOs, we lack the resources and the access to information to see the big picture.

May I add that no government can see the whole picture. Even a Government like us, endowed with remarkable vision, will only see it from one perspective or miss certain details. Our present and past PMs both have recognised and addressed this problem many times and called for change of mindset in the civil service and a more open and inclusive style of Government.

I should now like to talk about the label "narrow interest group". May I say that naturally, when we advocate or petition for something, we have to be focused on the issue under discussion. But the narrowness of the issue does not mean that we have tunnel vision. For example, a nature lover is also a family member, a child, a parent, a spouse, he or she is also a breadwinner, worker, taxpayer, home-owner, consumer, commuter and even golfer, believe it or not, and above all, a Singaporean. So, when we speak, we are speaking from all these perspectives combined. No nature lover is going to push for conservation of a nature area if he or she thinks that it is going to endanger the future of his or her child.

I might add at this point that sometimes, when we speak to civil servants, we get a distinct impression,

The challenges we face today make it important and even imperative that as many people as possible see the big picture and not just see it but contribute to it. I may add that the picture is not a static one but something that is constantly evolving and changing. We need both an enlightened Government and an enlightened public and to achieve this, we need to have more green lanes for the two-way flow of information. Government, I would admit, is now very assiduous in collecting feedback. The Feedback Unit has done a very impressive job in this and so have various Ministries. But while they are good at collecting information, it is still a bit slow in giving it out. Traffic is only free flowing in one direction most of the times, I am afraid.

While the President's Address and the Addenda effectively cover our future hopes and challenges, and spelt out some of the ways that we should meet them, I was disappointed at the insufficient emphasis on an integrated inter-agency approach. True, this approach is mentioned by the President in relation to security and the terrorist threats, but not, for instance, in relation to sustainable development.

The economy, society and the environment - and I am not talking about the economic environment here, I am talking about the natural environment - have been separately addressed by the Economic Restructuring Committee, the Remaking Singapore Committee and the Singapore Green Plan 2012 respectively and by the relevant Ministries.

you might say that the respondents were self-selected and therefore not representative.It is a step to even greater heights. The Prime Minister, in a speech he made to the Harvard Club in January last year, said, "Looking ahead, one important task of the Government will be to promote further civic participation and to progressively widen the limits of openness." Since giving this speech, he has already done much to widen the limits of openness. narrow interest group. Therefore, you cannot see the big picture (implication being of course that only Government can see the big picture)." whether correctly or not, that they seem to be speaking only as civil servants representing their particular Ministry.

But there has been insufficient attention paid to the integration of these three initiatives. For example, the Remaking Singapore Committee talks about active citizens but it never mentioned anything about active citizens contributing to the environment,

The triple bottom line of sustainable developments requires that these three initiatives - the economy, society and environment - not be addressed as three separate pictures, but as one integrated picture. And secondly, that the picture be constructed simultaneously, not sequentially, otherwise the window of opportunity may have closed by the time one decides to address it. I am afraid here I have to mention the tsunami as an example, but I would mention the aspect which I think no one has addressed yet in the House. As we read from reports, mangroves could have buffered some of the damages. Warnings from meteorological officers about a potential earthquake and tsunami also were not heeded. Because most of these countries, in fact, all these countries, were focused on economic progress. So they missed the window of opportunity and, sad to say, it was tourism, the economy and, most of all, the people, the communities, who suffered.

As a doctor and a nature-lover, I could appreciate how difficult it is to put information into the public domain, or even to share it with other agencies. We, doctors and nature-lovers, are traditionally protective, even highly possessive, of our hard-gained, hard-earned knowledge. Giving access to information entails taking risks, but we have to acknowledge the public's right to this information, whether we like it or not. And that sharing of knowledge, while it may expose us to greater risks, would also give the whole society greater long-term benefits. Chek Jawa, for instance, would never have been saved if nature-lovers had not revealed its treasure to the public. I would venture to say that if Government and citizens had not reached such a level of mutual trust that we had, by the time Chek Jawa came up, we might not have

Let me, therefore, in summary list some of the reasons why I believe that a greater pool of shared information and mutual trust are essential to our country. Firstly, global competitiveness. In a knowledge-based economy, disclosure of information and transparency are prerequisites in remaining competitive. There are already some suggestions and signs that we may be lagging behind some of our global competitors, or would be, if we do not improve on these areas.

Secondly, global citizenship. The President in his speech has emphasised that Singapore should be a bigger global player, not just in the economic arena, but as global citizens. While we should not forgo Asian values, we should be sensitive and aware of the values of the global community and one of these is freedom of access to information. We should, as global citizens, look at global as well as Asian values.

Thirdly, a greater sense of ownership and national identity. As has been mentioned many times in this House, the Government recognises that younger Singaporeans have higher expectations than their parents and Singapore has given them wings and they could not wait to take flight. Mr Gan in his speech mentioned kites. I prefer the analogy of birds. We want them to soar, to be global citizens, but we also hope that they would see their country not just as a jumping board or take-off point, but that they would regard Singapore as a home and come back to roost. Why I prefer the analogy of birds to kites is that birds do not need to be tethered by a string. They

As global citizens, char kuay teow and childhood memories alone could not bring them back and, sad to say, sometimes, even family and friends could not tilt the balance. I believe that only by feeling valued, trusted and challenged could we nurture and strengthen the sense of ownership and belonging in the younger generation and, in fact, in all Singaporeans.

Fourthly, creating a buzz. As our Prime Minister noted, bungee jumping and bar-top dancing are only surface forms of buzz. Even the buzz of economic activity could not match the real buzz which I consider to be the buzz of ideas, knowledge and creativity. If we wish to become an education, science and research, IT or arts centre, we must accelerate the exchange of information to generate this buzz of "talent, energy and vitality".

Finally, facing future challenges. I, again, quote our Prime Minister who said that, "To understand our challenges fully and vigorously, we need to draw on the expertise and resources of all our people." To have an open and inclusive society, I believe we need better channels of communication and sharing of information.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, Government was proactive; Singaporeans were reactive and, often, inactive. In the past, Government saw the big picture; Singaporeans only saw a small piece of it. In the past, Singaporeans trusted their Government. It was considered irrelevant whether the Government trusted Singaporeans. Today, I believe it is important that both Government and

recycling, for example, which you could not achieve successfully without the contribution of citizens. revealed it to Government, because we would not have seen the benefit of revealing. We would just have appreciated it quietly, just a few people, and then it would have gone. It would have become extinct without anyone else being the wiser or benefiting from the knowledge of the place. could fly freely, but they do return. Migratory birds may fly thousands of miles, but they come back to where they were born, their homeland, by choice.citizens are proactive, could see the big picture, and trust each other equally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. What I am going to say would be in sharp contrast to what Dr Geh Min has spoken. Mine would be fairly down-to-earth, to the constituency that I know best, which is the workers of Singapore.

