Hansard, 2006-11-08

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: Column: 102 Name From (2007) To (2007) Mr Sin Boon Ann 06 Nov 07 Nov 12 Nov 15 Nov 23 Nov 26 Nov Mdm Ho Geok Choo 08 Nov 10 Nov Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 09 Nov 09 Nov Mr Lee Kuan Yew 13 Nov 23 Nov Mr Lim Hng Kiang 14 Nov 18 Nov Mr Goh Chok Tong 19 Nov 29 Nov Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 24 Nov 01 Dec Mr Inderjit Singh 27 Nov 30 Nov Mr Teo Chee Hean 04 Dec 09 Dec Mr Christopher de Souza 03 Jan 12 Jan

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order. Oath of Allegiance. The honourable Member, present to take his seat, will please come forward when his name is called.

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance:

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Matthias Yao and Ms Indranee Rajah be elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament.

Mr Matthias Yao was elected to Parliament in 1991 and had sat on Select Committees such as the Standing Orders

Ms Indranee Rajah had been in Parliament since 2001. She had participated in the work of the various parliamentary committees and parliamentary friendship and regional groups. With their experience, I believe that they will make good Deputies in discharging their duties.

Committee and the Public Petitions Committee. He had also held several office-holding appointments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the proposals.

There being no other proposals, I declare that Mr Matthias Yao and Ms Indranee Rajah to have been duly elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament. [Applause].

"to amend the Banking Act (Chapter 19 of the 2003 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition) and the Deposit Insurance Act 2005 (Act 31 of 2005)",

presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore",

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar); read the

First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Trade Marks Act (Chapter 332 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the licensing and control of dealers in secondhand goods and for matters connected therewith, to repeal the Secondhand Dealers Act (Chapter 288 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Arms and Explosives Act (Chapter 13 of the 2003 Revised Edition)",

presented by Mr Wong Kan Seng; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Education Endowment Scheme Act (Chapter 87A of the 1993 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister of State for Education (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal the Property Tax (Surcharge) Act (Chapter 255 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Children Development Co-Savings Act (Chapter 38A of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Charities Act (Chapter 37 of the 1995 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 158A of the 1996 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Air Navigation Act (Chapter 6 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

presented by Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

1.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel deeply honoured to move this motion. I beg to move,

'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 First Session of this Parliament.".'.

Strongly support strengthening of social safety nets and increased Government spending

Sir, first, I would like to thank the President for a thought-provoking, insightful and, in many ways, ground-breaking speech. The President has outlined the priorities of the Government over the coming years. One very important area that he has touched upon at some length is the need to build an inclusive society. As a trade unionist, I warmly welcome the greater emphasis placed on building a more equitable society, a topic also touched upon by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech in 2005. To me, long-term

The President’s speech therefore marks a perceptible shift in the direction of the Government. According to the President, the Government will do more and will introduce more measures to help needy Singaporeans more systematically. Its spending will rise over the next decade as it invests more in Singapore’s future needs and spend more to meet our growing social needs. I strongly support the idea for more resources to be allocated to help all sectors of our society, especially the needy. I see this greater allocation of resources as an investment in our people and not expenditure. It is an investment to develop the capacities of our people as well as an investment in building social cohesion and a strong society, necessary ingredients to help us move ahead.

I am deeply heartened by this shift in focus, which will set the tone for the Government over the next decade. Of course, it is not possible for us to ensure that everyone will enjoy the same outcome from their individual efforts. Motivation and capabilities differ. Nevertheless, it is possible to help everyone to have access to the same opportunities by removing barriers or obstacles.

In my view, this debate that we are having today and over the next few days is an important one and I am sure that there will be many ideas and suggestions made on how we can build a more socially inclusive society. At the same time, I think that we need to stay focused in this debate. We will be starting on a

Many foreign unionists are impressed with our programmes. Just last month, I was having a meeting with some foreign unionists in Turin, Italy, and when I shared with them about some of the schemes that we have put in place, both nationally and by the labour movement, to help low-income Singaporeans, they were very excited. Although they recognise that their situations are different from ours, they felt that Singapore is an interesting model of how a small country without any natural resources has been able to remain economically competitive but yet socially very cohesive.

In the ILO, Sir, no meeting would be complete without a mention of the “G” word, and that is globalisation. But the discussion seldom goes beyond the rhetoric; remedies and solutions are in short supply. Many governments recognise that they need to deal with problems arising from globalisation but they lack the political will or resources or they cannot muster enough support from their people to do what they know they must do. As a result, the disparity and social inequity have continued and tensions mount. Mostly, governments, employers and unions take different positions and nothing moves. In the end, we hear only a lot of airing of frustrations

Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenge of building a more inclusive society in the face of intense change and globalisation is not peculiar to Singapore. All countries - both developed and developing - face such challenges. My unionist friends from India tell me that the stories that we hear about how income has risen so fast in India is only one part of the story. According to them, income has risen but not for all Indian workers. Many continue to labour under poor working conditions and earn low wages. So, in India too, the wage gap is widening. What an Indian IT worker or call centre worker earns in a month is what an average Indian worker earns in a year. The situation is the same in China where its top economic planning body earlier this year warned that the income gap in the Chinese cities has reached dangerous levels.

Sir, we have a high degree of social mobility in Singapore and regardless of our background, everyone has a chance to move up.

economic development is only sustainable if there is also social development, as the two go hand-in-hand. A society which focuses only on economic development will be lop-sided and unequal, leading to tensions and conflicts which in the end will jeopardise the interest of everyone. wrong footing if we proceed on the premise that thus far nothing has been done to help our low-income, the poor and the elderly. In fact, through the Progress Package, ComCare Fund, Workfare Bonus and other initiatives, the Government has spent billions of dollars to help needy Singaporeans. With the many-helping-hands approach, the labour movement too has done its part to help our low-income workers. This year alone, NTUC distributed $6.4 million in the form of hardship grants, transport vouchers, Fairprice vouchers, Family Recreation Fund and through the Back-to-School programme as well as through bursaries and scholarships.from all sides but no concrete action. In the meantime, the people suffer.

Many of my trade unionist friends had missed out on a good education because they came from poor families. But many are proud to say that their children are in university. In one generation, Singaporeans have moved up. The social status or wealth of one’s parents does not determine success; the overriding consideration is the will to succeed, supported by the right conditions provided by the Government.

In a nutshell, up to now, we have indeed done very well for ourselves as a very young nation. Since independence 41 years ago, we have made remarkable economic progress as well as good social progress. As we move ahead, there will continue to be a lot of opportunities for all Singaporeans. The job situation has been extremely encouraging. We have had the strongest job growth in 15 years, with 113,000 jobs created in 2005 and

How to strengthen our social safety nets?

However, Sir, we also know that the road ahead will not be so rosy for everyone. In the past, economic growth was the tide that could lift all boats. Today, even with economic growth, there will be boats that flounder and others that cannot rise to the top without help. As the President said, we are now at a turning point where we have to decide what more we can do to help those left behind because they cannot adjust as quickly or as well to globalisation. Left alone, they will not be able to make it. Worse still, the poverty may even be transmitted across generations. We see examples of such cases at our meet-the-people sessions as well as through other contact points. Although it will get increasingly more difficult, we have to do our best to ensure that there continues to be social mobility in our society so that people will continue to have hopes and see a future for them.

What more can we do and in what form, are the issues that we need to debate and reach a clear national consensus on. It is not something only for us to debate in the Chamber of this Parliament. It should be something that all thinking and feeling Singaporeans should worry about. In the process, we would develop a better understanding of the issues and challenges and develop a national consensus on how to move ahead.

So, if the Government wants to provide more assistance, what form

We are not the only one having reservations about the Western European model of social welfare. The World Bank too has expressed its reservations. In its 2006 World Development Report on Equity and Development, the Bank said, and I quote:

“Things can also go greatly wrong when governments mandate protection with no attention to incentives. In much of Europe, governments implemented generous unemployment benefits with little connection to the workers’ actual job search behaviour. The result was an increase in the duration of unemployment and the emergence of long-term unemployment, with its destructive impact on human capital, loss of employability, weakened ties to economic and social life and, for many, high degrees of poverty and social exclusion."

The same report goes on to say, and I quote:

“By the same token, those interested in greater equity must not ignore the short-term trade-offs. If individual incentives are blunted by income redistribution schemes that tax investment and production too steeply, the

Sir, in a nutshell, after surveying extensively all the schemes that are implemented in the world to achieve equity and development, the World Development Report concluded that whatever we do, it should not weaken the individual’s incentive to work and be self-reliant, a concern with the Western European model of welfare. Also, these schemes must be economically sustainable in the long term and not in a perverse way affect investment and growth. If we take these as our parameters, our current emphasis on workfare, rather than welfare, is clearly the way ahead. Workfare rewards those who work and are prepared to put in the effort to improve themselves.

Let me now turn to some specific areas where I feel that our safety net can be strengthened.

Workfare Bonus as part of social safety net

Sir, I hope that the payment of a Workfare Bonus will become a permanent feature of our social safety net. The second payment of the Workfare Bonus will be made next year. After that, it is not certain whether the Government will continue to pay a Workfare Bonus to our low-income workers. In the past, when I tried to match some of my residents with certain jobs like Town Council cleaners, they were reluctant to accept. Today, many more readily accept such jobs knowing that so long as they remain

Upgrade skills of low-income workers

Next, Sir, we must step up efforts to upgrade and re-skill our low-wage workers. The NTUC has embarked on extensive efforts to assist our low-wage workers to upgrade their skills. In 1995, we initiated the Skills Redevelopment Programme and since 2000, we have created 200,300 training places. In 2004, we started the Job Recreation Programme (JRP). The JRP now covers about 15 sectors and 8,500 jobs have been recreated since 2005. What the JRP does is to convert low-paying jobs often shunned by Singaporeans into higher value-added jobs, which pay better. The JRP is an intensive programme, which requires the total commitment of workers, unions, companies and the Government. While we have made good progress, more can be done and even greater support must be given to such programmes.

Enhance the employment rate of older workers

Third, we have to improve the employment rate of our older workers. The employment rate for workers aged 60 to 64 in 2005 was only 34.3%, lower than Japan (52%), South Korea (53.4%), UK (41.3%), US (50%) and Sweden (58.4%). NTUC is now working with 171 companies and close to 1,500 workers above the age of 62 years have been re-

Enhance the financial security of older Singaporeans

Fourth, Sir, we have to enhance the financial security of Singaporeans. Surveys show that many Singaporeans rely mainly on family support and are not prepared adequately for their financial needs in old age. The minimum sum is currently set at $94,600. This sum ensures a monthly payment of $711, which is roughly 21% of the monthly income of an average earner, for 20 years from retirement at age 62. But only four in 10 Singaporeans aged 55 had the mandatory nest-egg in their CPF accounts in 2005. We need to focus more on how to help enhance Singaporeans’ retirement savings and how to help them convert their assets to cash. I think these were the two issues that were raised about two or three years ago, and we do hope to see some progress in these two areas.

Ensuring access to good and affordable healthcare and top up Medisave and Medifund

Fifth, I strongly support the President’s call to keep good basic

Helping children from low-income families to have a good education and minimise drop outs

Next, Sir, we need to do more to help children from disadvantaged families so that they have access to a better education. Looking at the profile of children who drop out of school or who do not do well, we know that many come from poorer homes. Every year, more than a thousand students drop out from our schools. This is a big waste of our human resource, and the biggest concern is that they will end up as the future wave of low wage workers living in poverty. We need to do more to identify those at risk and help them remain in school. This is the best approach as once they drop out of school it will be a lot more difficult to assist them. For those who have dropped out, we need to do more to assist them. Currently, they cannot enrol at the ITE as they are not qualified and cannot attend

Mr Speaker, Sir, by the time you wrap up this debate, the House would have heard the views of a good number of MPs - new as well as seasoned ones - and Ministers too would have responded to the many points raised.

123,000 jobs created in the first nine months of this year. At 2.7%, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world - better than the EU’s 8% unemployment rate and the 5% in the US. Our three key pillars - education, healthcare and housing - have served us well.should it take? Should we adopt the Western European welfare state model? Should we adopt unemployment insurance or a minimum wage? Should we have a pension scheme for all Singaporeans? So far, we have avoided these paths. Even we unionists are not convinced that the welfare state is the model for us to adopt as we have seen the pitfalls. The reality is that there are no perfect models for us to copy and blindly follow. Every country has to develop its own approach taking into account its own needs and context. Our model has hitherto been to provide a basic social safety net through subsidised education, healthcare and housing, supplemented by social assistance programmes for the needy through a many-helping-hands approach.result will be less innovation, less investment and less growth. The history of the 20th century is littered with examples of ill-designed policies pursued in the name of equity that seriously harmed - rather than spurred - growth processes by ignoring individual incentives. A balance must be sought, taking into account both the immediate costs to individual incentives and the long-term benefits of cohesive societies, with inclusive institutions and broad opportunities."employed for at least six months, they can look forward to a Workfare Bonus from the Government. So, the scheme has achieved its desired goal of motivating and incentivising people to work and should be continued. In my view, this is important as I think wages between the top and bottom end will continue to be very stretched, despite our good economic performance and strong job creation. However, the scheme need not be exactly as it is now. We should review the results, and modify the scheme to make it more effective.employed. We target to increase this number to 4,000 next year. We need more companies to support the re-employment of older workers above the age of 62 years. A recent study commissioned by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation found that Singaporeans, unlike their counterparts in other countries, wish to continue working for as long as possible to remain financially independent. Despite having a higher employment rate among those aged 60 to 64, Japan recently introduced legislation requiring employers to re-offer employment to their workers who reach 60 years of age. Perhaps we should consider whether we should have a similar legislation at some stage, especially if we do not make very significant progress in our efforts to promote the re-employment of older workers.medical care affordable to all, and if I may add particularly for the elderly. Our 3M system has undergone changes for the better but further refinements are needed as big hospital bills are still of concern to Singaporeans. Allowing Medisave to be used for diabetes has proved to be very successful and there is scope to extend coverage beyond the four chronic diseases. Even middle-income Singaporeans have their fair share of concerns since many are under-insured for health and we need to address their concerns as well. And there are specific needs that should be addressed such as the need to focus more attention and allocate more resources to persons with mental illness. I would also like to urge the Government to annually top up the Medisave accounts of particularly older and low-income Singaporeans. I also call upon the Government to consider topping up the Medifund and making the rules more flexible so that a wider variety of cases could be covered.the SDF subsidised training courses as they are not working full-time. So the majority ends up taking temporary, unskilled jobs. There is also the danger that some of them may fall by the wayside, becoming delinquents or drug addicts.

Some of us will be happy that the Government will incorporate our views when fleshing out the blueprint for the future. But there is no need for anyone to feel upset, if their proposals are not taken on board. If we feel strongly about an issue, we should continue to plug the line. The end of the debate on the President’s Address does not mean we cannot raise our pet topics at future sittings. Nothing is static. So what is deemed to be unsuitable today can well be considered just the right thing to do at some other time.

Sir, all of us have a responsibility to place our national interests over sectional interests. Whether we are Ministers or Backbenchers from the PAP or any other party, work in the public or private sector, in business or operating as grassroots leaders, are retirees, homemakers or students, our primary responsibility is to promote and safeguard our national interests.

We can continue to forge ahead as a nation only if each individual accepts full responsibility and ownership of policies designed for our common good. This does not mean that we should not encourage a healthy exchange of views, whether in Parliament, public forums or the media. But let us do so with Singapore’s interests at heart.

Sir, I support the motion.

Question proposed.

2.03 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion by Mdm Halimah Yacob, and my speech will have two parts, ie, one that focuses on our internal policy and the other on external policy.

With respect to our internal policy, the President had, in his Address, talked about a competitive economy and an inclusive society, and I would like to focus, like my colleague Mdm Halimah Yacob, on the inclusive society portion.

As the President rightly pointed out, to meet competition and pursue growth, we need to strengthen social cohesion. But we will only have social cohesion if people feel that they belong and are included. Hence, the need to build an inclusive society that leaves no one behind. But there are segments in Singapore who do not feel included. In the next five years of this Government, I think that policies have to be changed to address these segments, and I would like to speak on their behalf, based on the cases that I have seen in my MPS.

Like Mdm Halimah Yacob, I am concerned about those who dropped out from school and have low education levels. Typically, from what I have seen, they tend to drop out at Primary 6 or at secondary school. There also seems to be a trend where we have teenage single mothers who typically drop out at age 14. When they see me at age 19 or 20, they have at least one, sometimes two kids. Later on, they realise that they have a problem, but it is difficult for them to get back into national schools. They cannot always make it to ITE. And if they have to go to a private school, it is expensive,

Now that has been changed and they subscribe to the WDA employability skills programmes. But there are many other training courses which actually require an 'O' Level before a person is eligible for the training course. This means that someone who may have the work skills cannot go for the course simply because he or she does not have an 'O' Level. So, instead of being a stepping stone, the 'O' Level has become a barrier.

I agree that there should be a certain standard before a person goes for a training course, but the standard need not necessarily be an 'O' Level standard. The standard should take into account relevant work experience. There are employees without formal qualifications but have relevant work experience, they would benefit from training courses to upgrade and enhance their skills. The Ministry of National Development has a barrier-free access policy. I would encourage the Ministry of Manpower to adopt a barrier-free employability policy and take a leaf out of the MND book.

I think the SAF can also do its part. Clearly, it is not the SAF's job to provide employability. But just before our NSFs' ORD, they can be encouraged or linked up with WDA or other agencies that could provide financial counselling as well as give them information on training programmes. I see this sometimes when I meet them at my MPS. These are young men in their early 20s. They have just come out from NS. Clearly, they must have dropped out of school at a relatively

The second group of people who feel that they are not very included are Singaporeans with foreign spouses. Here, it is more of the Singapore males from the lower income group with foreign spouses. They are affected by two policies: one, from MND; the other, from ICA.

The MND policy is that, first, they cannot purchase a flat, because they do not have enough cash. But under current MND policy, they cannot rent a flat unless the wife is a Permanent Resident or they have a Singaporean child. So, if they want to rent, they have to rent from the open market, which adds to cost. At the same time, the foreign spouse is usually on a social visit pass. After every few months, she - it is usually she although there are some cases where the foreign spouse is male, but in most cases it is female - will have to leave Singapore and go back to the home country. This adds to their cost again. At the same time, because the spouse is on a social visit pass, she cannot work and contribute to the family income. All this lends a sense of insecurity. They could get a roof over their heads if they have a child. But when they have this sense of insecurity, they are not going to want to raise a family. At the same time, we are making the spouse go back and forth, making it difficult for them to rent an affordable home. In the meantime, we wonder why we have falling birth rates. This is not to say that that is the only cause for having a falling birth rate. But this is one segment certainly which finds it difficult to settle down, have families, have

So, I would urge the Government to look into this. I would have thought that it is a better holistic policy for those who fall into this group if the spouse actually stays and works here so that the spouse can contribute to the family income. Allow them to rent. I appreciate that rental housing is heavily subsidised, but then it should be a question of priority. Priority should go to Singaporeans married to Singaporeans, then Singaporeans married to PRs. The last priority should be to Singaporeans with foreign spouses, but do not disallow them from renting altogether.

The third group of people who do not really feel included are the single unwed mothers who are not allowed to rent HDB flats. I do strongly feel that this is an outdated policy. I have spoken on this before, and I understand that the rationale is that MND does not want to encourage them to have babies out of wedlock. But if this is the policy objective, it is not working, because there are many children born out of wedlock. As I have said before, the availability of rental flats is not something that the couple have in mind when they engage in the activity that results in the child. That is the last thought on their minds. So, inevitably, we are going to have some children born out of wedlock. But the idea is, if we can get the mother and the child in a stable environment and given an environment which allows the mother to have the child educated, instead of having to worry about all these extraneous things, I think that would be helpful.

The fourth category is the policy where we can only rent if we have two singles who are above 35 years of age. I am seeing more and more cases at my MPS of the elderly needing to rent a flat. They are from the lower income

That is my take on what we need to do for internal policy to make these segments of our society feel more included.

I would next like to touch a little bit on our foreign policy. In his Address, the President highlighted the need for a small state like Singapore to have an active foreign policy and to participate in regional platforms, such as ASEAN and APEC, with a view to strengthening regional cooperation and managing regional problems. I also note that the MFA Addendum states that we must further entrench ASEAN as the cornerstone of our foreign policy.

Given our interconnectedness and the interdependence of the ASEAN member states, I would hope that ASEAN would be an effective platform for the resolution of regional issues. However, where

An example in point is the haze. I read in Tuesday's newspapers that Indonesia has expressed unhappiness that Singapore had voiced our concern over the haze on 25th October 2006 at the UN Committee on Sustainable Development and that one of their Ministers had boycotted a meeting on developing an SEZ at Batam to register disapproval of our stand. I do not know why this should be so. The haze is a problem; that is a fact. It is a source of great concern to Singaporeans; that is a fact. And something needs to be done; that is a fact, too. I note that Indonesia had said that our raising the issue was tantamount to interference in the domestic affairs of Indonesia. But I would have to say that the annual haze problem constitutes an intrusion into the domestic environment of Singapore. That is something that we do have a concern about raising. The difficulty, as I understand it, was the inability to obtain a consolidated ASEAN statement on the haze, which is why there was a need for us to raise unilaterally at the UN level. So, whilst I would support ASEAN as a cornerstone of our policy, I would urge our Government, where necessary, to use other diplomatic means, if it is necessary in the protection and advancement of Singapore's interests whilst at the same time recognising that we do wish to work in cooperation with our neighbours.

