Hansard, 2009-05-25

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2009) To (2009) Mr Ong Kian Min 20 May 24 May Mr Baey Yam Keng 22 May 24 May Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 22 May 22 May 01 Jun 03 Jun 08 Jun 11 Jun 13 Jun 17 Jun Dr Ong Seh Hong 22 May 24 May Mr Gan Kim Yong 23 May 25 May 30 May 31 May Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 24 May 26 May Mdm Cynthia Phua 25 May 25 May Mr Seng Han Thong 25 May 29 May Mr Charles Chong 26 May 26 May Ms Sylvia Lim 27 May 27 May Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 30 May 07 Jun Mr Lim Boon Heng 31 May 03 Jun Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 01 Jun 04 Jun 07 Jun 17 Jun Mr Wee Siew Kim 01 Jun 04 Jun 07 Jun 13 Jun 04 Jul 18 Jul Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 02 Jun 07 Jun Column: 97RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 07 Jun 13 Jun 18 Jun 24 Jun Dr Ng Eng Hen 07 Jun 17 Jun

RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition), to make consequential amendments to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 (Act 21 of 2008) and to make related amendments to the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (Act 22 of 2008)",

presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi); read for the First Time; to be read a Second Time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Mr Michael Palmer: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply honoured to move this motion, so I humbly beg to move,

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

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of

the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.".'

Sir, when the President lasy addressed this House in November 2006, the sentiment was a very different one. I was a newly-elected Member of this House and I recall that both the mood and economic climate were very upbeat. The world economy had taken off and we were riding the wave of globalisation. Unemployment in Singapore was moving towards an all-time low and our GDP growth averaged about 8%. Some of our greatest concerns at the time were the widening income gap, our ageing population and the impact that globalisation was having on the retention of our local talent.

In just two and a half years, the sentiment has changed drastically. The world is in the midst of one of the worst recessions that it has seen since the Great Depression. Singapore, being a country that is almost totally dependent on the global economy, is now predicting a -6% to -9% decline. in our GDP. Unemployment and uncertainty is the order of the day. Preliminary figures for March 2009 showed our unemployment rising above three per cent, the highest since the third quarter of 2005 and it is clear that there will b e further job losses. Yet in the last few weeks, we have seen a sudden spike in the stock markets across the world. Some say that these are the green shoots of recovery, while others say that it is a false positive. I remain cautiously optimistic. I do not think that we have seen the last of it yet but I have no doubt that we will pull through this crisis and emerge the better for it. I am happy that that same sentiment reasonated throughout the President's speech to this House a week ago. I thank the President for his positive and reassuring speech. The President has laid the foundation and set the tone for what this Government will do to steer Singapore through this crisis. In particular, I was happy to hear his call for the following:

First, that we be open to fresh re-thinking and creative answers so that when the upturn comes, we will be able to capitalise on new markets and enmerging industries, build on new capabilities and make the most efficient use of our resources. Second, that we upgrade our education system by strengthening our higher education to meet the growing demand for skilled professionals and creative manpower. Third, that we maintain a safe and secure Singapore but at the same time, reach out to the world to enlarge our external space.

One of the first things that struck me in the President's Address to this House was his call for fresh re-thinking and creative answers to the question of how to enhance our economic competitiveness. The question that particularly stood out for me was how to build new capabilities and to anchor value in Singapore. To me, that is a more challenging task than attracting foreign investment. Our basic formula to date has been to equip our people with the necessary skills to provide and advanced and competitive workforce. We then attract foreign direct investment into Singapore by offering various fiscal incentives and a pro-business environment, a stable Government, and a highly-skilled workforce. As the President said, this is how Singapore has developed year after year. Over a period of time, we transformed this tiny island into an economic force to be reckon with in the region, if not, the world. I believe that as we move ahead in this globalised economy, we need to do more to build new capabilities for ourselves and make sure that those capabilities remain anchored to Singapore.

One of the things that I have learnt from this crisis is that we can lose foreign investment as easily as we can attract it. But if we develop our homegrown businesses and companies, they will be

rooted to Singapore because Singapore is their home. Much has already been done for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Agencies like SPRING and IE Singapore work hard to help our SMEs develop their business locally as well as overseas. In these tough times, the challenge that viable companies face is obtaining financing as banks become conservative and cash flow dries up. In February this year, the Government introduced the Special Risk-sharaing Initiative (SRI). As part of the SRI, the Government has undertaken a Bridging Loan Programme where 80% of the risk of up to S$5 million is borne by the Government. According to SPRING, a total of S$2.5 billion worth of loans have been approved, with over S$1 billion made up of Government-backed loans. Apparently, more than 90% of these loans have gone to our SMEs.