Our economy has been very volatile for the past seven years, since the Asian financial crises. The swings in fortunes have led to many retrenchments. While the manufacturing sector had constantly restructured over the past three decades, this time round the services and public sectors also restructured. Significantly, many executives were also affected. Those who lost their jobs had to make painful adjustments.

Employees, therefore, feel insecure about jobs and income. This sense of insecurity is only beginning to be assuaged as the economy recovers. The news that employers are hiring, that unemployment has dropped, and that employers are paying higher bonuses, is slowly restoring confidence. However, as some Members have spoken, the "feel good" factor is missing, and missing for those who lost their jobs. Those who have found new jobs suffered big pay cuts. Others have yet to find stable jobs, and are classified as a long-term unemployed, or structurally unemployed. Even those who were not affected by retrenchments have been apprehensive. Each retrenchment that is reported, especially in areas that previously seem secure, that seem to offer lifelong employment, renews this sense of insecurity.

The truth is that we must expect greater volatility in the economy. As global competition intensifies, we should expect to change jobs several times in our

The key word is employability. If an employee stays employable, he could move from one job to another. It would not be a big problem to lose a job because he could find another one. To stay employable, he must have the relevant skills. Therefore, the answer is regular training and retraining. Therefore, the first piece of a good social safety net would be the availability of training and the means of paying for such training. We have put in place the framework for both. I need not recount what we have. However, we must not continue to think that training is the responsibility of the employer and/or the Government. I think this is one piece which is still very much missing in the mindset of ourselves, that we think it is the responsibility of our employer to train or, if not the employer, then the Government. I think we have to begin to think that it is our personal responsibility. It is as much the responsibility of the individual for his own upgrading, as it is of either the employer or Government.

How could we make the individual take responsibility for his training and retraining? Mere exhortation would not go far. One way is to establish individual learning accounts. As the name implies, the funds could only be used for training. This year, three cooperatives, linked with the NTUC, would start a pilot project. Each employee would have an individual training account. It would be real money, with co-contributions from employer and employee. If the pilot programme works, then the concept could be adopted by other employers. We are conscious that

The second piece of the social security net would be funds for living expenses when an employee is in between jobs. Today, employees rely on retrenchment benefits, but this is not reliable. Some companies retrench when they are so broke that they could not pay retrenchment benefits. A better way is to save for the rainy day. Not everyone saves, when it is voluntary. In most societies, the lower 40% of wage earners are unable to save. If you look at our own statistics, our lower 40% do not have voluntary discretionary savings. But we are not unique. It is the same in the societies I have looked at. As such, employees should be assisted to save. Some employers have already programmes to help their employees to save. We urge more to do so. The same three NTUC cooperatives that are setting up individual learning accounts are also setting up individual savings accounts for their employees.

The third piece of the social safety net would be cover for medical expenses, when one is unemployed. The cost of outpatient treatment would not worry most people. It is the cost of hospital treatment that is the concern. Here, we already have a system that is centred on the employee - the Medisave and MediShield plans. MediShield has degenerated and it now no longer fulfils its original objective of saving people from worrying about large hospital bills. So a review is underway. Mdm Halimah mentioned yesterday some of the desired outcomes of such a review.

working career. Does this mean that we would be constantly on edge, feeling insecure? How could employees regain their self-confidence in a more volatile economy? How could they feel that Singapore is a land of opportunity? If we have a social safety net that helps us through the economic cycles, then each of us would be self-confident.other countries have tried, eg, the United Kingdom, and quickly closed it because of abuse. That is why we think we should first start a pilot project, address all the issues, before suggesting it for wider application in our economy.

Each employee, armed with these three pieces of a social safety net, should therefore be able to face the volatile economy with greater confidence.

But where are the jobs? Both Members for Hong Kah GRC, Dr Amy Khor and Dr John Chen, were absolutely right when they said yesterday that the issue is still about jobs. Job creation is a key priority of Government. Jobs come from new investments. Hence, we do all that we can to secure new investments, be it political stability, good infrastructure, a friendly tax regime or a flexible labour force.

But are these jobs suitable for the long-term unemployed, many of whom have low skills? We have to find them somewhere else, in existing jobs in the domestic services, for example. We have had some successes in cleansing, in textiles, in patient care. More can be done, and more must be done. I am glad that some Members have urged that more be done. For the NTUC, we target 10,000 such jobs in the coming year.

Sir, there is a growing concern about financial security in retirement. Often, our people are described as asset rich but cash poor. Our compulsory savings system, the Central Provident Fund, is considered inadequate. Some have surfaced the possibility of a pension system. The proposal is for a limited pension. But that is how most pensions started. When the pension system developed in Europe, it worked like a dream. Then more demands were put on the system and, today, pension systems the world over are in trouble - from Japan to the United States to Europe, all need serious revamp.

On 1st June last year, the Business Times carried an article on this, and I quote:

"Pension plan funding across the world is much like a dragon that has just begun to emerge from its cave. Spurred by stock market

Governments are doing two thing - raise the age of drawing down pensions, and cutting the pension pay-out. Even Norway, that has put aside the revenue from its oil exports to fund pensions, finds it necessary to make changes because the oil revenues are enough for only a quarter of the pension liabilities. The rest has to come from the people, meaning contributions and taxes. So one proposal now is to raise the age when people can draw on the pension from 62 to 67. We do not have oil to fund such a pension.

Sir, some governments are taking a third step to supplement the trimmed down pensions with individual savings schemes similar to our CPF. Sweden, the welfare state that is often quoted as the model state, implemented a compulsory contribution scheme. The idea was to keep pension payments where they were. If you cannot trim, then do not increase the liability of the fund - start individual savings accounts for the employees. The experience is interesting. Individuals were allowed to decide on how to invest their savings, something which sometime ago, many Singaporeans asked of their CPF. By default, the state will invest the savings for those who did not choose to invest the funds themselves. The result: those who invested their savings which were, by and large, the upper end of the workforce, lost. Those who left it to the state, gained. I think the experience is quite similar to ours.