With this, Sir, I wish to thank the President for his Address and I support the motion.

and they cannot afford it. They also have difficulties with getting into programmes to upgrade their skills. Until recently, for example, I understand that ITE requires an 'O' or 'N' Level certificate in order for them to get a NITEC. early age and they find it difficult to get a job. If the SAF could do something just before they ORD and link them up with the relevant agencies, I think that would go a long way towards enhancing or increasing their employability. That is the first group of people who do not seem to be very included.children, because of the difficulties imposed on them by the policies that we have. vulnerable group. The friend that they were renting with may have passed away or is no longer there for whatever reason, and they find it very difficult to rent a flat with somebody else because they just do not have anybody else to rent a flat with. To ask them to live with a total stranger is in fact quite difficult. Something needs to be done to look into finding rental housing for the elderly. Retirement homes or senior citizens villages are some ideas that have been canvassed. It would be helpful if we have something along the lines where they can rent the room but have some common facilities. I do not think that we should have elderly villages or senior citizens homes away from other flats where there are young people. We must not put the elderly in a group by themselves and leave them alone. We want to put them in an environment where there is a mix of children and young couples, where they can engage with the community and there will be an opportunity for people to visit them and they form part of a complete community. This is something that needs to be looked into.ASEAN is unwilling or unable to be an effective platform, then we must also use other supplemental means to secure an acceptable space for Singapore.

2.13 pm

Sir, like my colleagues before me, I too rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob to thank the President for the Address.

Sir, some weeks back, one RJC student wrote, in her private blog, a response to another blog by a middle-aged Singaporean. The older Singaporean had expressed much concern and reservation about the security of his own future in the face of globalisation. The gentleman, like any other middle-aged worker, was genuinely worried about his ability to meet with competition. These are perfectly legitimate and realistic fears that resonated well with many Singaporeans. Many wrote openly on the Internet in support of his concern. However, what many Singaporeans did not expect was a sharp response from a young Singaporean who lambasted the poor man as a poor loser who was just expecting too much from the Government. The girl appeared insensitive and arrogant.

Quite naturally, the response that came from the netizens was swift and furious. There was much anger. It did not help that the girl was from a top JC in Singapore and had appeared to come from a privileged background. The debate, unfortunately, forced into sharp focus a difference of opinion between the elites of our society and those who are not as fortunate or as capable. It certainly did not help that the RJC student ended her blog by asking the man to “get out of my elite uncaring face”.

It is unfortunate that she made such remarks. In any

democracy, she is entitled to her views. Not everyone on the receiving end may like what she has to say. This must be placed in perspective. The right to disagree and express a legitimate opinion must surely be ours as long as that right is not an imposition on others. Latitude must be given on the account of age and youthfulness. In the case of the girl, I would just put it to her relative youth and lack of maturity. There are many more of such youths who are given to such insensitive and provocative

A society divided

Sir, this deep and visceral reaction to the blog by the student should set us thinking about the deeper problems that lie within our society. Why was there such resentment and anger over what seemingly was a frank and honest opinion by a young and perhaps naïve girl? The answer, Sir, lies in the perception of the way Singapore society has become. Rightly or wrongly, many see this debate as clearly demonstrating the gulf that has developed within our society. The perception exists that Singapore is a society that is bifurcated between the elites and the commoners, the scholars and the normal streams, the gifted and the ordinary, the HDB dwellers and the private property owners, and the rich and the poor.

Indeed, as we become a part of the globalised economy, the income gap between the rich and the poor will naturally widen. Those who are able to adapt and effectively compete on the global stage will be able to enjoy world class salaries. Those who are not able to compete globally will find themselves out of a job as they are being replaced by cheaper workers elsewhere in the other parts of the world who are prepared to do what they currently do for a song. We are increasingly finding ourselves to be in this case. There is a growing number of middle aged Singaporeans who are not very well qualified and who are without employment. This perhaps explains the sentiments and fears of Mr Derek Wee,

As the income gap widens, the sense of disaffection and alienation within the underclass will continue to grow within our society. There will be greater pressure on social equity and fairer income distribution. No matter the merits of the debate on market forces for wage distribution, any government that ignores a growing income gap, ignores it at its own peril.

Singapore is no exception. Our income gap has widened and will continue to widen. This is not our only problem. We have also become a highly stratified society. We are a society divided into different strata. Perhaps the most telling indication of how stratified our society has become is our definition of self worth.

What do I mean? We have become a people that increasingly define success on the basis of conspicuous consumption and branded label. Who we are is determined by the school we go to, the house we live in, the job we hold and the car we drive. Indeed within each category, there is fierce competition to emerge among the best. Take schools, for instance. It is not enough if your child goes to a top school or a junior college. It matters whether you end up, in the case of a secondary school, in a gifted class or in a "through-train" programme; or in the case of a JC, whether you are doing the "S" papers and are on the scholarship track. Take another instance, the civil service. This has been mentioned before. It is an open secret that if you are a returned scholar from an overseas university, the perception exists that the career path and the treatment will be different from those who join the service from the local university without a scholarship. True, there are many civil servants, from the local university who make it to the top of the service. However, the truth is that

And Singaporeans wizen up to this fact of life rather early in life. Our parents bemoan the pressures of the education system. However, if we sit back and ponder over it, it is the parents and the entire society who put the pressure on our education system. I have often maintained the position that reducing the curricula in our schools by 30% does not reduce the pressures that our children are faced with in schools by the same corresponding amount. When we reduce the curricula by 30%, what it means is that most parents would probably use the extra time to go over the lesson again to ensure that the child knows the subject thoroughly. Our education system has sadly become so competitive that it would be unusual indeed for a child not to have tuition. The tuition industry has grown phenomenally in recent years. In many of our grassroots organisations, we know that tuition is a big time business. Tuition today is not the preserve of the better off. Even those who can hardly afford it will scrimp and save just to provide tuition for their children, just so that they may keep up with their classmates.

Why have we become a nation so obsessed with performance? The short answer is because we know that it is the route to social mobility. Under the pressures of such extreme competition, a child's sense of self-worth is determined

What it does mean is that for a child who is able to excel in the system, he soars. He would ace his examinations, he gets a coveted scholarship, goes overseas and comes back as a mandarin with a career path properly mapped out for him. On the other hand, a child who fails in our system would, not surprisingly, suffer from relatively low self-esteem and perhaps allow his disappointment and anger inside him continue to fester and boil over.

Sir, as the Singapore society matures, the opportunity for upward social mobility would reduce. Social strata will harden, making it difficult for people to advance and improve their status. Quite clearly, a child from a poor background will not have the same opportunities and exposure as a child from a middle or upper middle class background; and in an academically competitive environment, it would be a significant disadvantage. Simply put, not every child would be able to start from the same starting line when he begins his education in school.

As income continues to widen, there will indeed be a greater tendency for people in our society to be differentiated socially. When this happens, we would run into problems with class perceptions; and with it, the "us" and "them" feelings that divide society; sometimes very deeply.

A society united

Sir, we need to ask ourselves why there is this deep and visceral reaction within our society when an unthinking remark gets passed by someone who is privileged and which is seen as a condemnation of the plebian masses. What happened in the case, coming back to this RJC girl, who made the remark, had little to do with the remark itself but rather with the fact of who she is and what she represents. It is a reflection of how divided we are as a society and how disaffected and alienated we have become as Singaporeans.

We want to engage young and old Singaporeans to understand them better. We reach out in more ways than one. As leaders, we tried to redesign ourselves to be like one of them. We learn to hip hop, write blogs and spend time listening to them. These are good initiatives. However, these initiatives do not address the root of the problem, which goes deeper than that. It has to do with how we organise ourselves as a society, of how we define and celebrate success and how we deal with failures. Unless we are able to deal with these issues, we will only be scratching the surface in trying to reach out to the wider audience. We will continue to agonise and ask ourselves why it is that Singaporeans, who have got so much going for them, should continue to show their unhappiness with the Government.

Sir, we obviously need to bridge the gap if we want to stay cohesive and united as a society. In this regard, I am gratified to learn in the President’s Address of the initiatives that the Government has taken to create a socially inclusive society; all of which I support. I would, in addition, like to suggest three areas that the Government can look into.

First, we need to break down the institution of snobbery within our society.

As a society, we must make the conscious effort to break down the labels that define our self worth. The schools have come a long way in this regard. I know that some schools go out of their way not to name the top class an "A" class. This way, it would be difficult for an outsider to know who the better students are from the class description. We must make a virtue of modesty and humility. We must make it a responsibility on those who are in a position of leadership to see their calling as a service to others and not to be served. In other

Secondly, and although it may not be easy, we should continue to work actively towards reducing the income gap between the top and the bottom wage earners. Societies that are often considered stable and progressive are characterised more by the banding of the majority of the people at the middle class than by one where a deep gulf separates the elite few and the vast majority of those who form the underclass. We understand the lesson well. In a globalised economy, it is not be possible to pay an uneducated and unskilled worker middle class salary if he or she is only capable of low end jobs. That would be true for Singapore if we are only able to compete on the world stage purely on the basis of cheap labour alone. Sir, I would argue that cheap labour is not the value proposition for Singapore. We can never pretend to be cheaper than the workers in India and China. That would be suicidal for us. Our value proposition must surely lie in the Singapore society as a whole. When I check into a Government hospital, I may not be attended to by the best surgeon in the world. However, I do know that I can rest comfortable in the fact that it is the total system at the

My basic proposition remains - that our economy need not necessarily be uncompetitive simply because we have raised the average salary of our workers to close the income gap.

Thirdly, we need to restore the dignity of labour through the institution of social enterprise. Let me be clear. There need not be any shame in poverty; neither should there be any shame in failure. People are poor not by choice but by circumstance. As a community, we must provide every opportunity to help them break out of the poverty trap. Where we are not able to provide that opportunity through employment, we should not be afraid to provide business opportunity to those who need it. We should be prepared to expand the boundaries of the informal sector to give Singaporeans a chance to close the income gap. Over at Tampines, we started the flea market to give residents the opportunities to try their hands at selling things. We have even conducted classes in soap making and other handicrafts so that they can peddle these items for profit. The flea

Sir, social enterprises come not only in the form of flea markets alone but also in empowering grassroots organisations to start business initiatives that would provide employment opportunity for those who need jobs but are unable to find it. Why should grassroots organisations not be encouraged to start business initiatives that benefit the community? I am particularly impressed by Prof. Yunus, the winner of this year’s Nobel peace prize. He started micro financing that helped to transform the lives of poor Bangladeshis and, in fact, many of the poor people around the world.

expressions. Just look at the language used on the Internet. Why should this girl be singled out for special treatment? Is it because she is bright and a potential scholarship recipient? Or is it because she is well connected? I do not think we will be better off as a society to take it against her. Certainly this may well be a humbling and a salutary lesson for her. I think we should move on.the gentleman whose blog started this controversy.these are far fewer in number. There is a perception that exists, rightly or wrongly, that within the service, unless you belong to the elite scholars' class, your career choices will be limited. Sir, I am not passing judgment on the merits of the scholarship programme and neither am I necessarily criticising the school system here. The point remains that if you put these top students and scholars high up on the pedestal in our society, you end up creating a separate category of people who are set apart from the rest of the others.unfortunately by his academic prowess more than anything else. Although the system of streaming has changed somewhat recently, the fact remains that streaming in our education system is still carried out on the basis of mental ability. This has the effect of putting the children in their proper places in society. You are either Normal or Express, "O" level or "through-train", overseas scholar or the local tertiary institution. And the list goes on.These attitudes reinforce the societal fault lines. Sir, more than any other society, we have perfected snobbishness into a fine art. I have mentioned this earlier in my speech. You are who you are, by the badges of achievement that you wear. Changing this mindset must surely begin at the apex; and in particular, the civil service. Within the civil service the perception exists that it matters much whether you had previously held an overseas scholarship. In fact, within the SAF, there is a reference to whether you are a scholar or a farmer. A farmer is one who is not an SAF scholar and who being the salt of the earth, belongs to the rank-and-file. On the other hand, a scholar is seen in a different light. He belongs to the elite few who have their career cut out for them. In a way, the class status tends to permeate itself through service. Often a person is first introduced by reference to whether he is a scholar. Such attitude works its way through the entire administrative system and society. It is reflected in the way people and talents are perceived. We recognise the scholastic achievement more than artistic talent; top universities much better than local universities, foreign consultants better than local advisors; and the list goes on. Unfortunately, this colours the way we perceive success. It does not help with the negative perception of the elites if they are seen as being removed from the man-in-the-street.words, to those who are given the privilege of going to top universities in the world, that opportunity to study abroad at taxpayers' expense is a privilege and not a right born out of ability. And for those who return from such august institutions, they must see it as their duty to help the less fortunate Singaporeans whose work has helped to pay the way. We should bring back the spirit of gotong royong; an institution that we had years ago, when the Government required civil servants to go to the community to work in civil projects that involved community self-help and in the process provided the opportunity for civil servants to understand the people they served better. Only through the spirit of humility and service can the barriers of arrogance, pride and snobbery be overcome.hospital that ensures that I would have a better chance of leaving the hospital alive. I would be confident at least that my radiographer is competent, the blood that they pump into my body will not be HIV tainted, the nurses will be professional and caring, and the hospital that I go to will be clean and well maintained. For that, Sir, many would not begrudge the fact of having to pay our local workers more than what they would be paying to similar workers elsewhere. That must surely be the reason why we can afford to pay our workers more than they are paid now. And this can only be achieved through a series of measures such as the restriction on the number of foreign workers at the lower level and aggressively pushing for higher wage levels through the NWC.market appears to have worked well and I would recommend it to the Government to seriously consider allocating more of such opportunities to needy residents.

The idea was simple yet effective, and we should aim to do likewise. If the Government is able to start certain initiatives that allow people to have better control over their lives and have independent existence, it would at least be taking one more step towards reducing poverty in Singapore.

Sir, all my life, I have always believed in one Singapore - one nation united by a common sense of purpose and a need to survive. Although we are many races and beliefs, we are nonetheless one people sharing a common destiny. This is our home and our life. We know of no other. If we do not band together to help each other, no one will. Singapore must always be a home for all, and a place where, to paraphrase the words of Martin Luther King, its people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, their beliefs or even their worldly possessions, but by the strength of their character.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

2.36 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in

Government statistics over the past two years show that Singapore’s economy has been doing well. Our GDP has grown significantly. But the feedback from the people is that all is well for the Government but not so well for the people. What they mean is that the economy of the Government is good but the economy of the people is not so good. In fact, people are worried about the cost of living, and they lack a sense of security.

Since the Asian financial crisis in 1997, we have been facing the challenges brought about by globalisation. Over the past decade or so, the Government’s policy has always been to ask the people to bite the bullet and tighten their belts.

Although it is often said that if you can take the worst of hardship, you will be the man of men, in other words, "here is no sweet without sweat" yet, when I look at the people around me, they may have a job but their income is a far cry from what it was before, and they have problem making ends meet. Even when they have a job, there is no job security. In fact, many people are working on a contract or ad hoc basis.

Although statistics indicate a strong growth in the economy and there has been great improvement in employment rate, there are still a good number of people who are unable to secure suitable jobs. According to a report by the Straits Times, more than 60,000 people in Singapore are out of job, among which about 16,600 people have been

Even though the employment situation has improved, there are still many Singaporeans who are facing financial difficulties. According to a Straits Times report, the number of people coming to the Community Development Councils for financial assistance has increased from 14,300 in 2000 to 31,570 in 2003. In addition, about 12,500 families could not pay their utilities bills, had their supplies cut off and had their meters replaced by the prepaid type. Some 3,600 families could not settle their arrears of more than $500 in utilities bills.

Sir, during the debate on the President's Address in 2002, I urged the Government to extend the benefits of economic growth to the ordinary citizens, so that everyone would feel the advantage brought about by the economic growth. I also warned that with the changes to the entire economic structure, there may be a phenomenon whereby the economic growth would benefit only the higher-income earners, while the older workers and the unskilled workers would remain as low-income earners. Regrettably, our economic development is moving along the worrying direction. People are worried about the new economic model. This is because even with economic growth, life is still not easy. There does not seem to be any increase in income, and the cost of living does not seem to go down. People struggle from unemployment to re-employment in other jobs, not knowing when they are going to lose the job again. Worse still, many Singaporeans who are currently employed are facing competition from the so-called "foreign talents", resulting in job loss or income reduction. Crane operators voiced their lamentation in the Lianhe Zaobao last month. This is one typical example.

If the Government lets the people to continue living in a state of insecurity, in the long run, people’s thinking and values will surely change, and the social cohesiveness will be put to test. Even when the economic growth is sustained, people will lose their confidence in the country.

When people are worried about their living conditions and feel that they have no security in their jobs and income, they will naturally expect the Government to stabilise their living conditions through some policy changes to provide for a more comprehensive social safety net in order to cope with the challenges brought about by globalisation.

I understand that the Government takes a very cautious approach as far as the social safety net and welfare scheme are concerned, for fear that the people develop a dependency syndrome, and becoming a heavy burden for the Government. Cautious as it should be, the Government should not ignore the people who are genuinely in need of assistance just because of the fear of abuse by certain people. The Presidential Address promises to provide more assistance to the lower-income people, helping them to progress alongside the entire society. It also says that with the increasing needs of the lower-income workers and the older people, we should enhance our social safety net.

At the same time, the President's Address also mentioned the three pillars of our social safety net, namely, the CPF system, the Home ownership scheme of the HDB and the third pillar being our 3Ms - Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. I wish to know under which structure of our social safety net shall the measures to help the lower-income and older workers, as mentioned in the President’s Address, be covered.

I feel that the transition into a globalised economy and the Government’s determination to maintain its principle of a low tax regime, the uneven distribution of wealth and the widening income gap will become an insurmountable social problem in future. The Government should help the low-income people as soon as possible to correct the mechanism that causes the anomaly in the distribution of the fruits of our economic development, and incorporate the appropriate measures into our social safety net structure.

Lianhe Zaobao reported on 27th October this year that Minister Lim Boon Heng had said that attention must be given to the grievances of the lower-income workers, otherwise our social stability may be undermined in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Minister Lim’s concern is justified. On 26th October, there was a letter in the Reader’s Forum in the Lianhe Zaobao reflecting the writer’s unhappiness with the CDC. He wrote, "The social worker remarked sarcastically that it was already a luxury to own a motorcycle. The social worker did not make an effort to calculate the cost of taking public transport as compared to the cost of using a motorcycle to move around, and he simply passed such criticism at random. I summoned my courage, bury my self-dignity, yet I ended up with such humiliation. If you were me, would you dare to ask for money from the Government agencies?"

I have also received similar complaints and dissatisfaction, and have to pacify such unhappy and hurt feelings. If such a sentiment is to spread over to a certain level in society and become an issue one day, then it will be a serious challenge to our social cohesiveness. In addition, when some people with history of mental illness applied to the CDC for help in securing a job, the CDC asked them to go to the clinic to get the doctor to certify that they were unable to work. Although the doctor

Another incident is when an old man went to the CDC for financial aid, he was given a cheque, and was told to open a bank account if he wanted to receive further aid in future. The old man was illiterate and had to turn to me for help. I hope that these are just isolated cases. If our Government departments and their staff are so trained that they can be totally oblivious to the pains and sufferings of the underprivileged in our society, then this will spell the beginning of our social division. This is the type of potential worry which we should pay attention to.

In his conclusion, the President called upon us to build a competitive economy and an inclusive society for ourselves and our children in Singapore. I would like to remind the PAP Government that for ourselves and for the next generation, we should build up a nation, not just an economy. What we should build up is a society where everyone has a sense of belonging. The society should ensure that everyone may live a dignified life, irrespective of whether or not he or she has any economic contribution.

A country is respected internationally not just on its hardware, such as defence capability and economic strength, but also its software such as social cohesiveness and the strength of its people.

With the Government’s intended policy of liberalisation, the flood gate is open for foreign immigrants to pour in. Out society is bound to receive certain impact. Competition for jobs, frictions in daily lives will intensify the misunderstanding and conflicts among the members of society. The Government

From the perspective of Singapore’s political system, the strong Government of Singapore has brought about political stability and efficiency and this is a good selling point internationally. But in the long term, this is also the weakest link in our country. Because the operation of the entire political system is in the hand of just one political party, and it depends on whether the leaders are capable, efficient and clean. The worrying part is that there is no supervisory mechanism. This is like putting all the eggs in one basket.

Sir, Singapore is now in the hands of our third Prime Minister. We do not know who the next Prime Minister will be. However, if our people maintain this mentality of "in your good hands, I am assured" as in the Mao Zedong era of China, then should it come a day when the government is corrupt, the people live in an abyss of suffering and responded with attacks on the government, Singapore will be in deep trouble, and as a nation we may not be able to absorb the impact.

As such, if Singapore wants to further assure ourselves of our security and our reputation in the international arena, we must not put all our emphasis on the hardware aspect. We should also pay more attention to our software aspect, like our social cohesiveness, our political ecology in fostering a civil society and our people's power of checks and balance on our political system, etc.