According to feedback that I have received on the ground, however, the SRI has not had the full intended effect. Banks are still too conservative with their lending. Essentially, the same criteria that the banks had imposed when they had to bear 100% of the risk, are still being imposed now. The only difference is that the banks are imposing that criteria in respect of the smaller risk -- 20%. Further, banks have also converted many existing loan facilities that were originally not Government-backed into Government-backed loans. This could possibly account for the figures released by SPRING. I would ask that the Government look into whether there is infact, such a disconnect.

I said at the beginning of this speech that I was confident that we would emerge from this crisis stronger. I say this because it is in times like these that Singaporeans develop and show our resilience and self-reliance. A recent survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies found that eight out of 10 Singaporeans prefer to rely on themselves

rather than on the Government in these bad times. This is a clear sign that Singaporeans are willing and in fact, prefer to help themselves to weather the storm.

Last week, two reports in the press caught my eye. The first was a report about a group of 19 members of the young business leaders, who had come together to start an initiative called "Beat the Recession". According to the report, "Beat the Recession" is an effort to provide guidance for new business persons who are on their own, without much experience or fresh out of school and who do not know what is ahead of them. The second report was about a new collaboration between the Singapore Manufacturers' Federation and Exploit Technologies, which is the marketing and commercialisation arm of A*STAR. Under the new collaboration, the two groups will work under the Angel Investment Initiative to organise angel networking events and promote angel investment in young companies. Both these initiatives demonstrate our ability to help ourselves and help one another through this crisis. I would urge more Singaporeans to step forward and share their experience, expertise and resources with our local entrepreneurs.

Every year, many institutions and organisations nominate and award various individuals with Businessmen and Entrepreneur of the Year awards. These are individuals who have already succeeded and have a wealth of experience in doing business in and out of Singapore. I call on these nominees and award recipients to come forward and help develop our local industry so that we can anchor value in Singapore for the long term. We also have several captains of industry and business leaders who have over the last few years, decided to make Singapore their home. I call on these new

Singaporeans to step forward for their new home.

I was heartened to hear the President restate what has been this Government's fundamental tenets -- that education is our best investment in Singapore's future. The President indicated that the Government intends to strengthen our higher education system and we aim to have 30% of our students admitted to state-supported universities. To this end, not one but two new institutions will be established. The first of these institutions will cater to our polytechnic graduates. Polytechnic foreign specialised institutes will be expanded to enable more polytechnic graduates to obtain industry-relevant and reputable degrees from foreign universities but at about the same cost as doing a degree in one of our local universities. The second institution will be a new university that will partner a university from China as well as the world-renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In addition to this, a third medical school will be established at the Nanyang Technological University.

However, I was somewhat disappointed that there was no reference to the liberal arts college that had been mentioned during Budget 2008 as being one of the tertiary institutions which would be set up. I thought that this would have made a good platform from which to train and groom future leaders who could be a source of fresh thinking and creative ideas. During last year's Commiittee of Supply debate, I had raised the issue of the liberal arts college and asked whether the Government was prepared for the radical views that could emerge from a liberal arts learning environment. Then Minister of State for Education Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Teck Yew said in reply to my query that, and I quote "One of the purposes of establishing suich a college is to develop future leaders who are thoughtful, with independent ideas and robust views, sharpened through the cut and thurst

of daily intellectual discourse. Tampered by the experience and mentorship of their professors, these students will be well-placed to become leaders working for the betterment of society".

I could not agree with those views more. I believe that our society has matured and continues to do so. Our younger generation is becoming more outspoken, our society as a whole has become more outspoken. Gone are the days when Singaporeans would sit back quietly even something aggrieved them. As MPs, we know this in our daily interactions with residents on the ground. Residents are not afraid to raise issues troubling them, whether they be personal, local or national issues. The channels of communication between Government and every single Singaporean have also increased in number and scope. Aside from meeting MPs at the Meet-the-People sessions, residents send email messages directly to their MPs and sometimes, to all MPs. In order to garner support for certain causes, online petitions are becoming par for the course. To meet these challenges and to stay in touch, communication via email is a given. And MPs are becoming regulars on Facebook. We regularly communicate with residents via email. Many a time, residents do not even see you face-to-face. They appeal to you via email and everything is transacted via email. REACH has spearheaded avenues for Netizens to give feedback and discuss Government policies. Many of us have taken part in online townhall dialogues through REACH. This is the nature of the younger generation. We cannot be shy or afraid of it. We must embrace it, acquire new skills and adopt a new culture and mindset if we are to continue to engage the younger generation.