Some countries have privatised pensions, be it company pensions or defined contribution plans. A World Bank study has concluded that privatisation has not brought about the much vaunted benefits. Private management of such funds is also subject to investment risks and poor management. In most countries where retirement plans are privatised, the

Studying all the experiences of other countries has led me to the conclusion that the ideal of pension plans to fully fund the needs of retirees is not achievable for most people. The old system of family support is still the most enduring. Pension plans or CPF-type plans support the family to look after the elderly, to lighten the load, but cannot replace the family. We should remember this and more of our policies should be aimed at keeping the family ties strong.

Having said all that, since some countries with pension plans are moving towards CPF plans to supplement, should we supplement our CPF system with a limited pension plan, as some people suggest? We, in a sense, already have such a plan in the annuity stream that we can draw on through the Minimum Sum. So I think it is better to build on what we have than to try something new, and ending up with problems that other countries have encountered. Why travel the road when we know the pitfalls that road leads us to?

As people live longer, we should save more, if we can. As I said, the truth is that for the lower income, it is difficult for them to save. As they stay healthy, they can continue to work. Today, as most MPs find, more and more of our senior citizens are looking for work and asking for help to find work.

When we looked at the labour force participation rate, we were disappointed that many people below the age of 62 are not working. Our effective retirement age is therefore well below 62. It is the same for many OECD countries, but some countries stand out with effective

So, I asked myself, was there a national consensus in Japan, as they discussed raising their retirement age, to 'reserve' some jobs for older workers? Should we have such a national consensus? Retrieving the luggage trolleys at Changi Airport is being done by senior citizens. I do not know whether it is the policy of the CAAS to do so, but I think that is a good example of what we have in Singapore. This is something that can be done. It is a job that can be done satisfactorily by older workers. We need not waste the energy of young people to do that same job.

Sir, what other jobs should be reserved for older workers? Pump attendants at petrol kiosks? Guides at our museums? If we want to raise the effective retirement age, then we need to forge a national consensus to provide the older workers with job opportunities. Then, we will be truly an inclusive society, with opportunities for everyone.

declines, poor investment plans, the beast is beginning to inflame the political process."participation rate is typically 20%. So it did not cover the bulk of the workforce as intended. Chile, another country where this has been held out as a model, has the best outcome but, even then, the participation rate is only 50%.retirement ages above the official retirement age. How did they do so? Japan is one such country. Those of us who travelled to Japan over the years, as Mr Wee Siew Kim obviously has done, would have noticed that the people who man the highway toll booths are senior citizens, though they are now being replaced by automated systems. Mr Wee Siew Kim mentioned about the traffic light controllers. Sometimes, when we visit Japan, we encounter, say, road works and there is a need for a temporary set of lights, and the people who man the temporary light system are senior citizens. In Singapore, they are foreign workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

In his speech to this House, the President had said that we open this Second Session of the Tenth Parliament with a heavy heart. Sir, it is important

But there was one good cause that came out of this calamity, ie, it brought the people in the region closer together. Today, we are ever closer to the people of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia. We are, as the President had said, a member of the global community, closely linked to share their joys and their sufferings.

Our response to the disaster was swift and decisive. The whole machinery went into action - the military, the medical team and the humanitarian aid. It heartens me to see so many Singaporeans, especially the young, channelling their energies to good use when the nation needed them most. This army of young volunteers, some with parents and grandparents in tow, came forth to volunteer their services to collect donations, pack the foodstuff, clothes and other items for shipment to the neighbouring countries.

Investing in our young

This brings me to the point that I want to make today - investing in our young - in that we need to constantly imbue in our young the right values so that they know that the prosperity and peace of today can always be washed away tomorrow without warning. They have to be prepared for the life of constant effort, of labour and strife, which is the very foundation on which our forefathers had built up our nation. While I do not suggest that we limn a picture of our past and etch them on the walls of public

While I feel that we have made some inroads in engaging our youths in the field of arts and sports, and in giving them some space to channel their creativity and their energies, I believe there are many youths out there who need direction in life. There are many who lack the inner spiritual and physical strength to shed their cloistered life, and are waiting to be shown how they can be drawn to make a meaningful contribution to our society. That our youths are easily drawn to western fad, such as to tattoo their bodies like the way cowboys brand their cattle on the hind side, and for them to be so easily drawn into a frenzy and into almost blind adulation of an idol, beg the question: what is going on

that we be mindful of the fragility of the material world and the vulnerability of mankind, as we look back at the events that left many parts of Southeast Asia devastated by the tsunami. It is indeed unfortunate that we have to end 2004 with such a painful souvenir of human tragedy.buildings and exhibition walls, I certainly feel that we can do more to remind our young so that they better appreciate the very difficult footsteps taken by our forefathers.

in the minds of these young people?

Education

The second concern is education. While national service has done much good for the young, this education to give our youths the courage to face strenuous life should begin when they are still in school. The Ministry of Education has expanded the CCA. I feel that more needs to be done so that character building and ruggedness are also imbued in the activities, so that we do not breed a society of lily-livered boys and girls. Since we just won the Tiger Cup, let me take soccer as an example. A player may learn from his coach the rules and the techniques of the game. He may also learn about his responsibility to his team mates, and his club. But will a coach teach him his responsibility as a sportsman? That a robust play may be appropriate but this is provided it does not cause undue injury to his opponent. That just as there must be humility in victory, there must also be acquiescence in

I feel that one of the best platforms for character building is on the sports field, where the competitive spirit can bring not just the best but the worst in a person's character. And the lessons learnt on the field can certainly put one in good stead later on in life, whether as an entrepreneur or an employee. There should be more opportunities for more children to be involved in friendly competitive games at each level within schools, intra-schools, community, district and national levels of sports and games. We should not only develop excellence in sports but also mass participation in these sports. Often, even up to today, schools said that there is a lack of resource persons and a lack of facilities and hence a limit to the number of children who can participate. Now with the five-day work week, it takes the schools even greater effort to allow more children to participate in these activities. I have always stressed that children should start young and especially those in the primary schools. Being young, naturally they too want to enjoy the outdoors. Hence, we should encourage our children to take part in outdoor activities. Once they are in the secondary schools, it is difficult to persuade our teens to be outdoors. Instead, you will find that they rather stick to their computer games, perhaps because they have not enjoyed the wholesome goodness of team play and outdoor activities. It is a shame that we often see well designed sports facilities in the polytechnics, primary and secondary school grounds within the housing estates protectively fenced up because their keepers are afraid that if they open up to the community, they will incur additional maintenance costs.