Only when we have strong social cohesiveness, our people have strong political security, the nation rich and the people strong, can Singapore be a truly successful country!

his Address, the President points out that Singapore is now facing three main challenges, ie, structural change in the economy, an ageing population and political generational shift. I feel that apart from these challenges, we must also pay attention to the sequela brought about by the policy to address these challenges.unemployed for a prolonged period of time, and 60% of them are over the age of 40. was unable to certify that the applicants were disabled and hence were unable to work, the CDC too was unable to help the applicants get a job. The applicants were left neither here nor there.should pay more attention in fostering our social cohesiveness. *Cols. 245-252.

2.43 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that when he had a look at the people around him, although they have a job to do, their income is not as good as in the past. My conclusion is that Mr Low Thia Khiang is a hardworking person. He works very hard, so hard that he could only see the ground in front of him but not what is happening around him. The Secretary-General of NTUC has said that we have to look after our lower-income workers. Our Secretary-General works hard, but he does not concentrate only on the ground in front of him, he looks at his surroundings as well.

Sir, at this moment, what we are most concerned with is the income gap. Just last week, it was reported that, from the statistics available, there were more than 1,000 multi-millionaires in Singapore. While there are a lot of rich people here, there are also some poor people around us, and we are worried about the income gap between the rich and the poor. We are trying to narrow the gap.

Mr Low Thia Khiang said that all the people in Singapore had to tighten their belts, they had to work harder and yet their income was lower than before. He concluded that the Government was only putting in the hardware and not the software. He is wrong! The Government is tackling both the hardware and software aspects. In his Address, the President said that if we wanted our economy to prosper, we had to work hard on our hardware and, at the same time, we also aspired to be an inclusive society. I fully agree with the President that we need to strengthen our social network.

In this network, allow me to raise some suggestions. In fact, many older

Recently, someone gave this handbill to me. It says, "Soft shoes for the hard world". This is precisely what we need. We must provide our older workers and lower-income people with a pair of soft shoes, so that they can be more comfortable, more relaxed and more confident when they walk. I think the Government should help them. We should have this soft and warm approach towards the people.

workers are facing difficulties and they complain that life is very tough. They see that the successful people in society running faster and faster, and there is no way they can catch up with them. We need to have a soft approach to this matter. *Cols. 253-258.

In NTUC, last year alone, we re-designed 40,000 jobs for our workers. These jobs in their original form were not suitable for the older workers but we have re-designed the jobs so that even the older workers could cope with them and the employers are comfortable having the older workers to work for them. The NTUC has also been given a grant by the Government to promote this sort of effort. So long as we can work harder, and the families could give more encouragement to the older workers, we will succeed.

In enhancing our social network, apart from soft landing, we should also try ways and means to be more comprehensive and thorough. In fact, many of our schemes are very intermittent, they are here and there. As Mr Low Thia Khiang said, many people are not aware of these schemes. I think while we enhance our social network in the future, our schemes should be continuous, sustainable and visible.

The President has also mentioned in his Address that we want to do more for our people. I would like to say that we will not only do more but do it faster and

We want to be more flexible and make it easier for them to cope with the cost of living, from utilities charges to flat rentals, school fees, transport expenses, etc. We should help them. There must be good measures to help them get through their difficulties. As the President has said, we have to be flexible and prudent in our spending. We must be inclusive. We must help everybody, so that everybody would have a chance to succeed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang quoted a number of reports from the Straits Times. I read in the Straits Times that he had mentioned that the Government had finally admitted that it should change its priority to strengthen its social network. He claimed that the Government had not been looking after the poor, and that he had been warning the Government of that. This is not a fact. Our Government has been working very hard in looking after the less fortunate ones in our society. We have been doing a lot. It is just that we did not make it known to everybody. From the "home for everyone" to the "shop for everyone" schemes, and in our yearly budgets, everyone benefits from all the goodies in terms of conservancy charges, utilities rebates, progress package, etc. In fact, the Government has spent as much as $6 billion for the benefit of the people, and yet many people complain that this is not enough. Take a look at the world around us. Which country has provided so much for their people? Mr Low Thia Khiang said a lot but he did not do anything. I think that is no good. The Government did a lot, but said very little. I think the Government should change its approach. We need to talk more of what

There are so many things that we want to do, and there is no end to it. There is an Arabic proverb which says, "If you do not want to do it, you will find a lot of excuses. But if you want to do it, there is a will, there is a way." We have the means, we want to do more, and we need to publicise it.

I agree with the President. If we want our economy to progress, we need to put in efforts not in terms of hardware but also the software. So, from now onwards, we want to be more inclusive. We will help everyone. Give everyone a chance so that no one is left behind.

Let me give you an illustration on how we could help our people. There was a middle-aged person who was retrenched from an electronics company he was working in. His first realisation was that he had lost his job, his income and he would have problem paying for his PUB charges, telephone bills and other expenses. He could apply for a taxi licence but he did not have the money to attend the prescribed course that would qualify him as a taxi driver, and he also needed to have a Giro account in a bank, so that he could pay for his taxi rental fee and all related expenses. But he could not afford all these and, in fact, he could not even pay for his PUB bills. Through our grassroots leaders, we stepped in to help him. Our community welfare fund helped him pay for his course fees and we also approached the Singapore Taxi Academy to help him enrol into the course and finally drive a taxi the moment he has

So long as our people are given this pair of soft shoes, they would be able to walk comfortably and confidently. Mr Low said that our society is one that everybody has to tighten his belt. In fact, we can see that during the weekends, all the restaurants are full of people, and many people are going overseas for holidays. Mr Low should visit the Changi Airport and see for himself how our people are flocking there to take holidays overseas. He would see how our people have been travelling. Do not spend all his time in Hougang!

more flexible. When the people are having difficulties making ends meet, and we do not take prompt action and lend them a helping hand, it will not do them any good. If they cannot survive even today, what is the use of providing for them for tomorrow? we are doing for the people, so that everybody will know about that. Mr Low is nodding his head and smiling. He kept saying that we are not doing anything. In fact, we have been doing a lot. It is just that we have not been publicising it. passed his examination. He has now passed his examination and he could drive a taxi to earn a living. He can now pay his bills. He is also grateful to us for helping him to appeal to HDB to have his payment of housing loan instalment deferred. Such a compassionate approach is very effective. It really helps the people solve their problems. I think we need to be more compassionate in helping our people who are in need.

2.52 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I add my support to the Motion of Thanks.

The President, in his Address, spoke of the impact of globalisation and the changes it is making to our business and social environment. I would like to touch on three aspects of globalisation and the challenges they pose to Singapore.

The first aspect, and the one that is spoken of the most, concerns the economic impact of globalisation. The arguments for this are well rehearsed. In a borderless world, investments flow to those countries which offer the most

A couple of recent examples illustrate the point. One that has sparked some controversy is the case of the integrated resorts (or IRs). The controversy stems from the casino component of the IRs which some Singaporeans feel, not without basis, would bring social ills linked to gambling to our shores. My purpose is not to debate the evils of gambling but to point out that the tender allowed for a very small percentage, in the single digit, of the gross floor area of integrated resorts to be allocated for casino. The various tenderers were not being forced to run a casino – if they did not want one – they were being permitted to have one if they did, and all the bidders’ proposed IRs have included a casino in their tender contract. Why is that so? That must be because the market believes that it enhances the feasibility of this multi-billion dollar project.

The decision to allow a casino component in the IR concept was reached after extensive public consultation and often heated debate. But what is often obscure, amidst the heat and dust, is that the move was driven by market forces

Another example would be the multi-billion dollar cracker plant to be built by Shell, hopefully, to be accompanied by a similar investment by ExxonMobil. What are the attractions to these energy giants in basing these plants here at considerable distance from their intended market of North Asia? First, they have the proximity to the feedstock of these plants which in turn is derived from the extensive refining capacity that both oil majors already have in Singapore. Were it not for the foresight of our economic planners many decades ago to make Singapore a refining hub, the country would be the poorer for it now.

Second, there is the well regarded legal system with its extensive protection of property, including intellectual property rights. This is a significant factor for multi-nationals who have to manage risks, ranging from acts of expropriation, union claims and the theft of technology. Last, but by no means least, there is the political stability which has almost come to be taken for granted in Singapore. Business investors are wary of change, but they positively abhor unpredictable change. As it is, their financial commitments made in huge terms are premised on carefully worked out

Globalisation does present a threat on the economic front, but it would be wrong to ignore the fact that it is equally an opportunity. The nation that can work that bit harder, plan that bit better, adapt well to the ever evolving technology and advancement, can seize the day and thrive on a bigger stage and in bigger markets than ever before.

The second aspect of globalisation that I wish to touch on is in terms of the free movement of people between the countries of the world, such that one can find a veritable united nation in practically all the major capitals and cities where the influence of a nation’s people is no longer just measured by those residing in their native homeland but by the diasporas spread throughout the globe. Ease of travel has been one major reason for this global village effect.

advantages, whether in terms of infrastructure, land, manpower and increasingly so, cost. In this context, a small nation like Singapore, with a limited domestic market, wage costs higher than China and India, technology is good but not as advanced as the United States of America, finds it far from easy to carve out its niche in the world market. The answer is, and as always is, that Singapore and Singaporeans have to work harder, work smarter and be more business-friendly than our rivals. Those were the only reasons why a foreign investor would want to site its plant or resort here than in the larger, cheaper markets that abound in Asia.rather than a desire to allow Singaporeans to gamble their savings away. Put it another way, the decision was really to go with what the market was looking for and then try to contain and counter the social fallout through controls and counselling and other measures. And if we had any choice but to go with what market forces were demanding, did Singapore, without the natural attractions of the Three Gorges or Mount Fuji, without the historical sites of an Angkor Wat or Borobudor, really have a choice? I would say not, if they wanted to create sufficient buzz about this island to grow the volume of visitor arrivals that form a significant segment of our economy.scenarios. They do not like unpleasant surprises. Without these attributes, would Singapore be the Asian centre for oil and gas infrastructure that it is today and all this without having any natural energy resources of its own?

The other has been the immigration and employment policies of the world's major nations. No less a superpower than the United States, the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world, has in place wide-ranging immigration and visa policies to attract overseas talents to rejuvenate their population. Indeed, it has been remarked by several commentators that it is this continuing influx of immigrants that helps maintain its technological edge and entrepreneurial drive over its OECD rivals. Canada and Australia have similar policies to attract foreigners to beef up its talent pool and augment its workforce. Closer by, our neighbour Malaysia has a "Make Malaysia my second home" policy to try and attract others to reside and invest there. Can Singapore stand by, sit by the sidelines, and watch this wave of foreign talent flow on to other shores while we struggle to make do with our modest

Enough has been said about the economic imperative of bringing in talent in fields which are undeveloped in Singapore or bringing in workers to do jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do. Somewhat less talked about is the effect this could have on our national identity and whether it erodes the sense of unity, the sense of being Singaporean over the longer term. The Prime Minister confronted the issue square on in his National Day Rally speech where he spoke of the need to keep Singaporeans wherever they might have come from and wherever they might be now rooted to this country.

It is for obvious reasons not a simple task. In the first place, we do not have the same homogeneity of population as, for example, a country like Japan or Korea. The culture and customs are shared by a large segment of the populace which, in turn, reinforces itself. The language barrier makes it harder for outside influences to adulterate that culture. Neither factors are present in Singapore.

Second, we have a relatively short history - 41 years since independence which is a mere wink of the eye compared to the ancient civilisations of China and India plus a little longer in comparison to the storied civilisation of Europe, but certainly a lot less history for our people to rally round. What we need to do, I suggest, is to take a look at what has made us different and what has brought us thus far and derive our values from that. Yes, we are not as racially homogenous as other countries. But our races do co-exist with mutual respect and, I believe, affection. And so racial harmony, which we take for granted in

Meritocracy is another. As a nation initially populated by impecunious immigrants often arriving with little more than the proverbial shirts on their backs, almost everyone began from the same starting line. Today, the absence of any aristocratic lineage or racial discrimination and the widespread availability of education all serve to foster that same spirit that, with the right drive and ability, anyone can succeed in Singapore. It may not be a quality unique to Singapore, but it is part of our value system all the same.

Yet another quality is our law abiding nature and the absence of corruption in our society. People joke that you can tell a Singaporean in a foreign country because he is usually the one that does not cross the road until the light changes in his favour, even when there is no traffic around. It may be a source of mirth for others. But our law abiding nature is also a quality for which we are admired and it makes us in this colourful tumultuous continent, that is, Asia, an oasis of calm and order. Recognising our set of values is one thing. But how do we preserve them? One important step, I feel, is to be proud of what we have achieved and not feel we have to constantly apologise for what we have done and for being Singaporean. We are often our harshest critic. But in upbraiding ourselves for things we could do better, we must not overlook what good we have achieved. Thus, despite our bilingual policy, most of us do not speak as good English as an Englishman, nor as good Mandarin as someone from China. But then, again, the average Singaporean probably speaks both languages better than either of them. Again, our knowledge of Chinese tradition and literature might not be as deep as the average Cantonese in Hong Kong, Hokkiens in Taiwan or those from the mainland. But most of us probably know

We need to be proud of what we are and what we have achieved. Witness the outpourings of pride and nationalistic sentiments of the major nations when one of their own prevails in difficult circumstances. We must guard against this tipping over into arrogance and conceit. And we must work to address our shortcomings. But it is the shared connection of pride in one's country that binds a nation together and gives it the national resilience to overcome the challenges ahead.

The third and final aspect of globalisation that I speak of concerns the incessant flow of information in this electronic age and its impact on our society. It is an era where, through your personal blog, everyone is a potential media columnist where the old censorship rules do not really work, where in particular the younger, wired or wireless generation are demanding greater freedom of expression. Freedom of expression of information is a good and vital quality to have. Our financial markets function on the efficient and equal flow of information. Our scientific circles thrive on the exchange of discoveries and views that enable one scientist from one part of the world to build upon the pioneering work of another. Even in politics, would the present Government have come to power and led the country, as it has, for over four decades, if it had not been able to take its platform, its plans, its vision to the people?

But the difficulty in talking about this topic of freedom of expression is that

At home, we had an incident involving a junior college student's blog where certain remarks were made that were considered objectionable by others. I believe this is the same example that Mr Sin Boon Ann talked about. I do not propose to dwell on the rights and wrongs of those remarks. I simply wish to point out that, following the logic of those single-minded defenders of free speech, one could justify the blog as a student's right to express her views which others would be free to agree or disagree with.

Clearly, a balance needs to be struck and the challenge is to find that right balance. With increasing affluence, many in the younger generation are looking beyond the basic necessities of life and intangible values like freedom of speech is a cherished ideal. With a long period of governmental stability, some would like to see the sparks fly, a more vigorous challenge in Parliament, in the media, at the hustings. These feelings are understandable and probably reflect the natural progression of changing demographics and the maturation of society. We would be wrong to dismiss this as the mere whimsies of youth. At the same time, we would be wrong to simply adopt the notions and mores of a different society with a different history and transplant them as our own. The short history of our nation has been marked by our own particular innovations and

Progress has been made on this front, and even the critics would accept that there exist more avenues and more latitude to express dissenting views

population that last year had an average fertility rate of 1.24, well below replacement level?Singapore, is part of our value system and part of our identity.more of other cultures, like Malay culture or Hindu beliefs, than many of those Chinese people. This is not to say we should not strive to continually improve ourselves to acquire breadth and depth to our cultural exposure but looking at ourselves through overly critical glasses is probably as bad as through overly complimentary ones. some, not all, proponents of it speak as if it is an end unto itself, as if it does not co-exist with other equally important qualities and values, as if it sits upon some pedestal that looks down upon all beneath it and proclaims, "How dare you impinge on my right of freedom of expression?" Is it really that absolute right? A closer examination of some recent episodes sheds light on this. Take the furore over the Danish newspaper that published the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Against the swell of protests from the Muslim community, the defenders of this publication sought to justify this on the basis of free speech. They may have a point. But anyone with even a limited understanding of the Islamic faith would empathise with our Muslim brothers and share their outrage. In Australia recently, there was a rape case where a particular religious leader was reported to have said that the fault laid with the victim for not covering up her body appropriately. This naturally sparked off vociferous protests by both women's groups and ordinary folks who felt that shifting the blame from the criminal to the victim on this sort of premise was not acceptable. There were calls for the individual in question, for the one who made the remark, that is, to be deported or even prosecuted himself.But the common thread in all three episodes is that those protesting did not accept that it was within the rights of the expressors to say or write or draw what they did. They did not accept that they should simply confine themselves to expressing their own objections and issue corrective statements or clarifications. Many of the protestors consider that these statements should not have been made at all and that the perpetrators should be prosecuted, lose their jobs, lose their right of residence or, even worse. If one accepts that those objecting have some valid basis for their objections, it becomes difficult to escape the conclusion that freedom of expression is not an absolute, unmitigated right. It has to co-exist with other rights or values and on occasions to give way to them. This needs to be appreciated in order for the debate on allowing greater freedom of expression to progress.solutions which, after initial scepticism, have been praised and even copied elsewhere. Thus, our HDB and CPF policies, our amicable union relations, our emphasis on mediation to resolve legal disputes, represent Singapore's own brand in dealing with the issues arising here.

than, say, 10 or 20 years ago. And progress will continue to be made as we seek to strike the right balance for ourselves. The pace of change may not be fast enough to suit everybody, but I believe we are moving in the right direction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has spoken with great insight on the impact of globalisation. I have only skimmed the surface of three aspects - the free flow of investors, the free flow of people and the free flow of information. All present challenges to us. But with the right attitude and spirit, we can turn these into opportunities to build greater wealth for all, a more open society and a stronger sense of national identity for this, our home.

3.16 pm

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

The President's Address is moving, because it addresses the very principles of Singapore's success.

The President has given a clear message to Singaporeans that the success of Singapore cannot only be measured by its economy, infrastructure, GDP and per capita

Sir, by all international benchmarks and standards, Singapore has been very successful in the last 41 years since independence. I would like to point to a distillation of the values which has contributed to our success so far.

One remarkable work which discusses these values comes from Dr Henri Ghesquiere. His book is entitled "Singapore's Success - Engineering Economic Growth". The book is full of abstract principles and insights, many of which, in my opinion, are objective and accurate. This is a man who has a PhD in economics from Yale University. He has studied the economies of more than 14 countries. He has worked in the International Monetary Fund for 27 years. Last December, he retired as Director of the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute. This institute was a joint venture between the IMF and the Government. It was created eight years ago, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, to train visiting central bank and government officials from the Asia-Pacific region.

To my mind, there are three principles underlined by Dr Ghesquiere which cut to the heart of Singapore's success. These three principles are: meritocracy, our handling of race relations and our sharing of wealth. But as an outsider, he identifies them in terms of principles, facts, statistics and charts. An outsider's view, no matter how informed, does not resonate as strongly as an insider's. Our relationship to these principles is in the form of personal stories and experiences.

Sir, Opposition parties or the PAP, whether on the Government's side or the opposite side of the House, I believe we all share these values.

First, meritocracy. Sir, I would like to share my personal experience to explain how meritocracy works in Singapore. I came from a low-income family, and both my parents did not have a chance to receive education. My father was a taxi driver and my mother was a housewife. Life was hard then, but we managed to live from hand-to-mouth, from the little income that my father brought home. Life was made much harder when my father suddenly fell ill to cancer and he left us after putting up two months of spirited fight against the illness.

I was about to take my GCE 'O' level examinations when my father passed away. His final words to my mother were: “Let the children continue to study, no matter what. This is the only way for them to have a good future.” Quite frankly, it was a daunting task for a widow whose sole responsibility had been to look after five children to suddenly assume the role of sole breadwinner and to ensure that the children could continue with their education. Luckily, there were the bursaries available in the schools that helped me and my younger siblings to carry on with our studies. And I managed to receive a scholarship from the Government to complete my tertiary education in NUS.

Sir, my personal life journey makes me truly believe that, in Singapore, no one will be denied of opportunities, if he or she works hard and has the gumption and courage to fight on. And the very principle that drives the whole mechanism to give Singaporeans opportunities is meritocracy.

Second, our handling of race relations. Sir, much has been made of the post-65 generation, or P65 as they are called, and their strengths in connecting with the young. I am also one of those in the P65 generation, but I am referring to the pre-65 generation. I think the pre-65 generation also has the strengths to connect to the not-so-young. One of our strengths must surely be our personal and emotional view of Singapore's history.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was born in the late 1950s and had personally experienced two extraordinary events before Singapore gained independence. The first was the communist insurgency, and the second was the racial riots.

I lived in a two-storey pre-war shophouse along Rochor Road during my childhood days. At the time, Rochor Road was a place for gangsters and agitators who wanted to stir up trouble, and these included the members of the Barisan Sosialis. I remember there were street demonstrations organised by the pro-communist elements. When things got out of hand on the streets, the police fired tear gas onto the demonstrators to disperse the crowds. My family would huddle together and my mother would shut the windows and doors. But they were rickety wooden things with big and small cracks in between, and the smoke from the tear gas just seeped through the cracks. The tear gas was prickly and spicy. When it got in contact with the eyes and nose, tears and mucus would just flow out uncontrollably. It was a very unpleasant experience and painful sensation even for the adults, not to mention a young boy like me. I am not sure how many Members in this House had inhaled tear gas before, but my neighbourhood had experienced it a few times, for it seemed that the crossroad junction of Queen Street and Rochor Road was a hot place for street demonstrations

Another unforgettable violent event was the racial riot in 1964. Again, the neighbourhoods of Queen Street and Rochor Road was one of the flashpoints in this historical event. During the period of racial riot, I saw two Malay men alighting from a green bus that drove into the bus terminus which happened to be opposite my house. The green bus was heading south from Johore. The two Malay men were walking on the street, then someone shouted ”pak”, which meant “attack” in Hokkien, and a group of Chinese men ran after the two Malay men. One of them managed to escape while the other fell into a deep drain and I saw many Chinese men piled into it and one of them was carrying a long bread knife. All of them were roaring.