This maturity and openness is not limited to interactions with the Government alone. Recent episodes in other arenas like civil soceities and sports

associations, have also shown a cry for openness and transparency. Singaporeans are willing to express their views in a public arena and are willing to have those views challenged. They want to know the facts and decide for themselves what they think is the best for them and in their best interests.

The questions that we, then, have to ask ourselves are these -- one, can we stop this development? And two, do we want to stop this development? I believe that this maturation of thought and consequential need for openness and transparency is a tide that we cannot change. And I also believe it is a step in the right direction. This is progress, in line with the development of a more involved and active citizenry which is a natural process and a sign of a more highly educated people. It is evidence that Singaporeans are reaping the fruits of our investment in education.

Going forward, I hope that the Government will ensure that Singapore society continues to mature in this direction. We ought to facilitate that development. I believe that a liberal arts college would be a step in that direction. It would become a seat of learning that would facilitate an exchange of robust and independent ideas and views. I also believe that the time has come for our Government to encourage more transparency and openness. In order to have an open and fruitful exchange of ideaas, all relevant facts should be made known. Of course, I do not advocate this in every instance. Where information cannot be revealed because it would affect national security or it would be against public policy, that would certainly justify confidentiality. But where matters are of public interest, difficulties may arise when facts or essential information are not made known.

One recent example of this is the revealation by Temasek Holdings of its divestment of its entire stake in the Bank

of America. This was revealed in a filing by Temasek with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. According to reports in the press at the time, other than confirming the divestment, Temasek had declined to reveal any other information. In particular, key questions like why the shares were sold, at what price the shares were sold and why Temasek did not stick to its original strategy of holding the shares for the long term, were not answered. The result of this lack of information openness was a slew of articles in the press as well as letter to the press and online commentaries, trying to second-guess the answers to the questions surrounding the sale. Online chatrooms had been abuzzed with netizens' own theories about the divestment and reciperous views about the losses incurred.

Ordinary Singaporeans have been discussing this issue in different corners of Singapore. Analysts have speculated about the size of the loss arising from the sale. Clearly, the public wanted to know the rationale and reasons behind the decision to sell what was originally meant to be a long-term investment made with public funds. Unfortunately, due to the lack of information, speculation and discontent were rife.

Therefore, I was glad to read that Temasek finally issued a statement last Thursday, explaining the rationale for the sale. For me, this is clearly a step in the right direction. Yet, questions still remain, such as those relating to the timing of the sale and the actual sale price. I was glad to read that Temasek had been lauded for its transparency levels when compared to other sovereign wealth funds. I do not think that anyone would expect anymore detail about specific investment strategy that would show Temasek's hand and, therefore, dilute any advantage or hamper the positioning of investments to maxi-

mise returns. However, answers to pertinent questions given after the fact, which will not impact investment outcome would appear to be another matter. This speculation seems likely to continue in this regard.

One way in which the Government can encourange openness in transparency is in its legislative policy. An example of this would be the forthcoming and long-awaited amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Having gathered feedback from various quarters, I hope that the amendment Bill that will be tabled in this House will reflect a more open and transparent Criminal Procedure Code so as to secure fair and transparent outcomes.

I also note that in its Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts announced the reconvening of the Censorship Review Committee to update and fine-tune regulations relating to the different types of media and the arts in Singapore. In undertaking such a review, the Government should take the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity relating to the implementation of the rules so that there is more transparency and greater certainty about the way the rules are applied across the board.

Coming up with fresh re-thinking and creative answers to anchor values in Singapore, upgrading the education level of our people and nurturing and involving an active citizenry would all be for nought if we do not ensure that Singapore stays safe and secure. As the President highlighted, security is a pre-condition for our people to pursue their dreams. Given the size of our country and our population, sustaining a force which is sufficient to maintain internal security and the present deterrence to external aggressors is a formidale task, and this task falls squarely on the shoulders of both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Now more than

ever, coordination between these two Ministries is vital in combating terrorism.

To date, these two Ministries and agencies under them have not failed us. I have every confidence that they will continue to do their very best to keep Singapore safe and secure. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ministry of Home Affairs and the relevant agencies on the pivotal role that they played in the recapture of Mas Selamat. I can safely say that we all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that he had been returned to safe custody. We have enjoyed many years of peace and security. The challenge is to ensure that Singaporeans do not take the security for granted. We must not fall into the trap of relying solely on our home team and SAF because they cannot be everywhere all the time. The threat of terrorism is real, it can strike at any time. Each Singaporean must play his or her part. We must be the extra pairs of eyes and ears of these agencies. We must not let our guard down. The trick is to find a way to repeat this message without people becoming jaded and tuning it out. In my view, we need to keep the message short and simple but repeat it we must. This must remain at the forefront of our national consciousness.