The various Ministries should adopt a more creative approach and assist in sharing the maintenance costs, based on

But what happens then to those whose forte is not in sports? In this regard, I venture to suggest that the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports should also look into organising other programmes that can rein in these other youths to meaningful pursuits. Whether it is the arts or sports, the Ministry should constantly look for new pursuits and new activities that can engage our young people. Through its network with NGOs, the Ministry could actively recruit the young people into community service so that they are equipped with skills which could put them to good use later in life. For example, teaching them first aid and other medical skills would also render them useful to the community should the need arise. With destructive elements like SARS and the tsunami, these skills would definitely put us in good stead whenever the need arises. What is important is to give these youths a sense of ownership, as was mentioned in the President's Address.

Family focus festivals

Sir, still on the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. I must emphasise that the Ministry should also not overlook the importance of the family unit as it extends its hands to reach out to our youths. The success in building up a society lies in the success of young and old people coming together, recognising the interdependence of one another, and the cultural values of bonding, respecting and enjoying each other's wisdom. When there is a crisis, for example, no amount of professional counselling can replace the warmth and the solace that come from a family member.

It brings me great joy when I see young people helping their elderly parents in doing household work, because it is such acts that go a long way in bonding the family unit. I think we are all too famous for fully exploiting the festive seasons in Singapore as tourist-centric events, or as occasions for retailers to spin a commercial twist to get more people to spend. While spending is an important cog in the wheel in the economic cycle, we should also look at how these festivities can be spun to give it a different flavour, one which is family-centric to get brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents to do things together and enjoy each other's company. The family message is somehow lost or hidden when we celebrate major festivities in Singapore. We are losing invaluable opportunities if we do not seize them when the occasion arises. Even among the Europeans, Christmas, for example, is "a family gathering". But, in Singapore, the theme is invariably about "buying a gift".

Healthcare for everyone

Sir, I now move on to the greatest gift that we enjoy as mankind - and that is the gift of good health. The President has mentioned affordable healthcare. Our health services sector has certainly improved. We have very modern equipment to match the very talented medical brains. But the flip side is that medical cost to the lay people has also gone up. So where is the benefit of modern medical science to the lay people? We need doctors who are able to diagnose accurately. We need doctors who can recommend the right treatment. And above all, we need doctors who can offer good alternatives after diagnosing a patient - that these doctors have compassion for their patients and are mindful of the financial burden on these patients.

4.55 pm

Let me cite an example of someone who was diagnosed with lymphoma. Her doctor had advised her that there is a treatment which will cost her $25,000. However, it is not a cure. Or she can wait till the abnormal cell count is up to a certain level, then go for invasive treatment. It pains everyone affected when one is put in such a predicament of having to make decisions that can lead to life or death. However, I would like to add that I have faith in Mr Khaw Boon Wan. The Health Minister has done much to review the medical costs. But there are still many more basic changes that need to be done. There are many simple basic suggestions and improvements that can make healthcare affordable for our senior citizens at the community level. We need to provide more primary healthcare and basic medical screening services at the community level, ie, at the polyclinics and at local GPs. Also, the hospitals should recognise referrals by private GPs. Patients referred for hospitalisation should not be channelled to the high paying wards just because they were referred by the GPs and not by the polyclinics. Also, the queue at the polyclinics is very long now, and this should be improved quickly. Many patients, especially senior citizens, cannot take the strain of waiting especially when they are ill. When appointments are made for senior citizens, also be sensitive to their financial situation and schedule them a time after 10.00 am so that they would benefit from the lower transport costs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I am proud to say that over the past few years, in the face of challenges, we have responded well. We have stayed united as a nation - young, old, rich, poor - we

Mr Steve Chia is not here. I just wanted to say this. Is it not ironic that with this open and fair system and great opportunity Mr Steve Chia is able to be in this Parliament, and yet he has criticised that our system is not democratic?

defeat. That mental prowess is just as much an asset as physical strength to win a game.the usage of these facilities. We could then invite past and present sportsmen and women to volunteer their services to make up the shortfall of people resources. In this way, we will create more avenues to encourage our young children to engage in community sports. sang with one voice and with one same hymn sheet. Singapore is the land where there will be ample opportunities for everyone.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address is very comprehensive. It points out the future direction in which Singapore will go so that it will still have an edge in social and economic development in spite of keen competition in the world. The Presidential Address mentioned the contributions made by older Singaporeans to our nation building. Their social experience and values still play an important role in our future development. We have been independent for 40 years. Singaporeans now aged 60 to 65 were young people aged 20 to 25 some 40 years ago. Whether they are the elite or ordinary men-in-the-street, they all have contributed to our nation building by turning Singapore from a third world country into a developed country within a very short period of time. Now that we have achieved our excellent international status, we should not ignore their contributions. We should think of the source whenever we drink the water. We should acknowledge their efforts and contributions. Therefore, I fully support the President's emphasis on caring for our elderly and helping our poor and needy. I would like to express my views and make suggestions in two areas.

First, helping the poor and needy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the 1980s and 1990s, our economy grew by an average of 8% annually. But in 1997, we had the Asian economic crisis. In 2001, we had the September 11 crisis. In 2003, we had SARS, and in 2004 we had the bird

Of course, I agree that when you owe something, you must pay back. But SP should consider allowing them to settle the arrears by instalments when they begin to earn some income. They should not be deprived of water and electricity supply to their households. In the good old days, if we have no tap water, we could use the water from the well. But with all the urbanisation and development taking place in Singapore, where do we find wells nowadays? SP may consider offering some kind of part-time employment to these people, such as meter-reading or debt collection, so that they can get a job and earn some money to pay off their arrears. I hope that SP will consider this. I think some of the town councils are already doing this and

When the economy is good, our people can afford to be picky with the jobs, and they shun certain unglamorous jobs, such as the conservancy jobs in the HDB estates, leaving all these jobs to the foreign workers. But with automation and the deployment of new technologies, these jobs have been upgraded. So our people should change their attitude towards these jobs. We must learn to accept the new jobs, under the new system. I would suggest that the town councils, when tendering out the conservancy jobs or contracts, specify in the contracts that the contractor should maintain 60-70% of local employees so as to ensure that our local people will have the opportunity to get the job, especially those who are less educated and older.