Sir, I was six years old then and this event happened almost 42 years ago. But these images still look so vivid after all these years. I would not want my children to see what I had seen. I would also not want any children at the age of six or seven to have to see it. But having witnessed it, it has been etched into my mind, which means that all my life, I will be carrying this burden of that horrifying experience. I know what it is like to have men kill one another just because of their race. I have seen how senseless and meaningless it is. I have worked hard to prevent it, not as an abstract principle, but as a value of life and death.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we pledge as a country that we will all stand shoulder to shoulder, regardless of race, language or religion. Working in CDAC, I know that I am working for the interest of the Chinese community. But at the same time, I have

Next, our sharing of wealth. Sir, Dr Ghesquiere points to Singapore's obsession with long-term economic prosperity for our society as a whole. He quotes Dr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore's first Finance Minister and also Defence Minister as saying: “We must strive continuously to achieve economic growth, which requires political stability, and should not be distracted by other goals.”

Sir, I believe the Government has achieved this. Over the years, we have seen and heard from the Government that, given the rapidly changing global and regional challenges, Singapore must continuously remake itself to make sure that we do not lose in competitiveness. By and large, we have proved ourselves on this front. Now, we have to pay more attention to wealth sharing.

In this area, I think we have made a good start. Dr Ghesquiere points to our strategy in this respect. He writes: “The preferred strategy was to arm men and women with the means and opportunities to earn a living and acquire assets for their families by raising the skill level, including that of lower-income groups, and thus ensuing upward mobility. For Singapore's elite, this win-win offer was perfectly rational: wealth would be shared or it would not exist. The only viable model was export-led growth that would take advantage of Singapore's location and make optimal use of its one resource, its people, creating social unity in the process.”

Sir, social cohesion is our aim, and one way to preserve this is to share wealth. I feel that we can do more to help the lowest 20% of households in Singapore. The Progress Package is a good way to do this. But we need to change the way we explain what we do. We explain the package as a way of recognising Singaporeans' contributions. But then, this leads to the middle-income group voicing out that they do not get as much as the lower-income group, despite contributing and paying more income tax.

Sir, I think we need to be explicit on this. The Progress Package is, in fact, a leg up for the poor. It is to help them progress. I know that our Government deliberately shies away from welfarism for a good reason. We have a tough Government that does not hand out things for free. But, it is also no secret that from time to time we creatively give welfare, handouts in the name of Progress Package, ComCare Fund, New Singapore Shares, Workfare Bonus, etc. Sir, I am not complaining about all these schemes. In fact, I am supporting these, provided we do it the right way without taking away the motivation for Singaporeans to work hard, upgrade and improve their lot.

Sir, we have witnessed in recent years the widening of the income gap and that the lower-income group has a smaller wage increment compared to the other income groups. If this is left unchecked and uncorrected, I fear that one day it will threaten our harmonious social fabric when the financial divide between the haves and have-nots has become too wide a gulf to bridge. We should not restrain our ablest and the brightest to make their millions and in the process create economic wealth and jobs for other Singaporeans. However, we can create a social environment for the better off to help the worse off through voluntary work and donations. We have made reasonably

One group of Singaporeans who are more vulnerable and can fall through the social safety net are the senior citizens. Despite our short history, Singapore is one of the fastest ageing countries where, in 24 years' time, one in five Singaporeans will be 65 years or older. And as older people are more prone to illnesses, the healthcare cost will be a major concern for them. Although 2030 seems quite a distance away, I feel that we should start doing the groundwork now to prepare Singaporeans for their old age needs.

Sir, I am very happy to note that in its Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Health has included improvement to the ElderShield as part of its future plan. I applaud the MOH for taking a far-sighted view on ElderCare by taking an early intervention to tackle the medical needs of older Singaporeans before the first sign of trouble emerges.

I was told that, in Israel, there is a party called the “Pensioners' Party” which got into their Parliament on the basis of one issue, the elderly. The people who voted for this party are not just the old but also the children of the elderly who do not want the problems of their elderly parents to land on them. It is said that two parents can take care of four children, but four children are not enough to take care of two parents. So, if we do not address our ageing issue properly, we may end up having a Pensioners' Party in Singapore one day.

Sir, let me share what I have experienced as an MP for my constituency, Radin Mas. Radin Mas is an old constituency in terms of its history and the number of old people. Here, more than 20% of residents are above 60 years old. This is likely to be what Singapore may look like in 2030, if the present population

income, but also by its ability to uplift the less able and the less successful in the society, so that no one will be left behind. This inclusive approach, where all Singaporeans matter, is key in ensuring that we will continue to maintain a cohesive social and political compact while facing the intense competition brought about by globalisation.And I think it is worthwhile to dwell on these, to underline this Parliament's commitment to them.in those days. The street protests had badly affected the livelihood of the people in the area, as customers would be too frightened to come and the shop properties and vehicles were often damaged by the agitators and trouble makers.very close contacts with my counterparts in the other self-help groups. We have collaborated on many joint projects whenever the conditions are right and the opportunities arise. We are different and yet united. I believe that this is one of the reasons for Singapore's success. And we should continue to hold this value of unity in diversity dearly as it is the basic social and political foundation to ensure stability in the society.good progress in this area as the number of volunteers has increased over the years and the Government has given double tax deductions for donations to charities. I think more can be done, given the widening of the income gap.

policy remains unchanged and the Eldercare and ElderShield schemes are not revised timely. During my house-to-house visits and the meet-the-people sessions, I came across many elderly who live alone without financial support from their children.

Many of them are on some form of financial assistance, from the Government's Public Assistance Scheme, to the CDC's welfare grant and the CCC's ComCare Fund. And to be honest, Sir, my CCC's ComCare Fund has run out of money and we have to put up a request to the Central Singapore CDC for top-up.

Sir, my observation is that three factors contributed to the plight of all these senior citizens.

First, they are under-saved for their retirement needs. Second, they are under-insured for their old age medical needs. And third, their children are providing insufficient financial support. Some do not even provide support at all.

Through my conversations with them, it is clear that very few elderly know how much they have to save for their old-age needs. Quite often, their CPF savings could last them from the retirement age of 55 to 65 or 70 years old. Thereafter, their CPF savings would run out and they had to turn to others for help, if their children are not willing or not able to support them.

As the average life expectancy for Singaporean men is 77 years old and women, 81 years old, they would have to

Sir, to address their concern, we need to firstly strengthen the family network to ensure that inter-generational ties are strong enough to withstand the pressures that will be brought to bear. For children who do not want to take care of their aged parents, the option to toughen the Maintenance of Parents Act should remain open if the current provisions are found to be inadequate to compel the children to care for their parents.

Secondly, there will be an increasing lobby for more healthcare benefits for the elderly. We need to seriously look at what can be done on a long-term and sustainable basis to address this, whether in terms of medical insurance or preventive healthcare.

Thirdly, the question of livelihood. As our senior citizens are generally more healthy, better trained and still able to work beyond 62 years old, I hope that the Minister for Manpower could keep this line of thought open, ie, to allow our workers to work to 65 or 67 years old if they are still physically fit and possessing the right skill set for their job. However, we should not artificially extend the retirement age just to solve the ageing problem without due regard for older workers' competency and productivity.

The greatest thing

Mr Speaker, Sir, I started my speech by speaking on Singapore's success using a serious research by Dr Henri Ghesquiere. Now, I would like to end my speech with a fairy tale from Hans Christian Andersen.

In one of Andersen's stories, a whole kingdom was in search of "the most

"Breaking a work of art like that. Surely that must be the most incredible thing!", cried the judges, and they gave him the hand of the princess. "The Most Incredible Thing" is a tale for the children, but a wise one nonetheless, for we need to know the difference between creating a truly incredible thing, and destroying it merely because of the desire to score political points or playing to the gallery. [Incidentally, for those who want to know, the gangster did not get to keep the princess, or the kingdom, but you have to find out the ending by reading the story yourself!]

Sir, we have done a great thing in building this country, a little "red dot" that shines on the world map.

This is a new Parliament, with many new MPs, including a new Opposition Member. I would like to urge all of us to remember the story of the beautiful clock. Singapore is fragile, as well as successful. The greatest thing that we can do would be to work on it, delicately, carefully, to try to make it an even greater country.

To do so, we need to create new conditions for Singapore's success, by allowing the ablest and brightest to take to the sky, and uplifting the less successful and needy to live their lives with dignity and purpose. If we can do so together, putting aside our partisan loyalties and our overriding concerns with economic indicators of success, that, to me, would be the "most incredible thing".

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

live on financial assistance for 7-15 years if their life savings are depleted at 65 or 70 years old. This should not be the state of condition that we would like our senior citizens to go through.incredible thing". Whoever created this most incredible thing would marry the king's daughter and inherit half the kingdom. A young artist then carefully built an extraordinary clock. A thing of beauty which, upon striking of each hour, different groups of figures would appear - the three wise men, five senses, seven deadly sins, and so on and so forth. This was an incredible thing, and the artist was about to win the hand of the princess. Suddenly, a gangster burst into the room and smashed the clock into pieces!

Sir, I rise to record my objection to what the last speaker has said. He mentioned that the Barisan Sosialis members were involved in a riot. By the way, how did he know that they were members from the Barisan Sosialis? Did he see the late Dr Lee Siew-Choh in the crowd? The fact that the Barisan Sosialis was an Opposition party, people might misunderstand him and think that all Opposition parties are like that. It is really not so. I think it is unfair to mention members of an Opposition party that is not represented in this House as they are unable to defend themselves.

Sir, I studied in a Barisan Sosialis kindergarten, so I could recognise their logo. And during the street protests, they carried a banner with the logo of the Barisan Sosialis on it. So I knew.

Mr Chiam, I hope that answers your question.

Sir, at that time, processions might have been allowed and they might have gone for a legal procession, and not rioting. Rioting, in our law, is a criminal act.

3.42 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Jurong GRC, Mdm

Halimah Yaacob, to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of the Eleventh Parliament. I

welcome the President's reminder to build an inclusive society which leaves no one behind. I am sure this phrase will reverberate in this Chamber. I do not believe I will be the last to mention it.

Indeed, our rapid growth of the last 41 years has been sustainable because we have been vigilant in ensuring that social cohesion is not compromised in the process. The Government, in concert with the community, has provided financial assistance and opportunities to help the disadvantaged to level up. No society can bring about the equality of outcomes, even with the equality of opportunity. In helping the disadvantaged, we are reminded in the President's Address too, to be cautious to avoid swinging to the other extreme, leading them to rely entirely on the Government, and taking away the motivation and will for them to strive for themselves. But we should, and must, ensure that those from lower-income backgrounds have a good chance to uplift themselves, and that there is social mobility.

Because we have done this well and in this way, Singapore has been able to do better than many other countries in avoiding the segregation of our society between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and avoided the formation of a permanent underclass. This has been a key focus of the Government and must continue to be so. We receive constant reminders of the importance of this, in the example of other societies which have been torn apart by economic divisions; where the gap between the rich and the poor and the frustration of those who feel that there are no opportunities for them has led to social unrest and the triggering of racial fault lines and, in future, the digital fault lines. Singapore cannot afford this. Importantly, we must also provide opportunities to level up so that this is a place which Singaporeans are proud to call home. We want this to be a place where every Singaporean matters, and is given a chance to succeed in their respective fields. The strength of a country is measured not just in the

Engaging the community

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the community has a large role in helping their fellow citizens to level up. Since my student days, I have been active in volunteer organisations and can say with conviction that the role of the community in helping disadvantaged Singaporeans to level up is consequential. The "many helping hands" approach is a sound one, which we should continue with, moving forward. We need the help of the community organisations, such as People’s Association with its grassroots being ubiquitous and the self-help groups on the ground, even if the Government can provide good broad support and policy direction. These community organisations are well-placed to delve deep into the complexities and

racial or religious nuances behind why certain families are left behind. The community organisations are also well-placed to come up with local innovations that are customised to the needs of individual families.

In the Ministry of Education, there is a saying, to give schools "top down support for ground up initiatives" because they believe that schools on the ground are best placed to respond to the individual needs of students. Likewise, I believe that some form of "top down support" from Government for the community to exercise "ground up initiatives" is useful.

The "many helping hands" of our community organisations have done good work, many of them driven by the individual passions and beliefs of their

currently do not reach.

Society benefits the most when the community rallies to support itself. Take the recent establishment of NorthLight School, an effort by the Ministry of Education to provide an alternative pathway for children who have difficulties accessing the mainstream PSLE curriculum. Although the school is fully supported by the Government, the community has responded strongly to this school, with both public and private sector stakeholders spontaneously coming forward to offer their assistance to these children. Such efforts have a tremendous impact on those who are being helped and help to tighten the bonds within our society.

Education as a social leveller

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is much scope for the community to similarly engage in work to help more of our children access education. I stress the role of the community in working on education, in

opportunities that it provides to the strongest, fittest, and ablest among its citizens, but also in the helping hand that it extends to its citizens who require the most help.leaders and members. However, even one pair of hands will need good eyes and ears to guide and align their effort, what more with "many hands". Sometimes, passions and beliefs alone do not coincide neatly with needs nor directed where they are needed most. We can certainly further magnify the impact of these "many helping hands" and create a better and more symbiotic relationship with the Government. First, through better coordination between the different organisations and better coordination between the organisations and the Government so as to ensure that our individual efforts support and strengthen one another's. Second, through giving the community organisations greater information and insight into national priorities to ensure alignment of goals. Third, through plugging the gaps where community organisationsparticular, because a good education is ultimately the best social leveller. It gives our children the best chance of succeeding, grants them the independence to do what they want in life, and thereby creates hope for the future. I am, like the Member of Tanjong Pagar GRC, Mr Sam Tan, one of those who have personally benefited from getting, as the Australians would say, a fair go at life through education. It is my objective to put in more resources in education for those of our children who need the most help.

They say it takes a village to raise a child. Indeed, over the past 41 years, through concerted effort by parents, the community and the Government, we have gotten the “big numbers” right in ensuring that our children access and stay in education. Almost all Singaporeans access the quality education that is available to them, in our kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools. In fact, the majority of our students complete at least secondary education, with a 3% drop-out rate currently. Taken as a whole, the situation in Singapore is generally very good.

However, it is still critical for us to chase after the remaining small numbers of children who do not take advantage of the opportunities provided in our education system. However seemingly small these numbers might be, we should continue to chase these numbers, because every child matters to us, and we should leave no one behind.

There are two groups in particular that we would like to pay closer attention to; and we will partner the community in helping them to access education as a means of levelling up – children who are not attending pre-school, and children

Accessing pre-school education

One of these groups that requires extra help are the children who do not attend pre-school. Each year, there is a small group of children who do not attend pre-school, around 5% of the cohort. The reasons behind this are complex. Although there are many avenues for financial assistance from Government and the community to offset the costs of pre-school, some families are still not aware of them. Those are actually the easy cases. The more difficult cases are that some may not even want to ask for, or accept help. Some of them do not recognise the importance of sending their children to pre-school, just as we have to admit that there are some who are not much concerned when their children drop out of school. Some families might also be undergoing exceptional difficulty, such as parents going through divorce or absent parents, such that pre-school education is not the foremost priority.

The issue is not one of accessibility. Over the years, the Government has put in place measures to regulate and improve the quality of pre-school education, ranging from curriculum frameworks, to funding, to putting in place qualifications required of pre-school principals and teachers. There are also Government schemes, such as the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, to help with kindergarten costs, in addition to other community-based financial assistance schemes. Hence, low-income families can readily access good quality pre-school education at affordable fees should they choose to do so.

Remedies would therefore need to go beyond the simple issue of access. In this regard, there is scope for us to dedicate and focus efforts on this 5% of children.

For instance, a broad-brush approach of placing pre-schools under Compulsory Education would be unnecessary, and not a good use of resources. The vast majority of children already attend pre-school on their own accord, and enjoy a diverse range of options to cater to their different needs and expectations. Some parents prefer their children to attend pre-schools that use pedagogies they prefer, such as the Montessori way of teaching. Some parents prefer their children to attend pre-school conducted by religious organisations, or even prefer home schooling. Different strokes for different folks. The diversity in the pre-school landscape offers a good complement to formal, standardised education starting from Primary 1.

We should concentrate our resources on those who need the most help. We have observed that among children who did not attend pre-school, a higher proportion of children from lower-income backgrounds were not school-ready. Children from middle to higher income families, especially those from English-speaking backgrounds, are more likely to have received adequate home support to build their confidence in communicating in English, for example. Conversely, children from lower-income families, especially those from non-English speaking homes, would tend to lack such support. To give children from lower-income families a good foundation and a good chance to succeed in life, we should get as many of these children as possible into pre-school education.

I am therefore chairing a Committee to look into getting more of these children who are not attending pre-school to do so. This again will be a “many helping hands” approach, but coordinated, where we will work with the various community

It will require dedicated and focused effort on the part of Government and the community. It might even be difficult and unpleasant to have to convince some parents to send their children to pre-school. Nonetheless, for the good of the children, it is critical that we commit the time, energy and resources towards this endeavour.

Reducing attrition in education

Mr Speaker, Sir, another group that requires extra help is the small group of children who drop out of school before completing secondary education. Many of these students dropped out citing loss of interest in their studies and family problems. Ensuring that our children stay in education for as long as possible is an important component of helping them to level up. Hence, the Prime Minister has set a target for MOE to reduce the attrition rate from 3% to 1.5% in five years.

We will study the issue as far upstream as possible, and come up with solutions to help at-risk students to stay in school. I intend to consult students and stakeholders widely to deepen our understanding of the issue. We will also study the profile of these students who drop out. A critical component would be to involve the community in helping these students to stay in school. We will explore how the community can better support these students, as well as

The Malay community too should ensure that Malay children do attend preschool, stay in the race, and compete for places in the post-secondary educational institutions. This is a key leverage area which is worthwhile to focus on. The Malay community organisations, such as Mendaki, together with the Government, have already contributed much towards helping Malay children make significant progress in education over the years. The percentage of Malay PSLE students who qualify for secondary school has increased from 88% in 1995 to 94% in 2005. The percentage of Malay students who progress to post-secondary educational institutions or other forms of post-secondary education has increased from 70% in 2000 to 81% in 2005. This is significant progress and can be bolstered further if the community continues to work with the Government to get more Malay children to attend preschool and to stay in school.

Being part of the solution together

Mr Speaker, Sir, MOE is willing to put in the resources and efforts to give extra help to those who need it most, because education must continue to be a social leveller.

However, because we are chasing the small numbers, the reasons why these children and their parents, finally, still do not choose to access the education available to them, are likely to be very complex issues. Systemic solutions alone might not be sufficient without the community likewise putting in the resources and efforts to help those among us that are getting left behind.

As a country, we need to commit the time and energy to helping these children on their road to levelling up. As a society, we have to take ownership of the problem and be a part of the solution together. There is much that the community can do together, to complement Government efforts to ensure that all Singaporeans have the chance to level up in life.

Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks.

who do not complete secondary education. We will need a targeted and nuanced response. organisations to reach out to the families, persuade them to send their children to pre-school and find different ways of helping them, based on what is most appropriate. It is likely that we will tap on the People’s Association and their various grassroots bodies. The self-help groups have also been doing good work in this area and we will want to bring them on board for this effort as well. Through this process of outreach to the families, we also hope to better understand the nature of this issue and find better and more creative solutions as we go along. coordinate the efforts of our schools and the community, and tighten the linkages to ensure that there are no gaps through which such students can fall through.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I look back at our development over the last 40 years, I cannot help but feel immense satisfaction at how far Singapore has come in economic terms. We have meticulously put in place many things that will ensure our long term prosperity. Our economy is now well diversified; we have new growth engines in the form of pharmaceuticals and the biomedical sector. We are developing new capabilities in nanotechnology, media, water and environmental technology.

We have established FTAs with a host of countries. We have grown second and third wings, and many Singaporean companies are now active in far-flung countries like Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

Our education system is being reshaped to develop a diversity of talents, not just academic. Our healthcare system is also being tweaked to become more robust as our society ages rapidly.

Various sectors have been liberalised – telecommunications, power, transport. Jobs are being re-tooled. Talent is welcome from around the world. Orchard Road is being re-made. Economists and businessmen alike are excited about the prospects of having not one, but two world-class iconic integrated resorts on our tiny island with a possibility of even more to come in the future. Clearly, we must have done many things right, not least in the last few years, because “straight laced” Singapore, as still perceived by many, has just been ranked second in the world, after Italy, for, if you do not already know, the quality of its nightlife and dining. Last year, we did not even make the Top 10 in this hip quotient!

Yet, Sir, with all these exciting developments, I feel unease over the gaps in our society, and two in particular.

Firstly, the trend of a more pronounced social divide with a widening wage gap, exacerbated by an ageing population and, secondly, how our social cohesion would be affected by more liberal immigration policies together with the generational shifts in values of our post-65ers.

These concerns are not new, but I think we need to address them more fully. It is my belief that insufficient attention to them could undo the many gains we have made over the past 40 years. In fact, they would hinder us from achieving the objective of a highly competitive but compassionate society.

Sir, to address the gaps in our society, we need to: (1) mind the gap; (2) bridge the gap; and (3) close the gap.

Mind the gap

The London Underground PA system announces whenever a train approaches – “Mind the gap!” Sir, that is sound advice indeed. There are potentially many gaps in our society that could show up if we are not vigilant – rich versus poor; foreign versus local; able versus disabled; young versus old; gifted versus normal. Of particular concern is the growing income divide which could fracture our social cohesion. This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore and is experienced not just by advanced economies like Canada and the US but also countries like India and China.

Recognising this problem, the Government has, especially in recent years, put in place a broad array of assistance schemes to help needy Singaporeans through the CDC, welfare and grassroots organisations. These include work support schemes, ComCare, Medifund, Utilities Save, Workfare Bonus and Progress Package, just to name a few. In fact, under the ComCare fund, Citizens Consultative Committees have been allocated a sum of money each year to dispense interim financial assistance to any resident who is genuinely in need of urgent help. Sir, even so, there is persistent perception on the ground that more can and should be done to level up the less fortunate among us.

The President has in his Address affirmed that the Government will strengthen our social safety nets and do more to meet the growing needs of the lower income and older Singaporeans, at the same time avoiding the pitfalls that other countries have met in pursuing welfare schemes that are unsustainable and which have led to increased dependency and higher unemployment.

Sir, indeed as an MP for the last five years and Mayor for the last two-odd

Already, at my MPS, I am seeing a number of able-bodied residents coming in regularly to ask for food and utility vouchers as well as financial assistance, and giving many untenable excuses as to why they are unable to work.

Recently, in Denmark, the driver of a taxi I was travelling in told me when we passed one of their social welfare offices that very often the drug addicts will take a taxi to get their unemployment benefits as they are too weak to get there by public transport. They then use a substantial portion of their welfare benefits for the taxi fare, leaving them with insufficient money for the rest of the week. He also lamented that because of Denmark’s very generous welfare benefits, there are young people who are not motivated to work since they can always turn to the state. But, despite these pitfalls, he remarked that most Danes understand that they cannot leave their underclass in the lurch and need to extend a helping hand to this segment of the population, which leads me to my second point - bridge the gap.

Bridge the gap

At the CDC, we have many successful stories - which, unfortunately, very often, we were unable to entice the press to cover - where clients have been helped to become self-reliant again. A fundamental requirement for success is the willingness and sincerity of the client to be assisted. Indeed, individuals themselves must want to be helped and make the effort to help themselves.

An example of this - which would also illustrate to my colleague Mr Low Thia Khiang that CDC officers go out of their way to help clients, are mindful of sensitivity, and careful not to hurt their pride - is the case of a 43-year old female client who only had primary 6 education, but had experience in the tourism industry where she previously worked for many years till she was retrenched. The CDC officer found that she had many barriers that hindered her from getting employment and had to guide her on crafting a resume, and also how to succeed in job interviews. Subsequently, the CDC officer even had to negotiate with prospective employers to give her a chance, and ask them to assess her based on her skills and working experience, rather than her lack of qualifications. I am happy to say that these efforts eventually helped her to secure a job as a front desk clerk earning $1,100 per month.

As Mayor, I can provide many, many more heart-warming examples of such success stories. Finding the right balance, where more is done without breeding the entitlement mentality, is a Herculean task requiring a clear understanding of the problems and mindsets of the needy, and the operating environment.

Hence, Sir, before launching yet another series of programmes to mitigate this problem, I implore the Government to set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee and undertake a comprehensive study and consultation exercise, together with all stakeholders, on our existing social safety nets, the areas of improvements that can be made to render it even more robust and responsive. A whole of government approach is needed.

Inter-Ministerial Committees have been set up before to tackle, among others, SARS, the marriage and procreation issue, ageing issue and the plight of low wage workers. As the income gap issue is a

For instance, in the case of school dropouts, there is currently no structured system where the dropout would be referred to a VWO or self-help group to follow up after he leaves the school. As the school may only consider the case as a dropout after the student AWOLs from school for several weeks or months, I understand that sometimes the dropout cannot even be traced if he or she moves away from the parents’ house, such as after the parents divorce.

On the job front, Minister Lim Swee Say, while acknowledging the contributions of foreign workers, wondered aloud if too liberal a policy on low-skilled foreign workers impedes the restructuring of various sectors of the economy and depresses the wages of low-skilled workers. I agree that the best way to help raise the income of our low-wage workers - get them out of their poverty cycle - is to raise their productivity through skills upgrading and redesigning jobs. However, there may be little incentive for employers to redesign jobs as long as they have easy access to cheap labour. Hence, MOM should study this issue carefully in the context of the Inter-Ministerial Committee’s objectives and see if there is a need to recalibrate the ratio between local and foreign

Indeed, the labour movement’s latest attempt to help low-wage workers through industry redevelopment alludes to the need to gradually tighten quotas for hiring low-skilled foreign workers, if the scheme to overhaul industries that depend too heavily on low-skilled foreign workers is to succeed. There need to be enough jobs reclaimed at reasonable wages to entice Singaporeans to work, of course with a concurrent increase in productivity so that costs do not have to escalate.

For instance, there are many vacancies in the cleaning sector. Yet, it is difficult to hire locals even after there have been some attempts to raise the level of competence of the cleaners, such as through automation. One reason could be that some cleaning contractors are paying cleaners too low wages.

I am aware of a cleaning contractor who pays the cleaners $250 per HDB block per month. As the cleaners are largely only able to handle about two blocks per day, their monthly wage will only be about $500 per month. I understand that these cleaning contractors are only able to pay such wages as their successful bids are so low that they are unable to pay higher wages. One wonders if the bids were made on the basis of what are acceptable wages for foreign workers, with no thought for the locals!

Although the employment rate for older workers, for instance, those aged 55 to 59 years has increased from 51.7% in 2000 to 56.9% in 2005, it is still lower than that of many developed countries. Improving the employment rate of older workers would also help to narrow the income divide. There is thus clearly a need to actively promote the employability of older workers through public education

In the same vein, actively promoting the employment of the disabled through public education and monetary incentives to employers would also help to improve the employment rate of people with disabilities.

To encourage the many-helping-hands approach and allow the more able to help the less able among us, the Government could allow tax-free and matching grant donations to be made by the public into the ComCare fund. This will facilitate more help to be given without putting undue pressure on the Government to raise funds through taxation and/or budget cuts in some equally vital areas.

Knowing that one can obtain timely and effective help from the Government when one is in genuine difficulties shows up the Government as having a heart and builds up one’s trust in it. I submit that this would invariably also lead to feelings of goodwill, pride and rootedness to the country.

This leads me to my third and final point on integration and rootedness in the context of the divide between local and foreign talent. Continuing with the prevailing motif, we need to - close the gap (my third point).

Close the gap

Feedback to REACH, of which I am Chairman, on PM Lee’s recent National Day Rally Speech, indicated that the area of greatest concern to Singaporeans was immigration. Whilst most Singaporeans understand the necessity of attracting more foreigners onto our shores to prop

The latest push to open up

years, I strongly agree that even as we pursue a policy of inclusiveness leaving no one behind, we must be careful not to go down the slippery slope of welfarism that inevitably requires a high rate of taxation and breeds a dependency syndrome.reality facing us and is set to plague us for some time to come, it clearly warrants the setting up of such a top level Committee to tackle the issue holistically. The consultation exercise can be used to calibrate the appropriate level of assistance that can be given without tilting the balance to welfarism, as well as identify the target groups to help, which could even include the sandwich class in some circumstances. It can also recommend how to streamline the different programmes administered by the various Ministries and other stakeholders so that there is clearly a no-wrong-door policy. Furthermore, cross-referrals of clients for closing the loop is assured.workers in less skilled jobs in the different industries.and monetary incentives, as well as through legislation to facilitate the re-employment of older workers beyond the current statutory retirement age of 62 years.up our population and ensure our economic vitality, they are apprehensive about the increased competition for jobs, places in educational institutions and the impact on social cohesion.

Singapore to foreigners with a broader range of skills and to give them portable employment passes, not pegged to specific employers, is likely to have caused more anxiety than even the foreign talent policy of the 1990s. It is not just the low income but also the lower middle and middle income that worry about their jobs being taken and their wages depressed by foreigners.

Employers claim that they need retail assistants, laboratory technicians, digital media specialists and even draughtsmen from the Philippines, India, China and even Myanmar, as there are not enough Singaporeans who can or are willing to do these jobs. However, many locals are suspicious that employers actually prefer foreigners as they are cheaper.

In fact, as recently reported in the press, Mr Nickson Fong, the CEO and co-founder of local digital animation company, Egg Story Creative Production, confirms this observation to some extent. He pointed out that the nascent digital media industry needs lots of workers who are prepared to work for less than $1,600 per month. Discounting management, only 20% of his staff are Singaporeans, whilst the rest are Malaysians or Indonesians. Why? He said, "Because Singaporeans want higher pay even when they do not have the relevant experience and Singaporeans have poorer work attitude."

Notwithstanding the current buoyant job market, industry redevelopment to help redesign and reclaim jobs for our locals, as proposed by the NTUC, must be done in earnest and tangible results reported to allay the fears of Singaporeans that they are being displaced by

Younger Singaporeans too question if such immigration policies which seem to favour foreigners may displace them. They fear that employers may prize foreign talent above locals. They wonder if they can have a bright future in Singapore in the face of a more relaxed immigration policy. This, coupled with the fact that our younger Singaporeans are more mobile, the efforts of governments in other countries to attract our own talent and the perceived better quality of life in more advanced economies are likely to make our young feel less rooted and less hesitant to migrate.

A survey done by the Singapore Press Holdings in July this year seems to bear this out. It found that more than half (53%) of our young would consider migrating. In comparison, only 39% of their counterparts in India and 28% in Malaysia would consider leaving their homeland. This is a very telling and worrisome statistic.

Even as we try to entice more foreigners to settle in Singapore and help them assimilate into our community, we must also make special effort to retain Singaporeans, or at least ensure that they will eventually return to Singapore. In Scotland, for instance, the move to attract foreign talent is coupled with measures to cater to talent from within the country. We need to seriously examine the issues affecting rootedness of Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, and do more to strengthen their sense of belonging.

Sir, I know that this is an evergreen subject, one that has inspired many speeches and caused much anguish. But

Sir, I believe that Singaporeans will have no hesitation to welcome foreigners with open arms if they feel that the Government and other stakeholders are doing all they can to ensure that locals are not disadvantaged, but in fact benefit from the presence of foreigners.

As we strive to become a little but shining and brilliant red dot by embracing change, there are inevitable challenges that we need to grapple with. Like many other nations coming to terms with the forces of globalisation, one enormous challenge is the widening income gap and the stresses that may be caused by an influx of foreigners.

The poor we will always have with us. Likewise, as a nation of immigrants, Singapore will always have, and need our foreigners in our midst.

More can and should be done to help ensure the less fortunate among us, but this must be carefully calibrated so that we do not unwittingly go down the slippery slope of welfarism.

Likewise, as we open our doors wider to foreign talent, we need to do more to assimilate them while, at the same time, discern and strengthen the roots that tie our own people to this country we call home.

Sir, I support the motion.

foreigners. MOM must work with employers and the unions to change the mindsets of both employers and employees in order to close the expectations gap.perhaps, as a nation that started with immigrants, this could well be our karma, our constant thorn in the flesh.

4.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, globalisation has posed many challenges to Singapore and Singaporeans. It has affected the livelihood of many Singaporeans and their quality of life. In a fast-paced society like Singapore, globalisation will cause more

The Government is doing the right thing to invest in the future of Singapore. Resources have been appropriately channelled to invest in our people, our built environment and niche industries, such as biomedical sciences, interactive and digital media, and environmental and water technologies. While it is important to get our economy right, it is equally important that we should get our social well-being right. We can continue to invest in Government bonds or corporate bonds to generate yields for our ageing society. But we must also invest in “Community bonds” so as to sustain our society. Ultimately, it is the people factor that will make a difference to the meaning of lives among Singaporeans.

Sir, the Community Development Councils (CDCs) were formed in 1997 to foster social cohesion among Singaporeans. While the CDCs have provided many opportunities for Singaporeans to bond, more can be done to deepen the bonds among Singaporeans, in particular, among different racial and religious communities. Every Singaporean has a role to play in building a strong and cohesive society. To further facilitate the work of the CDCs, I would urge the Government to consider devolving more “community development” functions to the CDCs, such as financial planning, health promotion, sports promotion, social defence, community safety and security, environment issues, and community arts and culture.

Sir, how can Singaporeans build a strong and cohesive society? I would like to propose five areas where we should invest our resources in building community bonds, namely, (1) A caring community; (2) A healthy community; (3) A resilient community; (4) A vibrant community; and (5) An active community.

First, a caring community. Sir, we have often seen cases of needy Singaporeans who are jobless, homeless, without dependants, living in deplorable conditions and in financial hardship being reported in the media. There were also frequent calls by Singaporeans for more effective outreach to the needy and more help to be rendered by the Government. Sir, with rapid globalisation, there will always be new needy Singaporeans emerging every day. As such, it is not possible for the Government or various help agencies to keep track of all needy cases. We should avoid this mindset among needy Singaporeans to be dependent on the Government to provide welfare assistance. This is unsustainable, especially with an ageing population where there are fewer economically productive Singaporeans supporting more elderly.

Sir, we should instead focus on developing a caring community where Singaporeans will look after one another. Individuals should take care of themselves, family members should support one another, and the community can provide a social safety net as a last resort. A strong and cohesive community is one where the community can be self-reliant. As Singaporeans pursue their five Cs in life, we should also develop a caring culture among our people. With a strong caring culture, we will be able to identify fellow needy Singaporeans more quickly and render help accordingly.

Inculcating a caring value among Singaporeans will require the efforts of everyone to show care. We should train

Two, a healthy community. Sir, Singaporeans know that we must eat right and exercise regularly to keep fit and healthy. But how many of us are practising good eating habits, and exercising three or more times a week for at least 20 minutes? While Singaporeans are generally quite health conscious with food, the number of Singaporeans who exercise regularly is still low. This is a major health concern or challenge facing Singapore. Exercising regularly requires discipline and will power. It may be too late for many Singaporeans to start exercising when they become senior citizens.

Many Singaporeans have cited “no time” and our stressful work and life environment as reasons for not exercising regularly. These are areas which I feel would need more attention. We must provide a more conducive environment to encourage more Singaporeans to exercise and keep fit regularly. More resources should be set aside to provide accessible and affordable keep-fit amenities, such as park connectors, parks, fitness equipment, sports facilities or commercial keep-fit outlets.

We should promote more community keep-fit programmes such as brisk walking, taiji, qigong, swimming, cycling, in-line skating or community sports. More state land should be allocated by SLA or various Government agencies to build community keep-fit or sports facilities such as soccer fields, badminton courts, or multi-purpose courts in housing estates and workplaces. I would urge the Government to provide more Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding to the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) to expedite the

But in allowing state land for temporary use, we must also provide an exit management strategy for the users to return the land for national development purposes. Both the applicant for TOL use of the land and its users must understand that the land parcel is designated for future developments. Thus, permission is granted for such sporting or recreational uses for a specified period only. This will avoid lobbying pressures on the Government agencies.

Besides the provision of infrastructure for exercising, we should also provide more support to instructors and volunteers who champion healthy lifestyle. The Singapore Sports Council can provide affordable and professional training courses for instructors and volunteers. We must train more instructors and volunteers who will in turn help to encourage more participation in healthy lifestyle activities. The promotion of healthy lifestyle would require extensive community outreach. I would urge the Health Promotion Board and Singapore Sports Council to delegate their mass participation healthy lifestyle or sports functions to the community. The key performance indicator of a healthy community is the number of Singaporeans who exercise regularly.

Three, a resilient community. Sir, a resilient community is one where Singaporeans are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to respond to emergencies, such as terrorist attacks or disease outbreaks. I fully support the Community Engagement Programme (CEP) which was launched in February 2006. It aims to broaden and deepen the ties among Singaporeans so as to build a resilient community. Every Singaporean must play a part in enhancing the security of our environment and keep pace with the threats on our community. I

The Ministry of Home Affairs should delegate the Community Engagement Programme to community stakeholders, such as the CDCs, grassroots organisations or VWOs, so as to encourage better ownership among stakeholders.

friction among our people, thus affecting social cohesion. As we prepare Singaporeans to face these challenges, I support the call from our President that we must do more to strengthen cohesion, trust and confidence between the different communities. We need to further strengthen social cohesion among Singaporeans.and appoint more community caring ambassadors or community befrienders to further strengthen the bonds of our people. The key performance indicator of a caring community is the number of Singaporeans who care for one another.provision of such community keep-fit facilities.would urge all stakeholders of our community (that is, the public, private and people sectors) to step up efforts to train Singaporeans in emergency preparedness knowledge and skills such as first aid, CPR, disaster management, disease management or emergency response tactics.

In addition, we should also explore IT and new media to set up an emergency alert system which can activate our emergency response agencies and volunteers in times of emergency. An emergency preparedness virtual community can be set up comprising key stakeholders of our community, such as CDCs, grassroots organisations, voluntary welfare organisations, religious organisations and Government agencies. This platform can also be utilised as an e-learning environment to train and disseminate information on emergency preparedness. In times of emergency, the virtual community can be adopted to alert residents promptly through SMS or email broadcasting, thus enabling them to respond appropriately.

To build a resilient community would require deeper understanding among our multi-racial and multi-religious communities. The ongoing efforts on racial and religious harmony should be further enhanced to provide more outreach to Singaporeans, especially the younger generation. As we attract more foreign talent to Singapore, we must also make efforts to integrate them into our community.

To further strengthen the resilience of our community, we must put in place conflict resolution mechanisms to resolve conflicts in the community. Community mediation has proven to be an effective means for resolving community disputes. Thus, I would propose that more community mediators be trained and more resources be allocated to provide community mediation services. The Ministry of Law can also consider delegating its community mediation functions to the community.

Four, a vibrant community. To be a global city, Singapore must create more buzz in our society. Arts, culture and sports provide excellent platforms to increase human activities in our city. The proposed integrated resorts, proposed sports hub, our existing Esplanade and various local tourist attractions will complement one another to give both Singaporeans and tourists a unique experience in Singapore.

Unfortunately, the hot, humid and wet weather in Singapore has hampered many outdoor activities. Therefore, we must consider developing more indoor facilities for arts, culture and sports. The URA can also facilitate this by allowing more flexibility, such as their gross floor area (GFA) computations or reduction of development charge levy, to encourage developers to provide such facilities in their developments. To further inject vibrancy into our community, MICA must provide more support to arts and culture groups and encourage them to perform in the community more regularly and at affordable ticket prices.

Sir, I fully support the construction of an indoor sports hall for each school to encourage physical education activities. The Ministry of Education should ensure that these sports halls are made available to the community so as to ensure a higher utilisation rate. These indoor sports halls should ideally be designed to be stand-

To attract Singaporeans out of their comfortable homes, we must further improve the range and quality of arts and culture performances in the community. The National Arts Council should provide more support to community-based organisations, such as the CDCs or grassroots organisations, to organise more of these activities. A vibrant community is one where there is a constant flow of community activities to engage Singaporeans and improve their quality of life.

Five, an active community. A strong and cohesive community must comprise active citizens. We must encourage more Singaporeans to take ownership of their respective communities. We must provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to volunteer their time for the community. Many Singaporeans who do not do community work cited “no time” or “do not know how to volunteer or contribute” as reasons for not volunteering in the community. We should remove such barriers and provide multiple platforms to promote volunteerism.

Many young Singaporeans would like to contribute to the community but usually cannot commit their time on a sustained basis. This is a concern which we must address. Volunteerism must entail responsibility and continuity in order to better our community. Without sustained volunteerism, much disruption can be caused by the high turnover of volunteers in the delivery of community services. Therefore, we need to further study the motivation of youths in volunteering in the community. We must

To lead a fruitful and meaningful life, one has to explore and learn throughout one’s life. Volunteer work provides excellent lifelong learning and enriching experiences. But we need to inculcate these values from young. I would urge the Ministry of Education to step up its Community Involvement Programme (CIP) so that more opportunities are given to students to volunteer in the community. An active community is one where both young and old are voluntarily and actively engaged in community work.

Sir, I hope I have convinced the House that the yields of community bonds are high and that we should all invest in community bonds.

Sir, I support the motion.

alone facilities and be regarded as community halls instead. The construction and maintenance of these indoor halls should be funded by the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) fund. In this way, it will address concerns about the upkeeping of these sports halls.also strengthen our volunteer management system to be more effective in attracting and retaining volunteers in the community. I would urge the Government to allocate more resources to support the training of volunteers and accord more recognition to volunteers in our community.

4.53 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion of Thanks to the President who has so graciously reminded us all of the need to be an adaptable nation.

Sir, I would like to address three issues close to my heart, not least because they are also entrenched in the hearts of the grassroots leaders and the residents with whom I have met.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious from having listened to my colleagues before me that there is a common sentiment in this Chamber that while we must remain adaptable, certain integral features of a nation must remain constant. I, therefore, turn now to the first issue, immigration.