Next, improving the job opportunity of our elderly people. Many of the traditional jobs are disappearing under the present economic restructuring. Those people who are less educated are the most badly affected and they stand to lose a lot of job opportunities. In order to repay these people who have, in the past, contributed to our nation building, the Government should give them some assistance wherever possible. Firstly, I would suggest that the Government step up its efforts to encourage and give incentives to those who employ our senior citizens, such as giving them special tax reliefs and rebates. Under the restructured economy, these elderly people find it difficult to get alternative employment.

I note that the fast food operators used to employ a lot of elderly Singaporeans and their performances at work were no less effective than that of the younger people. They can be found in

Next, I would like to talk about our housing policy. Under the Home Ownership Scheme, we have about 86% of our population owning their own properties. I think we are the only country in the world which has achieved this. During the good times, the Government had also encouraged our people to upgrade from smaller flats to bigger flats. As a result, many people own 4-room or 5-room flats now, with market prices ranging from $250,000 to $300,000. But with the children grown up and moving out to set up their own families, the big flats are now occupied by the old parents. On the face of it, they are asset rich. They have a property worth some $300,000 but no liquid cash to live on unless they sell the flat. But once they sell the flat, they would have no shelter over their heads. Under the present policy, when you sell your flat, you cannot apply for another flat until 30 months later. So you cannot downgrade to a smaller flat. According to my survey, in bad times, the demand for 3-room flats is greater, and consequently their prices are higher. If you were to sell a 4-room flat to buy a 3-room flat from the resale

I have two suggestions to make. The HDB has stipulated that within 30 months of the sale of an existing flat, no application is allowed for the registration of a new flat. I feel that times have changed, circumstances have changed, the Housing and Development Board should reconsider this 30-month debarment rule, so that the elderly people who are in dire need of cash to survive would be able to sell their bigger flat and rent or buy a smaller flat, and have some cash for life after retirement, without having to depend on social assistance and maintaining a flat which is too big for them.

Next, lift upgrading. This is one of the most important and popular HDB upgrading programmes. HDB has already done a lot in upgrading the older estates. But it will take 10 to 15 years to complete the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) for all the eligible blocks of HDB flats in Singapore. Some old people have been telling me, "You can wait for 10 years, 15 years. I cannot live that long to wait for lift upgrading for my flat." So they may not live to use the new lift that offers them landing on every floor. I hope the Minister for National Development would expedite the LUP, so that the people do not have to wait for 10 to 15 years. Ideally, the programme should be completed within five years, so that our older folks will be able to enjoy better facilities in terms of lift accessibility on every floor. Because they are old, they have difficulty in walking up the stairs. If the lift does not land on his particular floor, an old resident would have considerable difficulty getting out and returning to the floor where he lives.

The third area is on appropriate social welfare policy. In the early years of

We should also take special care of the older residents in the one-room flats. In our Residents' Committees, we have the youth group, the women's group and the senior citizens' group. I think they should all join together, hand in hand, to set up a care group for the elderly people, and visit these elderly people in one-room flats so that they will feel that they are not neglected.

We have a lot of public amenities which are user-friendly to the old people. Take Changi Airport, for example. Last year, on one occasion, when I was at the departure lounge waiting to board an airplane to China, I met an old man who was staring at the display board. He took off his spectacles, put them on and took them off again, trying to read the wordings on the board. I asked him,

Lastly, I would refer to the need for more flexibility in medicare. There are frequent adjustments to medical charges, but the adjustment is always upwards and never downwards. The escalating medical fees have become a great burden to the older people. Some people are commenting that in Singapore, "you can die but you cannot fall sick".

I am glad to learn that Mr Khaw Boon Wan, our Minister for Health, is making attempts to revamp our MediShield scheme. I think it is good. It is said that the premium would be increased by $10 per month or $120 a year. For those who are working, this is not so much of a problem. But to the elderly people with no job and no income,

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are some suggestions that I am making, based on feedback I received from my meet-the-people sessions. I hope that the Ministries concerned would give a positive response to my suggestions.

flu. With these setbacks, our unemployment rate went up. During the restructuring of our economy, a lot of people were retrenched and became unemployed. Those who are aged above 55 and lowly educated find it very difficult to get alternative jobs. Right now, our employment rate is 3.5%, that is to say, about 70,000 people of our population are unemployed. If we distribute them among our 84 constituencies, we would have an average of 850 unemployed people in each constituency. Most of these people are lowly educated and elderly. At my meet-the-people sessions, a lot of people came and complained to me that Singapore Power (SP) had cut their water and electricity supplies because they could not pay their utilities bills. Being unemployed, and with the arrears accumulated from month to month, they have simply no means to pay up. They have no choice but to come and see their Members of Parliament for help. I would therefore suggest that SP be more flexible in dealing with their cases. SP should understand their difficulties and make some concessions for those genuine cases of hardship due to long-term unemployment or retrenchment. the response from the residents has been good. the fast food outlets such as McDonald's and KFC. The creator of Kentucky Fried Chicken started his world-famous establishment only at the ripe age of 62. He used his mature and stately appearance and created this image which can be seen all over the world in the past 50-plus years. This image and brand conquer the whole world. This goes to show the value of elderly people. They have their attraction and charisma. So I would appeal to the employers in Singapore to emulate the KFC model to employ more elderly people. This is another form of "thinking of the source when you drink water". How do we provide incentives for companies to employ senior citizens? The Government may consider granting tax reliefs or tax rebates as an incentive for companies to employ older workers. market, after deducting all the legal and incidental expenses, you would have very little left. I hope that the Government would review this policy to avoid inconveniencing the elderly citizens. nationhood when Singapore was a young nation, the Government had to pay greater attention to children and young people, especially in HDB estates and public parks, where you could find a lot of playgrounds and facilities for children to play in. But there is no facility or equipment for the elderly people to use. With an ageing population, I hope that the town councils and NParks will consider building or installing some exercise equipment to cater to the needs of the older people. No doubt, the Government has to look after the children and young people, but the older folks should be given a fair share of attention too. I suggest that outdoor exercise facilities and equipment be provided for the elderly people to use, in order to help them have better health. In addition, we should also set up more day-care centres for the elderly. In Japan, where the population is also ageing, a lot of such day-care centres for old people are set up for them to socialise and learn something new while their children are working. I think this is very helpful to the daily life of the elderly people. "Where are you going?" He told me in Teochew, "I am going to Swatow. But the wording on the display board is so difficult to read. I just cannot figure out which departure gate I have to use for my flight." He had difficulty reading the display on the board, not uncommon for old folks with failing vision. In fact, I too have difficulty making out the small wordings on the display board. I checked his departure gate for him and took him to the appropriate counter to check in. He held my hands and said, "Thank you very much. I am old and useless." He could not read from the display board. A few days later, when I was at the Capital Airport, Beijing, I noticed that all the display boards for flight details were installed at eye level. Although I am not too old, I feel this eye-level display much more convenient for travellers, young and old. But in Singapore, the display boards are all very high and far, far away. To the old people, it is a bit difficult to see. Even the not-too-old people like me cannot read the wordings clearly. This is just one simple example. I suggest that when providing public amenities, the convenience of the elderly be considered. it is quite a burden. I hope that the Government will take some concrete action to look after the interest of these old people who have, in the past, contributed to our nation-building. If they are really not working and have financial difficulty, they cannot pay the extra $120 a year, the Government should pay this amount on their behalf. I feel that this kind gesture is good for the Government. After all, in the event that the elderly people are unable to pay for ward charges or medical expenses, what would happen? Ultimately, the Government has to pay for it. So, if they could be covered under the MediShield, we could transfer the responsibility to the insurance companies. It makes sense for the Government to help them stay in the scheme. This is like killing two birds with one stone. I hope the Government will consider my suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the Opening of Parliament, President S R Nathan said we opened the Second Session of the 10th Parliament with a heavy heart, as many parts of our region were devastated by tsunamis which brought death and destruction to entire communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this tsunami disaster generated an unprecedented outpouring of generosity and assistance from many countries, but the kind of generosity and assistance from our small country is worth a big mention. Yes, Sir, I am proud of our efforts and, today, I would like to commend my fellow Singaporeans and our Government for the overwhelming response and the effective measures we have taken to help in the tsunami-affected areas.