The penultimate and ultimate lines of the Singapore Armed Forces Pledge reads: "We will always support and defend the Constitution. We will preserve and protect the honour and independence of our country with our lives." For those of us who have recited this pledge on parade in front of our parents and friends, we all know that those last three words, viz, "with our lives", echoed in the grandstands. The echo reinforces the very belief with which we say them. The echo must continue in this Chamber.

The President has rightly pointed out that we need to attract more immigrants. While I am fully behind the Government's initiative to attract, for the sake of our very own Singaporeans, immigrants who possess sought-after skills, we must also be careful to avoid the equation that quality equals loyalty. For that equation can only be tested over time. History shows us to be a largely immigrant society and, therefore, an absolute closure of our doors to immigrants would prove us hypocritical. Openness is key. But there is a general sentiment among the grassroots leaders and residents of my constituency that such openness, while a reflection of good governmental foresight, must also come with an assurance that Singaporeans are still the top priority. There are common sentiments, such as: "The immigrant comes, we welcome him and his family with open arms, but will his sons do NS or will he leave for better pastures after some time?" In which case, Sir, are we merely a springboard nation? These are sentiments that need to be addressed.

Again, I must emphasise, for it only seems fair to do so, that the logic of the policy is commonly accepted. The logic is construed this way: we need to welcome immigrants so that, (a) the job experience and network they bring create more jobs for existing fellow Singaporeans, and (b)

However, it is an assurance that the citizens are wanting. The assurance is that the people whom we welcome will not use Singapore merely as a springboard to better offers overseas. In my view, the need for such an assurance among Singaporeans is legitimate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one, neither sorcerer nor professor, can look into a man's heart to see if he will be loyal to his country. There is no pre-emptive test for loyalty, for it is one of those traits that can only be proven on hindsight. So, I willingly concede that to ask the Government to draw up a written test or to create an aptitude test, in order to supply an accurate assessment of a man's potential loyalty, would be an illogical request. But having said that, there are already some concrete facts about citizenship matters which could, as a matter of policy, be made better known to Singaporeans, eg, the Government's stand that no Singaporean is entitled to dual citizenship. This policy requires the potential citizen to be earnest in his choice of Singaporean citizenship, since the immediate consequence is that he will have to forsake all other citizenships. To draw a parallel, and one which I am sure my wife would like me to draw, the policy is like marriage, where the parties vow to forsake all others. Another example is that the sons of new immigrants will, just like young Singaporean men, have to serve National Service upon reaching the liability age which, according to ICA's website, is 16-and-a-half years old. The communication to the citizens of these entrenched rules will help reinforce the

I now move on to the second point under the immigration issue. My point here is that the Government needs to work hand-in-hand with Singaporeans in a genuine effort to help our new immigrants to assimilate well into our Singapore society. Europe so clearly displays the need for governments to lead in constantly assimilating new immigrants of different cultures and societal interpretations into the general culture of the host country. An online article from The New Europe Review states: "When riots erupted on the outskirts of major French cities, though not in Marseille, in November 2005, many said that this unmasked the weakness of the one-law-for-all Republican model of integration."

Soon after the May elections, I was at a citizenship certificate presentation ceremony at the Grassroots Club in Ang Mo Kio, and I was really happy to see some of my grassroots friends there. I asked what they were doing at the ceremony. They replied, "To welcome the new citizens and invite them to participate in the activities organised by the CCCs and RCs." I thought this was an excellent way of reaching out to our new fellow citizens so that they know early on that they have a group of friends and an array of activities to help them during their difficult move away from home. This must continue to be the way we do things in Singapore, ie, reach out to our new citizens so that they feel part of us. This prevents divides and prompts, to quote our President, "A more inclusive and warm Singapore for everyone". Our grassroots leaders and the residents who join in these welcoming initiatives must be commended for their spontaneous outreach.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may, I will end this first point on immigration by drawing

Sir, I wish now to move from immigration to the second issue of my speech – Singapore’s direction. The dragon-boat rowers are important, but as important are the ones who hold the boat’s rudder. The rudder charts the boat’s direction in the same way the Government steers the nation to a course. Direction is as important as the muscles churning the momentum. We survived the tumultuous 60s and 70s and consolidated our assets and key economic pillars in the 80s and 90s. It is now upon us in the early 21st century to chart the direction in which we want our Singapore boat to travel in. How we chart our course will affect our children and our children’s children. Let us not, therefore, be known only as a casino-town.

the dwindling birthrates would be stemmed, which in turn helps avoid a heavily disproportionate elderly population. The logic shows that existing Singaporeans benefit both ways. More jobs would be created and an ageing population can be sustained with a growing number of younger workers. So the logic is watertight. fire-tested principle of equality among Singaporeans, whether new or old citizens.from the lessons of a great team sport - dragon-boat racing. Singapore is the dragon-boat. The steely rowers are our citizens. To break new waves, pick up momentum and chart new paths in the sea, we need to work together and plough our oars in unison. We must welcome new rowers, and each rower, whether old or new to the boat, must know that he is as equally treasured as the man next to him. The current rowers must know that they are not forgotten, for it takes all of us to row that Singapore dragon-boat.

While the integrated resort promises to be more than just a casino, we must be cautious in how we portray ourselves to both the international traveller and the world. Over the years, Singapore has cultivated a rock solid reputation of being a steady financial centre where the rule of law can be wholly sought as an efficient form of redress where citizens work hard. Further away from home, our overseas Singaporeans are known to international law and investment banking firms as honest, diligent and reliable employees. Universities the world over have high expectations of Singaporean students. As for me, there was already an expectation in my university that Singaporean students would do well and it was a

Sir, this hard-earned reputation must not be usurped by the glitz and glamour exuded by casinos. We have gained much by working hard as a nation and garnered for ourselves a reputation of diligence and honesty. Let us not let the world replace this reputation with the casino label. We are much more than that. To use my learned colleague, Mr Alvin Yeo's analogy of the casino having a minority floor space of the integrated resort, let us not then allow it, that is, the casino, to overstep its influence and usurp our national reputation.

We need to continuously expose our advancing strengths in education and the blossoming arts platform must continue to take centrestage. We need to continue aggressively market ourselves as a growing financial centre and an international arbitration, business and legal centre where business can be sought, negotiated and concluded in a politically stable environment. Glitz and glamour have their place but they must not replace the foundations this country has been built on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to my third and last issue and one which is close to my heart - youth and education. As a P65 citizen and MP, I have gained much from the education I received in Singapore. There is a Japanese proverb, which means, better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher. As with many in this Chamber, I remain indebted to my teachers who taught me subjects in the classroom but also taught me about the subjects of life outside of it. To this end, I would like to

As a P65 MP and as an avid sportsman, I would like to mention my support for the introduction of indoor sports halls in schools, recently announced by MOE. This would increase the benefiting schools' sports facilities by 50%. This means increasing the chances of students integrating with each other outside class but within the safety of the school. It also gives students of different races the wonderful opportunity of participating in team sports with each other. So many more Singaporeans could benefit from these indoor sports halls. May I suggest that these halls be made accessible to residents living in the same neighbourhood as the school especially on weekends? This would create a more lively and sporting neighbourhood with the school at the heart of it all.

While we preserve at (a) improving our children's education; and (b) making concerted efforts to ensure that each child receives a good education, as evidenced by MOE's recent launch of the Committee on Reducing Attrition, we must also not overburden our teachers. The recent GROW package for teachers aims at increasing "G" (growth), "R" (recognition), "O" (opportunities) and "W" (well-being), the "W" is as important as the "G", "R", "O". There are many of my friends who became teachers. We are in the same age group, about 30 years old. They work very, very hard. They have to

I salute them for their selfless effort but I also think they deserve to be given a more manageable load. They must be given the space and time to remember why they became teachers. While I am fully behind the recent initiative of the Education Ministry, I respectfully suggest that we also give teachers the breathing space they need to ensure that their occupation remains a vocation and not just a job. We need to ensure that the "W" in GROW stays.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to address my learned colleagues on the issues of immigration, reputation, youth and education.

With this, I support the motion.

reputation we all felt proud to live up to. As a nation, and I know I speak for my residents, we feel proud that reading how well SIA, the Changi Airport and PSA fared on the annual global and regional rankings. mention my full support of the Education Ministry's initiative towards out-of-classroom holistic education. The intrinsic value of such an approach is best encapsulated by our Education Minister's quote in a recent September interview with the Straits Times. The quote reads, "Sports helped me more in life than anything else I did in school or university. It has got something to do with being part of a team, competing, wanting to win but also knowing how to lose. It is invaluable stuff and helps in whatever you do in life." plan their lessons, set assessments. These include year-end examinations, preliminary examinations and mid-year examinations. They often teach two subjects and have an additional CCA to take charge of. Then, there are the administrative duties - consent forms for extra lessons, consent forms for CCAs, budgeting for one's own CCA, claims, accounts. In addition, there is discipline and counselling to see to. Some teachers, on top of all these, go the extra mile to meet up personally with parents to discuss their children's concerns. And there is the daily marking which I am told takes up 50% of the teacher's working time.

5.08 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me rise to add my support to the Motion of Thanks moved by the Member for Jurong GRC.

As the President spoke about the challenges confronting us and spelt out the directions for the way ahead, it evoked in my mind an epic journey of a meandering river with as many twists and

Going upriver, sometimes rowing against a swift current, we have a clear idea of where our destination lies, and yet, it is difficult to plot the exact path for the entire journey right from the onset. There are a number of reasons why this is so. Some of the hazards are not well-demarcated. The shoals and the wrecks may be well-charted but the sandbars and the mudflats may shift and new hazards may arise as the conditions change. From a distance, it is difficult to see what it is that we will encounter around the bend or to pick the most promising tributary from afar. And sometimes, after a great flood, the path of the entire river may change altogether and we have to plot our entire course anew.

But as we take to the river and row together, we find the way opening up before us. As we go around the corner, the next stretch of the journey becomes clearer. And as long as we remain disciplined and we all pull together and row in unison, we make good time.

Some of you may be a little perplexed as to why a former navy man keeps talking about rowing. I assure you, Members of the House, that your generous budget for defence has been well-spent and the Navy is, in fact, equipped with modern ships, all powered with engines, swift and decisive. It is just that there is something about rowing that appeals to me personally. In any case, I guess when we assess the conditions to be most favourable, we will run up a sail or two and make even better time.

But that aside, there are three learning points that I would like to share with you from this analogy. First is that strong leadership is critical. The journey is a difficult one because of the changing conditions and the need to constantly adapt and respond to new developments.

The second learning point is that all crew members have something worthwhile to contribute at some point during the journey. We all have to work hard but we do not all have to man the oars at the same time. Some in fact are best suited for specialised functions, like defending the boat against an attack, some will navigate and alert us to the possibilities and dangers ahead, others will pay special attention to the cohesion and health of the crew and yet others may take on the housekeeping duties. We all have a part to play and we should value the unique contributions that each brings to the boat for the more diverse the talent pool, the greater our combined potential. We prize unity and not uniformity. And some crew members may decide to go ashore and explore unknown lands before they rejoin the boat sometime in the future, bringing with them fresh insights and a renewed vigour. While ashore on a foreign land, they can serve as our emissaries and advocates so long as they have our interest at heart. At times, we would take on new crew members who share

The third learning point is about the quality of the crew. Our boat is well-equipped. We have invested in modern communications equipment and the latest navigational gadgets. Our hull is streamlined, well constructed and made of the finest steel. But as I have learnt from my years in the Navy, it is not the steel in the boat, but rather, it is the steel in the hearts of men that makes the ultimate difference between victory and defeat, between triumph and despair and even between life and death. So we need rugged individuals and a resilient community, the steel in our hearts tempered by adversity and hardship, if we are to face up to the challenges ahead, to overcome setbacks and to return even stronger than ever.

I like this boat. I like being with the people in it, I like the direction that we are heading and I like where it is that we are going. And I know that we can look forward with optimism as, together, we face what is to come as we head around yet another bend in the river.

The President talked about investing in the future. I have long held the view that the most worthwhile investment that we can make is in the lives of those who follow after us and I will speak more on that later. But it is also important to invest in the lives of those who came before us and are still with us, for they too are a part of Singapore's future. I am talking in particular about our senior citizens. I believe that in turn, they have many meaningful experiences to share and much to offer. Some can serve as mentors to the next generation. Those with the aptitude can be equipped with

Over the years, a good standard of healthcare has improved the life expectancy for our senior citizens. As we add years to their life, so too must we add life to their years. We need to make our facilities more elderly-friendly and create new avenues and more spaces for interaction, exercise and recreation, allowing them to grow and expand their network of friends, to stay active and mentally engaged and to cultivate new areas of interests. In doing so, we can make their autumn years colourful and golden, like the leaves on the trees in temperate countries during that particular time of the year.

But for a small country with limited resources like Singapore, investing in our young by providing them a first-class education

turns, with its many tributaries and branches.The decisions we make and the course we take, every step of the way, are crucial if we are to make good time, ride out the storm safely and overcome the rough patches that will inevitably occur. Out at sea, a bad day on the wrong day can be our last day. So our leaders will constantly need to raise the calibre of the crew and upkeep the morale of its members, especially when the waters are rough. We are not alone on this river. There are other boats. With some, we may collaborate and journey together for as long as our paths and interests do not diverge. With others, we may be in direct competition and we have to find ways to outperform them. And wise leadership is vital if we are to make sensible choices on the track to follow, on the selection of our partners and on keeping the crew together. the same ethos and are able to contribute to and strengthen the existing crew. We need to pay particular attention to onboard environment so that it is conducive for these developments to take place.counselling skills while others with a successful financial and business background may pass on their accumulated experience to budding entrepreneurs. Yet others, who have lived through the turbulent period straddling the pre- and post-independence years can bring a personal touch and a first-hand account to the National Education efforts in our schools. We should make a concerted effort to map out the areas where their contributions can be most impactful and build a database and a network of individuals that we can draw upon.

is not only a prudent option, it is a strategic compulsion. Education is a key strategy through which we will shape Singapore's future and to secure continued success. Investing in our young will lay the foundation for a highly skilled, nimble workforce, able to adapt to a fast globalising and rapidly changing world, and a core of citizens with a strong sense of rootedness to the nation.

The rigour of our educational system is robust and the standard that we have attained is first rate. We take education seriously, we have high expectations, we set high goals for ourselves. Unlike many

I have little doubt that many of our students will do well academically, but we know that that is not the only goal of education. Tests and examinations are relevant. At the individual level, they measure where we stand and how we are progressing. It helps us to gauge our understanding and consolidate what we had learnt. At the systems level, they provide transparency and underpin the principle that entry to a school or access to a higher level of education is based on merit. But obsession with examinations and a fixation on results and academic achievements are unhealthy and detrimental, not the least of which because it instills fear of failure, scopes us too narrowly and discourages us from venturing beyond what is likely to be tested.

Moving forward, may I propose that there are three areas that we can do more in. The first is a greater emphasis on values-based education to complement with our abilities-based education. Part of it is personal values and the other part is social values. I chair the Committee on National Education for our schools. So let me touch a little on the latter. Social values require an appreciation of our past, for Singapore is a place that is rich in history and steep in character, and from an appreciation of our past, to translate that into an understanding of its relevance to the present and our future. From my interaction with students, some have lamented that studying the history of our early years and knowledge of our founding fathers are of little relevance. It saddens me. Maybe we have focused too much on the events and the dates, and

We need to capture the essence of our rich and unique heritage, the fine spirit and proud traditions of our people and transmit them in a way that allows each generation to understand the early struggles and tribulations, and appreciate the significance of their achievements and sacrifices, and so love this land and what we have all the more. The passion our people had, the fighting spirit that they displayed in the midst of great adversity, the common bonds that we painfully forged as a multi-racial family - we need to cherish and perpetuate this and imbue them in each succeeding generation. Only then can meaningful discussion take place on current affairs, the dilemmas that we face and our plans for the future take place.

In recalling events and figures of the past, recognising them and all that they accomplished, the deeper message is to remind and charge this present generation with the precious legacy that is entrusted in our hands and the need for each generation to add its touch to our common vision of Singapore's future. Values add value to who we are and what we do. They serve as a moral compass to give us a sense of direction and a ballast to lend stability and balance, especially when we encounter choppy waters during our journey.

The second area we should focus on is to develop individuals to become mentally and physically rugged, and who see themselves as part of a team. Our schools conduct a range of CCAs from which the students can choose. All are meaningful but some activities are more beneficial as they take students beyond their comfort zones and build the self-confidence to test and push their personal boundaries. Tough and toughening, yet

Activities like adventure camps and sports can also provide a platform on which we can fail safely and try repeatedly without being overly preoccupied that they will jeopardise our academic progress. If we are strong in our academics and success in the classroom comes too easily and consistently, we run the risk that we develop an aversion to failure or think ourselves immune to failure. Unfettered success can instead hinder us. If so, that is troubling.

One of the rare Chinese proverbs that I know says that failure is the mother of success - shi bai shi cheng gong zhi mu. But success can also be the mother of failure, if success breeds complacency, if we do not know graciousness and humility in defeat, we do not learn to empathise with those less able and less fortunate.

Prepare our students well and we will prepare Singapore well for the future. Done right, education strengthens the fabric of our nation and helps shape the society we want to become. Likewise, society can strengthen the fabric of education, for it is a symbiotic relationship.

Therefore, the third area that I would like to propose is to forge a deeper partnership with society in education. As my hon. friend, Masagos, has reminded us, "It takes a village to raise a child." While the Government can take on a major portion of the responsibility for education, it must work hand in hand with our partners in society. Parents have a big stake in the education of their children, and must not relinquish this responsibility. Besides taking an active interest in what their children are going through school, their participation in and support of school programmes will speak volumes to their children. Increasing involvement of parents in school contributes to parent-child bonding. At Montfort Junior School, for example, fathers take part in an "Amazing Race" in which they join their sons in a race to deliver groceries to needy families living in the vicinity.

It also gives great encouragement to our teachers to know that they have parents on their side, especially in areas of discipline and correction. Parents can be reassured that there are appropriate guidelines in place on how discipline should be meted out, and teachers do so with the best interest of the child at heart. Parents, through close communication with teachers, will have a better understanding of their children's strengths and abilities as well as the struggles they face. And the converse is true as well - that teachers will be able to learn from their students' parents the passion and interests of their charges. So, working together, they can bring out the best in each child.

Former students and community agencies too have a part to play. Former students can be wonderful role models and mentors when they return to serve the school, whether in CCAs, community work or merely to recount how they have been shaped by their experiences in

Community agencies, on their part, provide real life experiential learning opportunities to inculcate values such as compassion and service. For example, some ITE students, through the CDCs, use the skills they have acquired to undertake household repairs in rental flats - meaningful service that is deeply appreciated by the residents.

Business organisations open opportunities for teacher-work attachments to widen their perspectives beyond the classroom, as well as internship opportunities for students to get a preview of working life. This is a win-win relationship as students better understand what a particular sector has to offer and what employers are looking for besides academic qualifications - work values, source skills and the like. For sectors, like the maritime where I came from, which is particularly short of manpower and requires a steady influx of talent, such attachments give students a flavour of the prospects and will help shape their choice of study in the future. And, therefore, employers will, over time, be better able to attract their fair share of talent.

I have advocated a greater emphasis on three areas in education:

a values-based education to complement our abilities-based education;

on developing rugged individuals and giving them opportunities to understand and personally experience the pain of failure; and

welcoming particular segments of society to deepen its partnership with our

In so doing, we will have taken further steps to help our students, especially our more successful ones, grow up as caring and responsible citizens, understanding and empathising with the plight of those less able, less fortunate, less confident or less successful. Through serving the community, they will realise that they can make a difference to someone’s life, where a small effort on their part can mean so much to someone else, and that such endeavours can be highly satisfying and deeply meaningful.

In conclusion, let me just reiterate that it takes a good team to make education work. In Singapore, we have committed a team of school leaders, teachers, parents, business leaders and members of the community, all who can and have played a role in preparing our children for the future. Like the crew on our boat, one cannot do without the others. Together, I am confident we can navigate our way up the river safely.

With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

other countries, we do not have great disparities in our educational standards. While education will not level out, it will level up. We have lofty peaks and high averages. Much of this we owe to our school leaders and teachers, for they are capable, motivated and passionate.not enough on their significance and impact.fun and exciting activities experienced together build bonds that last and provide a reservoir of shared memories. Rugged activities conducted outdoors by the uniformed groups, sports, some types of community involvement programmes (CIP) projects, expeditions and adventure camps are especially well suited to foster qualities like team work, self reliance and a can-do spirit. We need to explore ways on how to further promote this particular aspect of the CCA experience outdoors. For if we look ahead to the future, the need to increasingly operate in unfamiliar territory and cope with abrupt and disquieting change will call for skills beyond academic abilities and what we can learn in the classroom.school. We need to find ways to strengthen the alumni structure in our schools so that we provide more opportunities and more avenues for former students to come back and serve the school.educational institutes and provide worthwhile opportunities for experiential learning.

5.28 pm

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

Today, my speech will cover three topics - business environment for the entrepreneurs, youth issues and the sports community. The vision of Singapore, as I see it, is one of challenges as well as opportunities. As in the

Business environment for entrepreneurs

I read an article in Fortune and this particular article was about Google, the Internet company that has a very powerful search engine. At some point, you might have googled to find information on the Internet. And as you can see, I used the word “googled” instead of “search”, like some people would use “xerox” instead of “copy”, and this is the power of the brand. Can Singapore and the environment produce a Google or a brand close to it? And that depends if the environment is conducive enough for such ventures and also to embrace risk.

In this article, a Google employee made the mistake that caused millions of dollars. She reported the loss to one of the founders, Larry Page. His reply was, “I’m so glad you made this mistake. If we don’t have any of these mistakes, we are not just taking enough risk.” Some may say that they have the money to make mistakes. I also think that there are many big businesses, growing larger, but their risk appetite becoming smaller.

Sir, our environment has still some way to go to develop such ventures, and the society must be more ready to accept failure and for individuals to embrace risk. But due to the over emphasis on immediate success and key performance

President’s Address, without economic growth, we cannot invest in our future or realise any schemes to help Singaporeans. Coming from the private sector, I know too well that the challenge in running a company has always been on how do we find new ground and identify good people, create new channels of revenue stream or opportunities so that the company can strive, survive and jobs are secured. But is our P65 or the new generation ready for the challenge or the change? Do we have the environment for them to succeed? Are they ready to step out, think out of the box and venture forward?indicators (KPI), we have become more cautious and over engineer on the micro issues and trying to be perfect. The process towards success would always have some imperfection. We must keep an open mind, ready to embrace risk and think out of the box.

But it takes 3Ps - people, private and, most importantly, the public sector - to share the same vision, mission and risk. The Government can roll out new schemes, with the most recent one – the Innovation Commercialisation Scheme – but if the environment does not change, we would still have a dry spell. That is why I am glad of the announcement by MOF, to boost entrepreneurship, to lower the contractual age from 21 to 18 years old. This will cast the net out wider and encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking at a younger age. The younger generation of executives, potential entrepreneurs, however, must step up, try new things, figure out the way to go, and we need to take it further. We have to consider setting up maybe a young entrepreneur network or programme to help identify new ventures, not to invest in them but really to mentor and help them set up and grow. It is especially useful for these young entrepreneurs who may not know what are the first steps to take, and this is where the experienced lead the rookies. The only difference today we are now focused on is doing it locally.

That said, I fully agree with what was mentioned in the President’s Address that though the private sector takes the lead in creating wealth, the Government creates the pre-conditions for the private sector to prosper. So the Government should take the lead to create this environment. That would also mean sharing of risk as well as failure or success that comes with it. And we have top talents in the Government today - and I have worked with many of them, and they are outstanding, efficient, competent and honest, but we need to build on that

Youth

Let me touch on youth. They are the new generation, well informed, international, move with speed, and they are used to high speed of information exchange. This is the group that we need for them, as mentioned in the President’s Address, to feel for the country, understand the issues and participate in building the future for our nation. Two years ago, the Prime Minister called on young Singaporeans to step forward to make a difference to themselves, to fellow citizens and to Singapore. Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak with many of them, work closely with them, and I would say that they have responded well.

The recent youth forum is a case in point. It was an event organised by the youth for the youth. It was sponsored by the National Youth Council (NYC). The national youth forum provides participants with insights into policy making in Government. There were 90 participants - students from ITE, JCs, polytechnics, universities, national servicemen and working youth. Through the forum, they started their own community projects, and their practical initiative targeted at other young Singaporeans. For example, one

Another example you might have heard of or even read from our newly-created P65 blog is this group of four students who call themselves “Inspire” who managed to raise $100,000 for the Straits Times ’ Pocket Money Fund in four months. That is no mean feat. But what really heartened me was that they told me they wanted to keep a low profile. Such modesty at such a young age is inspiring. And I think I am not helping them by talking about their feat here.

These two cases represent just a tip of the iceberg for the hundreds of youths who initiate and implement community projects under several of our youth programmes. So the question is: are our Singaporean youth apathetic? From this, I draw the conclusion that they are capable, pragmatic, have a can-do spirit, and they want to make a difference. No one told them to initiate all these projects. They did it on their own accord. But the question is: are we reaching out far and wide to most of them out there? Or are we seeing the usual suspect and the same faces? So, recently, I started to pose questions at youth dialogues to test whether they know of our youth programmes. Unfortunately, I seldom get more than 50% show of hands. Maybe they are too reserved to put up their hands. But I take it as a signal that there is a lot that we need to do to make sure the outreach is effective. So I initiated the Youth Network that comprises major youth groups in Singapore, hopefully, to reach out to more youths out there, so as to encourage them to come forward and participate in the process. And I need the Members of this House to help me out as well.

Youth outreach

Outreach is important, and we need to be able to go to the heartlands – bring in national events more readily available for participation at the grassroots level. But it takes two hands to clap, and this is not easy. However, I do not want to leave anyone behind – everybody should be given an equal opportunity and we are at the same level playing field. Many of these youths would like to have an opportunity to make a difference. Let me highlight some statistics to illustrate this point.

Based on the findings of a national youth survey held by the National Youth Council, the percentage of young people involved in leadership positions has grown from 14% in 2002 to 21% last year. The National Volunteerism Survey showed that 28% of all youth engaged in volunteerism has increased from 25% in 2004 and also 17% in 2002. The number of young Singaporeans involved in social networks has also increased from 44% in 2002 to 52% in 2005. So we have to keep the momentum going and encourage more of them to participate and take the lead in youth activities. With these programmes to provide youth with the opportunities and space to pursue their passions and to learn and grow, I urge all agencies to continue this work.

Youth engagement

Youth engagement will always be an important task. Moving ahead, apart from the current youth programmes, there are three areas I would like to look into: online engagement, youth adults, and youth-at-risk.

Online engagement

It is always important to seek the views of the youth and we would like to engage them online. More and more

Some of my fellow parliamentarians and myself set up our own blogs - the P65 blog. It has been an interesting experience. We received many comments. Most are constructive but some are disruptive. But we have to accept that there will be many, many views and the fact that through the Internet, views are expressed more freely, maybe because they use their nicknames or sign off as anonymous, and one point is that they believe in free expression, though they may not have the same background information or understanding. So we might have to use this form of communication to provide them with the information. But I also face a problem here. Through this speech, I wanted to cite many good suggestions or comments from their inputs and thank the contributors. Since most of them do not use their real names, I do not know who is who, and who am I thanking. But this is the Internet and this is the new media. It is like swimming in the blue ocean, and you do not know what is out there, different types of fishes swimming around you, some you could identify; some you could not. But I think when you detect danger, you better know what to do. We cannot avoid this. We still have to participate in it. And it is important we also guide the young to do the same through this form of communication – distinguish the right from the wrong. So far we have managed to engage but we still need to connect. We are certain that we will keep trying, experiment and we believe we will be successful.

Young adults

We define young adults as people who are aged 25 to 40. Post-65 (P65) MPs have carried out a series of dialogues with young Singaporeans from the post-65 generation this year. This series of dialogues will continue into 2007. Let me share a few takeaways from the sessions so far.

Young Singaporeans want to be an active part of the community but they face a variety of challenges across their various life stages as they mature from youth into young adults, both in terms of their personal development as well as in contributing to society. Young adults in our dialogue sessions spoke about the challenge of starting and raising families and of establishing their careers. They actually want to pursue their interests, whether sports, arts or culture, and contribute to the community and also engage in activities that give meaning to their lives. However, they have to balance this against other competing priorities which many Members of this House have spoken about – the work-life balance issue. This issue of work-life balance or the question of whether society defines success only in material terms is very important to them.

Recently, I posted a work-life balance topic in the blog. It received the most number of comments in all of the topics that I posted in my blog. As of today, it has 35 comments. The comments were interesting. They share their concerns of a lack of work-life balance. One of them even brought up the heavy workload of being a teacher, which my parliamentary colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza has highlighted. The only balance they could find is to sleep, and not spending time with their families, because they are just too tired, and they asked: how could we be involved in other interests that you want us to do? By starting families and embarking on their careers, they are

Youth-at-risk

I would like to touch on the subject of youth-at-risk and the role played by the Government and society, not just in providing them with opportunities but also to overcome challenges and obstacles that stand in their way.

Many young people face stress from their studies, having to fit in and keep up with their peers and possibly at home as well, and they may be in search of identity, looking for easy answers. As such, many teens may be tempted to forsake studies and hard work for criminal activities such as gangs, theft, extortion or even drugs. It is important for the Government to put in place measures to keep youth from going astray. I must commend the Government for having a wide range of initiatives ranging from efforts by the Police, Inter-Ministerial Committee on Youth Crime (IMYC) to programmes by MCYS such as Step-up which funds VWOs to provide social work services in schools to youth at risk of delinquency or leaving school prematurely. However, it is equally important for us to reach out to youths who have gone astray and to give them the support they need to start anew and have a second chance in life. Given the right chances, our youth-at-risk can overcome the challenges facing them, turn their lives around and fulfil their own potential. Instead of becoming a liability and a negative influence, they can be an asset to society and to their fellow Singaporeans. Let me illustrate this with a story – an inspiring

Mr Glenn Lim, one of the winners of 2005 Singapore Youth Award, is a well-known public speaker and youth counsellor. However, to get there, he managed to turn his life around in the face of great challenge. He was a defying child; he was a troublemaker at school and at home, and he was what we called the “pai kia ”. Eventually, he formed a rock band, pursued a lifestyle revolving around alcohol and drugs - that was the road that ultimately ended in his arrest at age 24. Glenn came close to a life sentence and 24 strokes of the cane. But fortunately for him, Teen Challenge, a VWO, came to his assistance, and lawyers from Teen Challenge pleaded for leniency; as a result, he was sentenced to six months, after which Teen Challenge took him and provided counselling and rehabilitation support to help him recover and get his life back on track. Glenn fought successfully to overcome his drug addiction and is now a youth pastor and has set up his own youth outreach events organisation. Having overcome his own difficulties, Glenn, in his own words, said, “I decided to give back to society what I have taken from it.” He has now taken on a leadership role to help make a difference in the lives of other youths around him, as a Teen Challenge Youth Ambassador and a youth pastor in a church.

Stories like this give me the confidence that the youth of Singapore here have what it takes to excel. No matter what their background may be, every youth has a talent and we should always give them a second chance. If they have made a mistake in the past, allow them to come back to mainstream and help them to ease into the mainstream.

So, while we continue to invest in our youths of the future, we should also not

Sports

Let me turn to sports. First, I would like to thank the many Members of the House who spoke in support of sports, and I thought today I would be the only one talking about sports. But, surprisingly, there were many Members who brought it up.

Sports touches everyone’s heart, as you can see. It builds character, it provides an overall education, development; and it teaches one how to win and lose. You learn to go through the ups and downs and learn how to deal with it. I cannot say enough good things about sports, including helping me to keep myself slim. Sports can bring the nation together. Some of you might remember the Kallang Roar days and how each and everyone of us cheered for the national soccer team, whatever languages we used. Can we bring that back and how do we do it? There has been a concerted effort push for sports in Singapore.

Sporting achievements

The Committee on Sporting Singapore (CoSS) five years ago came up with a series of recommendations to help bring sports in Singapore to the next level by 2010. I am glad to mention, Mr Speaker, Sir, you were then the Minister for Community Development and Sports and you chaired the Committee.

This strategic blueprint was the setting up of a $500 million Sporting Singapore Fund (SFS) with joint contributions from the Government and Singapore Pools to help implement the recommendations. We are now entering the second half of the 10-year Sports Masterplan.

Sports excellence

In the past five years, the Sporting Singapore Fund allowed us to launch many key projects and programmes. One such programme that stands out was the establishment of the Singapore Sports School in 2004 to nurture local sporting talents.

foundation. We need to be visionary, intuitive and ready to take a bit of risk, both from the economic and social perspectives. The public sector would need to move at the pace of business and the Government must look at the perspectives from the business side. Therefore, I applaud the efforts that MTI would let the private sector play a bigger role and, hopefully, that would translate to SMEs playing a bigger role, and help them build up the network at the highest level. Indeed, I am glad that a new man is going to lead Spring and, hopefully, he can create magic and exercise influence as he did in EDB for Spring and, most importantly, for the SMEs.group of participants is working with the Health Promotion Board to set up an online youth counselling website where youth can voice their problems and seek advice.young Singaporeans are going online to obtain the news, sources of information from the Internet, set up blogs to share their own thoughts and feelings, discuss their ideas and interests through forums and so on. The Internet plays a significant role in shaping their outlooks, beliefs, and attitudes. We are all learning at this stage and what will be the best way to engage them online.building a future in Singapore and committing themselves to the well-being of the country, which we also take steps to make it easier for them to continue doing the things they enjoy and to participate actively as members of the community, even as they take on the responsibilities of adulthood.story of a youth that I met who rose to the challenge when the odds were stacked against him.forget to invest in those youth-at-risk out of school, and remember to give them a helping hand. They must all be treated as potentials of the society. I have always thought that the youths will usually have a net asset – their biggest asset is age – and whatever liabilities they incur today can be balanced off by their age, and they have time on their side and they can still contribute to the society in future.

Some have already tasted glory in the recent Southeast Asian (SEA) Games and the Commonwealth Games. Others have bagged world and Asian age group titles, such as Stefan Tseng, he was the world's youth under-15 triple jump champion. At the senior level, our athletes have gone from strength to strength for their record performance at last year's SEA Games and this year's Commonwealth Games, and we came within a whisker for the Olympic medal at the Athens Games in 2004. And that said, we have more world and Asian champions representing a wider range of sports now than we did five years ago. So hopefully, we will continue to do well, even in the Asian Games coming up.

Athletes and sporting personnel, like coaches and sports scientists, are critical to our Sports Excellence effort, and I have embarked on a series of dialogues with the sports community to understand their concerns, challenges and suggestions on how we can better support our athletes in their quest for sporting glory. We have quickly adopted a bottoms-up approach, a two-way communication and improve communication and cooperation within the sports community.

At a recent session with more than 20 national athletes on 26th October, they

I would like to see greater collaboration in that sense, between the key stakeholders and partners, including the NSAs, Government agencies and private sector. NSAs have a big role to play. Each functions as a governing body for their sports. A good NSA must adopt an athlete-centric approach and place focus on its athletes as well as promoting greater mass participation. We read many issues surrounding NSAs, but we also have examples of NSAs with good governance, for example, Singapore Sailing emphasises the values of not judging an athlete but a very responsible one socially as well. It has strong leadership, an effective secretariat, disciplined athletes and has since produced several champions internationally.

NSAs must continue the work with SSC and MCYS to ensure professionalism, transparency and honesty in its governance. As stated in the Code of Athletes Management, it is critical that the NSA is professionally managing an athlete and fair in the selection trial so that the athletes with the highest chance of winning for Singapore can stand and Singapore will not be denied a medal chance. Secondly, NSA while building its pipeline of sportsmen and women must

I would like to see an enhancement of athlete development programme as well and the sports infrastructure. But our young sporting talents need to do more, and they must have the passion like the sportsmen in the past. Let me give you two examples - Ang Peng Siong and Fandi Ahmad. They are two of our most famous sportsmen, and their route to fame and glory has required a lot of hard work and commitment and the heart - the passion is the heart. At his peak, Peng Siong was ranked No. 1 in the world 50-metre freestyle in 1982. That was so many years ago. Since his retirement, he has devoted his time to coaching swimmers at all levels, from children learning to swim to elite swimmers including Theresa Goh, our world-class paralympian. But what impresses me most about Peng Siong and Fandi are their passion and dedication to their sports. And furthermore, they strike me as unassuming well-rounded individuals, and that is the impact of sports.

Certainly, Singapore must nurture more of such iconic individuals who can inspire budding athletes and Singaporeans at large. We need the athletes today to have that similar passion because NSAs, SSC and the Government can do only so much to provide the environment. The rest is up to the athletes themselves. So the fire and passion must be strong enough.

The sports industry is both about business and sports, and building an industry in sports is not only about big foreign enterprise, major hardware investment, but also to encourage more local sports entrepreneurs. If we could build a sports industry, that will help create jobs and opportunities for our athletes after their sports career. Today, our sporting calendar is filled up with many sporting events, catering to a wide spectrum of sporting interests. I have attended no fewer than 20 of them since being elected in May. This ranged from large international ones like OSIM Triathlon, Aviva Badminton Open, and Volkswagen Table Tennis Open. It also included some new and growing ones like HSBC Wakeboarding Championship, Open Water Marathon Swim, Action Asia Adventure Challenge.

What I find very encouraging is the growing corporate involvement in sports. That has also spun off many local sports ventures. Many have come forward to support and sponsor events in cash or in kind or even set up small little companies to organise events or training programmes. I thank them for their commitment and want to encourage them to continue to support sports where possible. And I hope that many companies will come forward and be part of what I believe is a growing market, especially with the Sports Hub coming up in 2011.

We need to build a business network within the sports fraternity, and this would help the involvement of business in sports, much like the Singapore Business Federation for sports. This would merge both the value of business and sports together. At the same time, we will create an environment for the entrepreneurs to help fill the sports industry. It is like any other industry where we can encourage the investment of MNCs as well as the growth of our local enterprises.

Let me touch on the last strategic thrust of sports - sports participation. I am encouraged that more Singaporeans are catching on to exercising and incorporating sports into their lifestyle. I also take the advice of MP Teo Ho Pin that we should make it more accessible for them with the school sports facilities. The Singapore Sports Council’s latest national sports participation survey conducted in 2005 revealed that almost one in two Singaporeans exercised once a week, and that is a 10% jump over the same survey conducted five years earlier. But maybe we should lift the bar up. Maybe they should exercise two or three times a week. Then there will always be the issue of worklife balance.

We are also beginning to see more emphasis on sports by corporations. Last year, I personally joined the CEOs 10-km race at the StanChart Marathon. I am encouraged to see so many CEOs running as well, and they run really fast. I did not win anyway. One of whom has become a Minister of State and the other a Parliamentary Secretary. Maybe that is where you find the political candidates. They will be a great contributor to sports as a whole, as participation in sports also includes volunteering in sports administration, or just simply fighting for their cause to promote sports. What is most heartening is when you see groups of individuals coming forward as a community to propose plans and work with the authorities to come up with a solution. I have met such a group. Recently, an individual named Leo Tan led and coordinated the cycling community, which is largely fragmented, to submit a paper on how to make the road safer for cyclists. The Traffic Police, LTA, SSC and MCYS met up with them. It was a very good discussion. Both the group and authorities had a good understanding and now, they are exploring the implementation of some of the suggestions. In the words of one of the

The media must play their part as well. I was heartened to see more and more reports of the local scene in the newspapers today, not just football and football from other countries. I am also heartened to see that they have reports of how to utilise sporting grounds all over Singapore. I will encourage that, and they will do more reports of local stuff. I would say that such feedback and constructive suggestions would help sports as a whole.

Moving ahead, I recently initiated to set up the Sporting Culture Committee with three objectives – review the vision of sports in Singapore and desired outcomes and development strategy to strengthen and transform Singapore’s sporting culture, propose recommendations to serve as a high level blueprint to guard Singapore’s sports development effort until 2015, and also this is a continuation of the good efforts from CoSS.

We will be looking at five main areas: demand and software that looks into the sporting lifestyle and culture; increasing mindset, increasing public education and awareness in sports, working with the media on that; glory for the nation,

We need different views and, of course, out-of-the-box thinking so that we could scale greater heights. The development of sports in Singapore mirrors my own development as a sportsman. I was an unfit and unhealthy individual weighing 85 kilograms five years ago. I actually lost 15 kilograms over a 10-month period. I have not looked back since, and that exercise and sports have become a part of me and I hope that it will also become a part of all Singaporeans. So like myself, sports in Singapore has achieved much, but the work is never finished. We must continue to strive for the next level. In short, much has been done, but more can be done.

Closing

In closing, the Singapore I would like to see is certainly one which is buzzing, vibrant and successful, a shining and buzzing red dot, ever glowing night and day. But we will only be successful if we push forward with a clear vision, same vision and like objective. Staying together would not leave anyone behind while pushing ahead, pulling the rest along. And to be successful, in my view, we have to achieve both economic and social successes. Then it will be a Singapore

highlighted key concerns such as getting more time to train, scheduling flexibility for athletes who are serving their National Service and for those in schools or at work. They have also brought up the need to enhance an appeals channel to mediate disputes between athletes and National Sports Associations (NSAs). Also, they would like the media to profile our athletes and build a stronger sporting culture. As a competitive athlete myself, I empathise with them, and I believe if all of us can pool together, these concerns can be addressed and bring our sporting achievement to the next level.also build up its pipeline for sports administrators and leaders. Renewal of succession planning is critical in sustaining the continuity of any sports. Thirdly, SSC and NSAs should step up their collaboration with the private sector to increase their support for and involvement in sports. I hope this will translate into increased corporate dollars and support flowing into sports and leading to an enhancement in the ability of the NSAs to raise more private funds and ensure that they have adequate resources to do more for their sports.participants from the cycling community, he said that he had never felt so encouraged to see the authorities appreciate their suggestions and working with them to implement some of the ideas. And I think he will see more and how open the authorities are and cooperative if the community comes together. He actually mentioned that it was better than complaining at the sideline. So, now, they hold regular discussions, and we need more of such discussions to go on. This is the most effective way to get something to work, which is to work together as a community.producing world champions, sporting heroes, looking to achieve our success at higher games, that includes winning medals in Olympic games; supply and hardware, access to sports in the community at sporting facilities; building and developing the industry, creating a sporting eco-system that involves the private sector, people sector and public sector. Put it in simpler terms, it is to transform sports in Singapore and bring it to a higher level and, most importantly, creating a sporting culture in Singapore. I am glad that several leaders of different communities, not just in sports, but in education, arts and culture, grassroots and business, are coming forward to be part of the main community.we can all be proud of. Crossing the finish line alone, and I have said this many times, would never be as fulfilling as crossing it together with the rest of the team.