Although many of my parliamentary colleagues speaking before me have touched on tsunami-related issues from various perspectives, I would like to give a more detailed account and put on record the unfolding of events that prompted the outpouring of generosity from Singaporeans, voluntary organisations, and Singapore companies that really touched me, and the swift effective actions taken by our Government that really impressed me.

Although the tsunami disaster struck on 26th December, ie, last month, it was not until at least three days later that the world realised the scale of the disaster. The enormous scale of the damage to lives, communities and towns shocked the world. As described by PM Lee when he visited Banda Aceh and Meulaboh: "I was overwhelmed by the endless and total devastation." US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, when he visited Aceh, said that the scene was worse than any disaster he had ever seen. Stunned by what he saw in Aceh, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that he must admit that he had never seen such utter destruction, mile after mile.

The health hazards, with decaying corpses, no water, no sanitation and no electricity in tsunami-affected areas, were the immediate concern after the aftermath. This spurred our Government to send plane-loads of relief and medical supplies to Medan on the second day of the disaster, and the following day to Sri Lanka, as well as SCDF rescuers to Thailand and Aceh.

Sir, the first foreign medical aid to get to Banda Aceh was indeed from Singapore, sent by City Harvest Community Services, arriving on the third day of the disaster. The team conducted 50 operations in three days. As many as 1,500 patients were waiting for treatment on their arrival. The 25-man medical team

By the end of one week, more than US$5 billion in aid from governments worldwide had been pledged. Unfortunately, the aid delivery to the affected areas was hampered by lack of access. The tsunamis had destroyed roads, jetties and airport. Entering the first week, Indonesia admitted that basic supplies had not reached many affected areas, especially the western coast inaccessible by land. Singapore was one of the first countries to send personnel, vehicles and relief to the beleaguered town of Meulaboh, which lost almost all road links with the rest of Sumatra, making it only accessible by air and sea.

About 100,000 people died from the tsunami in Sumatra's western coast. The area around the town of Meulaboh, which lies 150 kilometres from the epicentre of the tsunami earthquake, bore the brunt of the quake. Ten thousand of the 40,000 inhabitants died, and towns and villages were devastated in Meulaboh. On 30th December 2004, SAF Chinook helicopters flew the first large food shipment into Meulaboh. On 3rd January 2005, a lifeline into Meulaboh was finally established by SAF engineers when they achieved a major breakthrough in establishing two landing points at the coastal town which had changed drastically due to the tsunami. This breakthrough brought in the much needed 470 personnel from the SAF, SCDF, volunteer doctors and nurses, 51 trucks,

Mr Kofi Annan extended special thanks to SAF for its role in facilitating relief efforts in Aceh. SAF's massive aid, professionalism, commitment and diligence enabled international relief efforts to show results, with basic services restored in Meulaboh by 12th January 2005, with medical care, rubbish collection and communications restored.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's quick response, anticipating potential flaws in international relief operations and focusing limited aid in Meulaboh that yielded tremendous results, showed our Government's efficiency, competence and pragmatism at its best. UN relief chief, Mr Jan Egeland, lauded Singapore's timely response, noting how it was one of the first countries to offer military assets to the relief effort: "Singapore's efforts have been exemplary. Very early on, it offered exactly the kind of logistical support and military assets that UN needed the most." TNI Indonesian Major-General Bambang Darmono acknowledged positively the SAF's involvement when he said: "Singapore has helped us a great deal in this crisis. There is this special synergy between TNI and SAF in the field."

One week after the disaster, Singapore offered to be the regional coordination centre for international relief operations. The next day, United Nations and International Red Cross accepted Singapore's offer of its air and naval facilities, as well as office space and logistics facilities, to ease the distribution of aid in the region.

Our Government activated the biggest ever humanitarian response effort, dispatching 10 helicopters, three SAF navy ships, more than 1,000 military, police, civil defence and medical personnel, mainly to Thailand and Indonesia. UN relief chief, Mr Jan Egeland, praised Singapore for offering assets for immediate use and, as he put it: "Singapore has been generous, putting in all efforts to help in the relief work."

PM Lee Hsien Loong initiated a summit of world leaders to coordinate sustained international aid to the affected areas. Held in Jakarta on 7th January 2005, it was attended by 26 delegations from donor countries, organisations and affected countries. Singapore's proposals taken up at the summit included appointing a special representative so that the UN could mobilise relief efforts urgently for tsunami-hit countries and having more aircraft and helicopters coming through Paya Lebar Airbase en route to the stricken areas. One week later, 73% of US$977 million UN appeal launched at this summit was met by donor countries pledged to the United Nations. Indonesia's media acknowledged that this summit was a Singapore initiative and that PM Lee was the first head of state to visit Aceh. Indonesia also praised and carried reports of Singapore's efforts in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh.

Singaporeans showed unprecedented compassion and generosity for tsunami

of the SAF arrived at Banda Aceh on the fourth day to provide the badly needed medical personnel and medicine for the many injured and sick. Just a few days later, they were reinforced by groups of medical volunteers from Parkway Medical Group, Mercy Relief, Ren Ci, and Raffles Medical Group. The Singapore Red Cross Society, hospital and medical personnel from both public and private sectors, Touch Community Services and YMCA also sent teams of volunteers and medics to Sri Lanka. trailers and other equipment transported by the RSS Endurance. It was reported that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was delighted when he received this news. By 6th January, a second ship, RSS Persistence, arrived with another 196 men and relief supplies. On the same day, a SAF portable water-purification plant began producing 3,000 litres of clean drinking water daily. A SAF temporary field hospital was also set up at Meulaboh. The 55-member SAF medical team proved to be a life-saver. Meulaboh lost its two hospitals in the calamity. Only four of its dozens of doctors in the civilian hospital survived. The rest were killed because they were attending an event on the beach on that fateful day. victims. Three thousand Singaporeans from all walks of life queued at the Singapore Red Cross Office to donate $2 million in just one day, on 29th December 2004. Instead of celebrating New Year's Day, Singaporeans sweated it out packing relief boxes at SPH News Centre. At DBS Bank, around 12,200 customers donated more than $1.8 million in a mere 3-day period. Everywhere, young people were coming forward, donating money and time. Many companies chipped in by mobilising their staff and assets, and donating to the Singapore Red Cross, quite a handful of them in large amounts too. Temasek Holdings has announced that it will set aside US$10 million for relief, recovery and reconstructive support. Singapore's port authorities waived all charges for handling relief supplies sent through its ports. PUB sent out bags of water

to affected areas. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has been waiving charges for relief goods. Many organisations are still raising funds for the relief and reconstruction of tsunami-affected areas. To-date, the Singapore Red Cross Society had raised $48 million from individuals, organisations and companies. Singaporeans have raised at least $50 million for the tsunami-affected countries and this figure is still climbing. The total amount collected as a nation, inclusive of those pledged by our Government of $24 million and Temasek Holdings of $16.5 million, will be a staggering amount of about $90.5 million. Singapore is indeed a small country with a big heart.

Singapore has also suffered direct casualties. We have confirmed nine dead and 15 missing from the tsunami disaster. My condolences go to their families and friends and I would like to urge our Government to look into stouter support and financial help for their dependants. Let us not forget that they are truly tsunami victims and deserve our sympathy and helping hands too. Perhaps,

At the Opening of Parliament, President Nathan said we must secure Singapore's place in the world and nurture our relations with other countries. He said that in an increasingly inter-dependent world, Singapore will fulfill its responsibilities as a global citizen. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our nation's impromptu and concerted efforts for tsunami victims this time demonstrated that Singapore has indeed acted as a global citizen.

The outpouring of sympathy and helping hands from all walks of life from Singaporeans in unison demonstrate that we are a nation that cares for others in need. This show of benevolence makes me feel very proud to be Singaporean. Such concerted efforts can only bind us even stronger as a nation. Our acts brought relief to many tsunami-afflicted individuals. Our goodwill strengthens the friendship we have with the afflicted countries. I am sure they appreciate our goodwill in their hour of need. We have unveiled our true commendable qualities and the world will judge us accordingly, a global and socially sound nation.

Sir, I would like to conclude by complimenting President Nathan on his Address that covered wide-ranging topics charting Singapore's forward path. I concur with him, especially when he said that older Singaporeans helped to build today's Singapore and I am most happy to hear him say, and I quote, "We will support the social, mental and physical needs of the growing numbers of older Singaporeans." Sir, there is much that our Government can look into, in terms of the social, mental and physical needs of our elderly. This is a topic that deserves a hearing of its own and I shall do just that in due course.

I conclude on this note in support of the motion.

we should take a leaf from the assistance given to the SARS-affected families from the large funds raised at that time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what exactly do opportunities mean for Singaporeans? If we ask different Singaporeans how they view Singapore as a country with opportunities, we are likely to get different answers. But sometimes, the most difficult answers can be found in the most basic principles. We always say that the four basic needs for people are clothing, food, shelter and transportation. In Chinese, we call, "yi, shi, zhu, xin".

Over the years, the Government has done a wonderful job in meeting these basic needs for Singaporeans. We now enjoy a standard of living that is among the highest in the world. But as an old Chinese saying goes, "bu huan gua er huan bu jun". One of the key success factors of any nation is not how rich or poor its citizens are, but rather it is how the society comes together to help the weaker members. Even as we celebrate our successes, we must make sure that the poor and the disadvantaged do not get left behind. My point is that we need to go beyond just providing financial aid and handouts to the needy. We have to provide all means and opportunities for the poor and the disadvantaged to also have a fighting chance in life, ie, a job opportunity for all.

Secondly, beyond economic successes, we need to build a nation that can celebrate achievements in other areas. To do so, we need to recognise that there are many talented Singaporeans out there who have done well in many other fields, including arts, sports and culture. We should not stereotype its success. In other words, we need to provide opportunities for Singaporeans to explore their areas of interests and develop their talents.

Thirdly, although education is not commonly regarded as a basic need, I would argue that learning is a fundamental pillar for our society to grow. In short, we must provide opportunities for all Singaporeans to be able to continue to learn and upgrade throughout their lifetime. As a union leader, I have personally seen how continual learning helps workers stay employable and to lead a better life.

I read from a magazine recently that to "globalise or be damned" was the conclusion of the Treasury's report on Britain's economic future, which coolly predicted that Europe and US will lose at least five million jobs abroad within the next 10 years. Within 10 years, China and India will together account for a quarter of the world's economic output.

The document warned that the rapid growth of the large emerging economies, in particular, China and India, is shifting the balance of the global economic activities. Offshoring will accelerate and the main challenge to Britain will be the loss of thousands more low-wage jobs to China and India where wages are only 5% of those of Britain. The middle-class employees, such as accountants, lawyers and computer programmers are also affected.