5.57 pm

Mr Speaker, the Address by His Excellency the President at the Opening of the 11th Parliament provides much food for thought. Mr President has in his inimitable style set out the work that lies ahead for us.

I wish to thank the President for focusing our attention on four critical issues, namely, dealing with a skilled and knowledge-based economy, an ageing society with not enough babies, inter-generational issues and forging a new social and political compact. These four issues encapsulate not only the challenges that lie ahead, but also our will to overcome them and, in doing so, to continue to build a strong, resilient and cohesive nation.

I was inspired by the thoughtful recounting of how Singapore having been thrust into independence resolved to succeed. Despite the uncertainties, I was heartened by the realisation that in all that it does, this Government has tried to ensure that we will remain true to our national pledge, that is, we will build one united people regardless of race, language or religion.

Singapore's place in the world economy. I share the view that we are at the turning point. The global economy continues to forge ahead. Different countries with different circumstances are fighting to find their own place within this economy. Those with rich natural resources will find new markets, take advantage of unprecedented levels of consumption of raw materials to build up their own war chest, as they prepare to

As the world achieves higher and higher level of trade both in goods and services, those countries that are home to the world's financial centres will deepen their hold on the flow of the money and thus reap the benefits of trade. Even poor countries with large population can always rely on exporting their labour to meet the shortage of workers on whose backs are built tall skyscrapers which somehow always seem to be the market of economic success.

What then is for Singapore? We have no natural resources. We do not have a large population. And what financial resources we command are a drop in the ocean of world finance. It would be naive to think that the world's economy will falter if there is no Singapore. These are facts. But they are no different from the fact that successive parliaments have to grapple with. So what is the difference? In my view, the 10 years since the Asian financial crisis of 1997 has been instructive.

move up the economic level to higher value-added production.

It became clear that our economy needed to be restructured, if we were to weather further financial storms. The difference was the way in which the Government, having won the support of the people, went ahead with the sometimes painful but always necessary task of remaking Singapore. And this was no cosmetic makeover. We made bold calculated bets on which industries to pursue, which to discard, as workers lost their jobs as lower-end industries moved out of Singapore. Even when new industries started up, these had to be staffed by skilled foreigners because there were not enough Singaporeans with the right skills set.

So restructuring was, to put it mildly, difficult. But Singaporeans kept faith, and today we can begin to taste the fruits of our labour. We have enjoyed strong

So, we are at a turning point because today, after four decades of hard work of the people of Singapore, led by a Government determined to overcome all challenges, we are poised to launch ourselves into the next phase of our growth as a nation. But the question is: What will characterise our next phase of growth? No doubt, we must continue to create economic growth and the wealth it generates. We do not have the luxury of digging into our hinterland for gold or oil, or tilling our land for food. We can only grow by facing up to challenges, seizing the opportunities and embracing competition. Doing so will make our economy strong, viable and an attractive business proposition. With these come better jobs and higher incomes.

However, is this all that we as a nation aspire to? Is our growth as a nation to be measured by the type of job that we have or how much we earn, the type of house we live in? Related to this are: Is this all we, as a Government, strive to deliver? Are we here only to deliver economic goods? It is my personal belief that we are here to do more, much more. Certainly, economic growth is an imperative. We must continue to grow because it serves as a means through which our population can fulfill their aspirations of having good, meaningful and rewarding jobs. But we must not make the mistake of equating our nation’s growth to only growth of our economy. This would be short-sighted, because economic growth alone does not make a great nation. Economic growth alone will not help us fulfill our pledge to build a peaceful and just nation where all are equal, without fear or favour, regardless

Economic restructuring has made Singapore even more open to global trade and investment, with which come global ideas and influences. I believe that it was the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Yeo, who at that time, as Minister for Information and the Arts, likened the situation to keeping our windows open to the world but having a window screen which had large enough holes to let in fresh air but small enough holes to keep the insects out. We face the same situation today. We are plugged into the world, the computer and the Internet are ubiquitous, blogs abound and views and opinions are aplenty. More and more foreigners live and work in Singapore and bring their own influences. These are all necessary because they support our open economy and facilitate growth. But there is risk. If our population is not equipped to deal with and sieve out reasonable arguments from radical ones, we risk undermining our hard-earned inter-racial harmony.

This is not just a theoretical risk. We all remember the shocking discovery and arrest of local terror cells in Singapore. I dread to think what would have happened if they managed to fulfill their misguided plans. But even as I dread it, I know that we must prepare for an eventuality that one day we could be a victim of a terror attack. The question is not what will happen in the immediate aftermath. I have full confidence in the emergency response of our uniformed groups. But what concerns me more is the impact it will have on our social fabric.

To this end, at the Central Singapore Community Development Council, we join hands with grassroots and other civic and cultural organisations to find ways to facilitate more meaningful interactions among our residents. We believe that to facilitate such interactions, we have to promote an understanding of the values underlying our various racial, religious and cultural observances. It is only with a deepened appreciation of these values that we will find our common space of shared values expressed in different ways. We must also find ways to involve more foreigners in our activities so that we can understand them better, and they, us.

Next, bridging the inter-generational gap. Even as our economy embraces new industries with new skills and new opportunities, we will face the risk of displacing the old with the new. I am not talking about the workplace, where our economy demands skills which older workers may not have or may not be able to acquire even with effort. What I am talking about is a disturbing possibility where the older Singaporeans find that this nation no longer values them, where after having toiled to build a nation with tall skyscrapers, they are consigned to

Mr Speaker, Sir, I recently visited a community hospital that has a nursing home section. During the discussion, the Executive Officer made a remark about how she observed that a rising number of children were placing their aged parents in hospital care because they do not want to look after them. And we are not talking about children who do not have the means to look after their parents. We are talking about successful people who today benefit from a thriving economy which their parents helped to build. Honestly, I felt ashamed that my fellow Singaporeans could be so crass. It also made me wonder whether we are paying enough attention to nurturing inter-generational relationships, whether we have to be resigned to the fact that all of us will one day also be abandoned in nursing homes.

I have observed an increasing number of elderly families with children who are applying and receiving social assistance. This growing phenomenon of adult children who are either unable or unwilling to take care of their parents is a cause of great concern to us. For the former group, CDCs will go out of their way to assist and help these lower-income families achieve self-reliance through national schemes and local programmes. We have developed programmes addressing the transportation, care-giving, health and social needs of both older persons and their caregivers at the Central Singapore CDC. For the latter group of children who are unwilling to take care of their aged parents, social assistance will only exacerbate the problem.

Sir, a society that respects and supports the less able and weak in their midst is a humane community. Nothing defines our human compassion more than

Next, to have and to give. Economic growth, of course, will result in people getting richer. A recent statistic informed us that there are about 55,000 high net worth individuals in Singapore alone. High net worth means that they have assets in excess of US$1 million, excluding their homes. Together, these 55,000 people are worth a staggering US$260 billion or about S$416 billion. The number of millionaires grew by an impressive 13% compared to the year before. I raise this point for two reasons. One, to alert our friends in the Inland Revenue Department to make sure that they pay their taxes, but, more seriously, to point out that, with economic growth, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will grow. If we do not address this growing gap, there is a risk that we will embed resentment among the have-nots. We only have to turn to events around the world to learn that resentful people are prime recruitment targets for insurgents, terrorists and others who are out to create mayhem.

As much as the Government must pay attention to addressing this gap, I call on those who have benefitted from Singapore's growth, whether they are Singaporeans or guests in our country, to give something back, whether as a corporation or as an individual. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers in the CDCs and in the grassroots. Many of them are successful people who have benefitted from the support of their community and who are now in a position to give something back, whether it is their time, expertise or money. I commend them, because their actions speak to the aspirations that we all can have for a great nation.

Next, out-of-school youths. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier, several of my colleagues highlighted their concerns about the school drop-outs or the out-of-school youths. The number is not large. We should do our best to prevent it from growing. We should also intervene early to minimise potential pitfalls of the lack of education for these young people. Sir, it is disheartening that in this day and age when knowledge and education are essential to almost everyone, we are still faced with the task of ensuring that these young Singaporeans who are not in school would continue to grow and develop and be useful citizens of the future. It is worthwhile to note, Sir, that, as part of the youth development network of the Community Youth Forum, Mendaki has embarked on a programme to assist the out-of-school youths to acquire skills and relevant qualifications so that they can continue to be employable and be a contributing member of the society.

Sir, I do agree with Dr Amy Khor that there need to be further improvements in the way we manage these youths so that relevant agencies can intervene and make a difference to their lives. One of the possible ways is for these out-of-school

Sir, by pointing out the potential risks, my intention is not to instill doubt or fear. Instead, my intention is to point out that

growth in economic terms and, in real terms, where it matters most, in job creation, and not just jobs for the young but also for general and older workers. of creed. And this is not a matter that we can take lightly. Even as we pursue economic growth, there are challenges we must overcome. We all know the oft-quoted saying that at the back of every challenge there is an opportunity. But allow me to present it slightly differently. Let me say that at the back of every opportunity, there lies a risk. Let me elaborate.Recognising this, our Prime Minister has launched the Community Engagement Programme. But my view is that much more must be done to enhance friendships and trust among our races. After 40 years, surely we cannot be satisfied with the superficial level of understanding we have achieved of the cultural and religious practices of our friends and neighbours of different races. I stress this point because with understanding comes acceptance and, with acceptance, we can see that although we may have different practices, our values are not different. We all profess Singaporean values of equality and mutual respect, regardless of race, language or religion. drab nursing homes to live out the rest of their lives. Again, this is not a hypothetical situation. the way we treat our aged, sick and weak. In an ageing society such as Singapore's, we will need to commit resources and manpower to assure that the older members of our community can grow old gracefully and without fear of being abandoned and neglected. We should build strong supportive amenities for older persons and cultivate caring inter-generational relationships between our youths and older persons. We can do this by encouraging multi-generational families to reside in one place, if not in the same house, at least within a comfortable distance from each other. Social activities and programmes should also be encouraged so that the interaction could be nurtured and proper values of patience, compassion and care that are so essential for greater social integration and community-building could be imparted. youths (OSYs) to be systematically referred to the self-help groups and other relevant VWOs for more focused interventions and, hopefully, they could be guided and, maybe, yes maybe, they could look forward to the same bright future that their school-going peers aspire to achieve.

economic growth is merely a means and provides an opportunity. It provides a means to achieving our aspiration of building a great nation, a shining island where we can realise our pledge to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, regardless of race, language or religion.

Sir, I support the motion.

6.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to our President.

In his Address, the President mentioned that if Singaporeans were fearful and reluctant to adapt, we would lose ground. He urged us to respond boldly and creatively to these challenges for a Singapore we will all love and be proud of.

Sir, I applaud the President's call because it is indeed in our minds that the most important battles are fought. What we 'see' in our minds determine what we will do which then determine the results we will get.

Albert Einstein once said, "The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when they were first created." I would put it in simple English: "Many of today's problems cannot be addressed by yesterday's mindsets."

Sir, I would like to present three mindsets that I consider a bit outdated and would like to challenge. Outdated mindset (1) that Government holds the answers to all our problems; outdated mindset (2) that the current "many helping hands" approach is working well in helping those who need help; and outdated mindset (3) is what I call the "either-or" mentality.

Allow me to explore these mindsets with examples from the social service and special needs sector with which I am familiar.

Let us examine the first mindset held by many people which I believe is outdated, that Government holds the answers to our problems. There is a saying that the world is moving so fast these days that the man who says that something cannot be done is generally interrupted by someone already doing it.

Sir, the problems and challenges that we face are so mega and even global that no one holds the key to all the answers, not even Government. In fact, from my observations, unless Government finds a more effective way to obtain and process ground feedback on key issues, root causes and possible solutions, it is highly possible that policies and programmes that are developed may be flawed or, at best, average.

I recently surveyed close to 200 special educators, medical professionals and parents with special needs children on a project I am conducting on early intervention and special education. The findings would be out early next year. But the issues that were brought up were surprisingly consistent. When I challenged the professionals on why they have never brought these key issues up before after so many years, their response to me was "nobody asked me."

This reminds me of a feedback from another well-meaning parent of a special needs child who wrote in recently to me. He wanted to give us feedback on how to get feedback. And he said, "Where can we say that a system is working very well? Take the analogy of a product or service, you simply cannot hear from the manufacturer, the salesman or the product designer. It would pass the excellence test only when the users of the system are in agreement that the product or service is good."

Perhaps we can adopt a best practice of how to get more authentic and direct ground feedback from one of our local hospitals. A friend of mine, the CEO and his executive team in this hospital, willingly admitted that in a large organisation like theirs, there would always be a gap between the vision and what happens on the ground. So they found a classic and simple way to slice through the hierarchy and get down to listen directly to the customers through monthly focused meetings with their ex-patients. They did not claim to be magicians who can resolve all the ex-patients' concerns but immediate action is taken for those that can be rectified. And this has happened for several years now.

Sir, I suggest that leaders at all levels consider doing the same. Strange things happen when people become public figures or when they hold important titles. The more other people think you are important, the more they tend to interpret your comments or your questions as instructions or orders. Many then push back and stop questioning you and sometimes they go to great lengths to withhold the bad news from you. Hence, Government leaders and those who develop policies must formulate some systematic ways to stay close to the ground and not hear only from parties who have either designed the product or

By the same token, just as Government does not hold all the answers, neither do the rest of us citizens. Citizens who consider themselves the conscience of our society or who are advocating for their own needs must exercise what I call both courage and consideration. We must never be silent on the things that matter because that will be the end of a life that is worth living. And as the saying goes, progress results only when there are some men and women who refuse to believe that what they know is right cannot be done. But neither should we assume that we are the only people whose needs and views must be addressed.

So, Sir, no one holds the answers to all our problems, not even Government. The new mindset for the future is together we, the people and the Government, hold the answers.

Sir, the next outdated mindset I like to share and challenge concerns the "Many Helping Hands" approach that is often exalted whenever we speak of an inclusive society and that no one is left behind in Singapore. Let me just explain this approach, as I understand it.

Under this approach, different parties in society - individuals, Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) or charities - work together to help those who are in need. The current operational model mostly works this way. Government sets policies, outsources the work, and dispenses the funds, for example, to the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). NCSS then outsources execution work to VWOs and polices them. And VWOs, at the tail-end of the value chain, deliver the service.

MP Mr Low Thia Khiang shared last week at a media interview about his

My biggest concern with the "Many Helping Hands" approach is not "No Helping Hands" because I know there are many people in Singapore who care and are willing to do more than just talking. My fear is that if we are not careful, Singapore will face a "Wrong Helping Hand" syndrome.

Sir, I urge that we send this sacred cow of "Many Helping Hands" to the vet for re-examination. What are the roles of the State or the Government, NCSS - the overseer of VWOs - the VWOs and the people? Who does what best?

In a recent 2006 AGM of the NCSS, it was shared that some charities were considering purchasing indemnity insurance for their board members to address the fears and concerns of these volunteers for fear of being sued. In the same minutes as well, it was recorded that auditors have to be persuaded to audit charities or VWOs as they are considered high-risk and the auditors do not want to be sued.

A recent survey conducted at the National University of Singapore (NUS) revealed that charities have been extremely conservative in managing their funds. I was given feedback that the reason is because many of these volunteers in the board are afraid that they will be taken to task and one day be sued like the NKF directors. They think, "Better to play safe."

Another example. A volunteer hawker representative I know in my GRC was tasked with the job of relocating all the hawkers into a new temporary market. We spoke and he shared about his

Sir, I urge that we re-examine the mindset that just because volunteers have the compassion, they will always be the best party to manage and deliver the services they are tasked with, no matter how big the responsibility. Many voluntary organisations lack critical mass. I know because I volunteered for five to six years in this field. Many of them lack critical mass. Many volunteers lack focus and time too because they are busy people. In a few cases I surveyed, staff from some VWOs commented that their bosses are given the power but some of them lack the necessary competence in either management or leadership or technical expertise to run the job.

Have we not learned from the spate of sagas involving VWOs that something fundamental might be wrong? Is introducing a bigger whip, more audit committees and more regulations to make sure VWOs behave themselves, the only answer?

We must exercise more due diligence and be more realistic in what we expect from volunteers, one key pillar of the "Many Helping Hands". More fundamentally, as our problems magnify, should all aspects of critical functions, such as taking care of the growing elderly and our adult disabled, the education of special needs children or even some parts of healthcare, be run only by voluntary organisations? As for the role of the Government in the "Many Helping Hands" approach, Sir, I believe that in addressing these future social issues such as the elderly, the disabled and the education of special needs children, Government's role would have to move.

We can take a reference from the system integrator sector of the IT industry. System integrators systematically study the needs of their clients and then based on agreed available money and human resources targets, they then assemble different components to stitch a solution for the clients. And then depending on their own strengths too, they would decide which component they should deliver directly, and which they should outsource. Often times, they get paid only when it works. And at times, payment is withheld until things completely work.

In the same way, in deploying the "Many Helping Hands" approach, Government can consider moving away from its current detached mode and equip itself with people and better expertise to systematically, and in a structured way, identify and prioritise needs on the ground and then stitch together solutions that work. In areas that it does not have core competence in, it should outsource those functions. In areas in which it has competence, it should take on the task of delivering that function itself.

In the world of education of special needs children, for instance, Government can outsource areas which are best delivered by experts in that special need. But it must not shy away from providing direct service in curriculum planning, curriculum design, academic assessments, which it does so well in mainstream education.

Sir, I challenge the illusion that the current way we deploy the "Many Helping Hands" approach is the best way forward to ensure that no one is left behind. I ask the House to consider adopting a new mindset that the roles of State, VWOs and people must be more correctly defined so that each does what it is best at.

Last, but not least, the outdated mindset I wish to touch on next is the "either-or" mentality that many of us hold. Many people think in black and white and as a result, our solutions to problems usually lack imagination and inclusiveness.

In the world of education of special needs children in Singapore, for instance, the issue of integrating the children into mainstream schools has always been a bugbear. A stalemate has always arisen because people passionately gravitate to either one extreme, ie, you integrate them or you segregate them. This child is either in a special school run by charities or mainstream school run by Government.

But, Sir, things need not always be either this or that. If we would only think a bit deeper, integration can come in three different levels. There can be physical integration, where these children can be seen and heard; there can be social integration, and there can be academic integration. Even if children cannot study in the same academic classes - English, Mathematics, Science - could they not share the same toilets, play in the same playground, go to the same canteen to eat together, attend the same non-academic lessons? Is life always ending up in "either-or" decisions?

Sir, we have a growing elderly population, one of the fastest growing in Asia. If from young, one has never interacted with peers who are different, then how do we expect that as adults, the same persons will suddenly become inclusive and able to accept other people who are different from them? To push it further, with this lack of interaction and exposure to people who are different since young, how confident are we that our adult children will be able to accept and even care for their own parents when they become old, sick and maybe disabled?

Mayor Zainudin just testified that there is an increasing number of Singaporeans

the service or whose interests are dependent on the status quo. concerns that the "Many Helping Hands" might become “No Helping Hands”. Sir, please allow me to share from a different angle on this same topic, but speaking from ground experience in the special needs community.concerns of what would happen if some of his fellow hawkers default in their payment for the sharing of the construction cost of the market. This hawker, an appointed volunteer, is just a sugar-cane juice seller, tasked with a very big job.

abandoning their elderly in nursing homes, even when they can afford to keep them at home.

Sir, the “either/or” mentality is one mindset that we need to examine. It is one that stifles creativity and is not useful in addressing the multi-faceted challenges we face today. Instead of “either/or”, we can think “and”.

But all is not lost, Sir. In my daily life as a full-time volunteer and as an MP, I see encouraging signs that our future challenges can be surmounted.

In a spate of six months, I am part of two national work groups started by Government/MCYS to study the difficulties faced by the special needs community. I look forward eagerly to the response to the first report we put up.

I also experience this. The Minister for Education and several officers - principals, teachers - despite the system, have on their own offered tremendous help to the special school that a group of us volunteers have started. In this same special school - talking about the elderly now - I have a few officially retired principals and teachers who applied and took on jobs with lesser titles. Despite their age, they work tirelessly each day for the children, as if they have never retired. One of them, 68-year-old Mrs Jean Koh, who is running our facilities, suffered a stroke a few years ago, and she is still running around cooking and feeding the students and the staff, though she cannot see well.

Waiting for me and my grassroots leaders of Jalan Besar GRC is a group of post-75 youths who will be starting a youth-with-a-heart project to lend their hand to serve in our community.

We also need not panic that if more help is given, we will fall and slip right into the black hole of welfarism. I spoke to more than 100 parents recently in another project that we did. Many parents of special needs children I spoke to did not ask for handouts. Some of them come from lower-income families. They asked instead for programmes that will train up their children, that will hone their children’s employability skills, so that these children, when they grow up, can find jobs to feed themselves one day, a much more dignified way of existence.