Staying in employment in the year ahead will, and I quote, "depend upon an individual's ability to adapt, replacing the old notion of a job for life with "employability for life". Those who do lose their jobs can learn different skills and find a new and better job. Some jobs will be lost, no matter what Britain does, but others will be saved if Britain improves its economic efficiency or productivity."

On the other side of the ocean, a review of the occupations with the largest expected growth in jobs from the US Department of Labour stated that

Sir, these lines sound familiar, as we in Singapore face the same challenges. The threat of structural unemployment will also be growing as we go through the transition from high-growth to a more moderate and more volatile growth. However, compared to the British, we are fortunate that, with a strong labour movement, and an established tripartite network and framework, we have responded much earlier to prepare Singaporeans for the challenges. We have made very good progress in helping our workers to upgrade and to enhance their employability and efficiency by all kinds of training and assistance schemes that we have put in place. However, we cannot simply put an equal sign between education training and employability. Our workers will not want to end up with a situation of having the skills but no jobs and unemployable. In Chinese, we call, "ying xiong wu yong wu zi di".

To further the interest and protect the rights of the rank-and-file workers in this changed environment, the tripartite partners need to work out a much more effective action plan to help. One union leader, who joined the NTUC study trips to India recently, shared with me his observation. He said what he saw reminded him, and I quote: "Globalisation has brought to our doorstep 4 CORE trends, that means, fundamental shift in Singapore's employment and industrial relations, namely, "C" for consolidation, "O", outsourcing, "R", retrenchment and "E", early retirement. It is a timely wake-up call to urge all unionists to start thinking what should unions do to stay

As a labour movement, we cannot afford to resist such trends. Because if the pace of change out there in the world is faster than the pace of change here in Singapore, our businesses will become less competitive and our economic growth will become less sustainable and our ability to create jobs will be weakened. Resisting is a no-win outcome for all Singaporeans and the Singapore-based companies. At the end of the day, it will be our workers that will suffer.

So we have to choose to face the challenges squarely. Besides putting in place an education and training framework to strengthen our employability, we need to redesign existing low-paying jobs in various domestic bound sectors and turn them into more productive and better-paying jobs for Singaporeans. This will help create more job opportunities for our local workers, especially retrenched workers and those who are older and less skilled. Sir, the NTUC, with the leadership of some of the labour MPs, together with the union leaders in the various sectors, has already completed a number of pilot job redesign projects with the support of the more enlightened employers. There is no excuse for the other employers not to do the same. It is time for the employers to respond positively to the tripartite efforts to bring in better job opportunities to all Singaporeans, particularly those in the services sector. The services sector's share of the GDP and employment in Singapore is 63% and 76% respectively. That means, with three-quarters of our jobs in the sector, we need to strengthen the job value of the sector immediately so as to be able to provide better jobs for Singaporeans.

Let me now turn to some of the issues that were raised in the Addendum of MOM. In its Addendum, the MOM has stated that it wants to give companies

The real issue, however, is how many and whether Singaporeans can actually fill up these jobs. During the period of strong economic growth in the mid-90s, where three jobs are chasing after one Singaporean worker, there will be less concern about this proposal. But today, when we are faced with a slower long-term growth rate and where at least 2-3 workers chase after one job, there are concerns that a greater liberalisation of the foreign workers policy will affect the job prospects of Singaporeans. As it is, the older Singaporeans are already finding it difficult to secure jobs or to find a new job, including the middle-aged executives who are retrenched. We would like to know how the authority would strike a balance and reassure us that any changes undertaken will not be at the expense of local workers. I strongly think that the levy ought to be raised as a counter check, if necessary.

When the new "S" pass system was introduced last year, the Minister had assured this House that there would be enough safeguards, including restricting the number of "S" pass holders to not more than 5%. I would like to know whether this restriction will still apply. The Government has to take into account factors such as our slower economic growth, rising structural unemployment, and the greater difficulty for older workers, including those with qualifications to secure jobs, before it makes a decision to allow companies to recruit more foreign manpower.

The other concern that I have, and I wish to raise, is on the protection for workers' salaries. The existing law is limited in its scope as it does not cover all workers. For those not covered under the Act, particularly the executives, they will have to engage lawyers to pursue their salary claims through the civil courts. This is expensive, time consuming and frustrating to the individuals who are already suffering from the loss of income. In Singapore, where the majority of the people are wage earners, providing an effective and practical avenue for people to pursue their salary claims is a fundamental aspect of employee welfare.

However, I am not advocating that all executives be covered under the Employment Act for the purpose of salary claims. What I am advocating is for the Ministry to consider allowing junior executives to have access to the Labour Court to pursue their salary claims. As we know, many companies inflate their employees' titles. So we have executives earning only $2,000 but when they have salary claims to make against the employers, they have to file a civil suit against the employers, which we know they can ill afford. So my question is whether the Government will consider amending the Employment Act only for the purpose of allowing junior executives to file their salary claims.

between 2002 and 2012, there will be more than 7.5 million new jobs in the 20 occupations with the largest growth. But almost six million of these new jobs (accounting for 17 out of the 20 largest growth occupations) require job-seekers with limited education and provide minimum training and are typically identified as low wage jobs. relevant and help our fellow workers."greater flexibility to recruit skilled foreign workers. It believes that giving companies greater flexibility to recruit foreign workers will help them to be more competitive and help create jobs for Singaporeans. One cannot dispute the fact that skilled foreign manpower is necessary for us in areas where there are not enough Singaporeans to do the job.

I welcome the Ministry of Manpower's decision to develop programmes to strengthen the capabilities of the line managers and HR professionals. We could not continue to be the No 1 world-class workforce without sufficient improvement in the quality of our managers. In the Watson Wyatt study on Work Attitudes in Asia, which covered 11,000 workers from 11 countries, almost 67% of the respondents to survey said that they were satisfied with their jobs, but only 35% rated their supervisors favourably, compared with

In the area of supervision, the perception by Singaporean employees is that it clearly needs improvement in terms of how supervisors are managing them. While supervisors are good in getting the job done, they are probably not as good in the areas of coaching and development mentoring. Hence, there is a need for the programme to strengthen the managerial capability as well.

With that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

the regional norm of 41%. And only 31% believe their supervisors motivated them to do better, while 31% said their supervisors coached them to improve their performance.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned. [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Adjourned accordingly at

Thirteen minutes to Six o'clock pm.