A critical factor in maintaining our sovereignty are the people that make up our defence force. It is important for us to harness and harvest the knowledge and experience of the more experienced members of this force. The increase in the retirement age of our military officers from 45 to 50 and the introduction of the military domain experts scheme will allow the SAF to garner the knowledge, expertise and experience of the older officers and allow those with deep military expertise in specialised areas to continue to contribute until they are 60 years of age. This is a step in the right direction. We must do more to optimise the use of our greatest asset - our people.

While keeping a constant close watch on security, we must, at the same time, continue to focus on elevating our position in the world and increasing our reach. The President has called for an expansion of our external space. We must continue to strengthen our bilateral relations with the rest of the world, particularly with our neighbours in ASEAN we must continue to work with our ASEAN partners to take ASEAN to the rest of the world. A prime platform will be the upcoming APEC Leaders' Summit to be held here in November this year. It will be an opportunity for Singapore and ASEAN to shine. As an economy which depends mainly on trade with the rest of the world, we must ensure that our external relations continue to blossom. In our quest to expand our external space, every Singaporean must play his or her part for we are all ambassadors of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my view that this will be one of the most important debates that this House will embark on. We are at the turning point. It is now that we must lay the foundation for our recovery. It is now that we must seize the opportunities that arise in the face of diversity. It is now that we must start the process of becoming stronger, tougher and more resilient.

A good government is not one that finds an instant panacea for the problems of the day just to please the electorate. A good government is one that listens, that does the best it can to see the people through the problems of the day but is willing to make the tough decisions for the betterment of tomorrow.

I, therefore, call on my colleagues in this House to share their views frankly and openly so that this Government will have a true feel of the issues on the ground and be able to gain from a range of new ideas and fresh perspectives that will emanate from this crucial debate.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.52 pm

Sir, I thank the President for his Address which was wise, as well as illuminating.

He makes two points which are especially telling in these tumultuous times. First, he speaks about the need for new solutions, new mindsets for a new world. He reminds us of the need to be creative and for Singapore to be innovative. The second is about growing the economic pie. We remain committed to the ideal of the “good life” as one comprising a strong economy and a stable country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we might have heard these points before but, today, I would like to take these points and give them a new interpretation.

Today, we talk of “green shoots”. Among economists and policy-makers alike, there is renewed optimism and an embrace of a consumer-led recovery, as seen by the support given to the “stimulus” packages by governments. We are all keen to “get back” to the way that things were - we are eager to get out of the recession, to spend as we did before and to see our economies all grow. But, Sir, there are two questions - first, is this realistic? Second, is this desirable? Will this make Singapore a good place to live and bring up our children?

First, is it possible for the economy to keep growing? Even one grain of rice cannot be multiplied from one end of the chessboard to the other, if we speak of exponential growth. Yet, with compound interest and continuous economic growth,

this is precisely what we are talking of.

Sir, we should consider, what are the physical limits of growth for Singapore? When will we have run up against these limits?

I know I am not alone in noticing that Singapore is becoming quite crowded. Is there enough land to go around? Can the Government give us an assurance of the stable state population that Singapore is looking at? Is it 6 million or will it keep changing? Sir, I understand the argument for vibrancy - that we need to grow to keep ourselves on the forefront of prosperity, that we cannot lose out. But this argument falls down quite quickly when we realise that growth has a physical limit, one which I believe we are hitting quite soon. This, of course, is not a merely Singapore phenomenon. It is a global crisis, one which has gone unnoticed because we are all too busy fixing the financial crisis to notice that there is a deeper and bigger one, which cannot be solved by issuing more paper money or borrowing from another country. Sir, in the early 1900s, economic models of growth told us that the environment constitutes an important component of the production process. But somewhere along the last 100 years, we have lost the concept of environmental capital and we are left with the cost of using labour and manufactured capital in our economic analyses.

This is not surprising because there is little direct impact, and no motivation to cost in environment. Producers continue to want to get the biggest bang for their buck for each unit of factor of production. The environment - unlike banks and workers - cannot make demands on firms, and this is the classic problem of public goods.

Sir, we are observing today the price of our neglect. All over the world, we are seeing the destruction of clean air, the vast oceans, and the harm to animal life. In Singapore, we congratulate ourselves for being “greener” than we had been in the past, we are delighted that our rivers are clean, and we want to be a water hub, an energy hub, and a research hub for a better environment. But, fundamentally, have we made the necessary change in recognising the physical limits of our growth? Should we talk instead of economic development rather than growth? That is to say, has the time come for us to acknowledge that we can no longer grow physically forever, and that there is a physical limit to the number of people we can accommodate on our tiny island? This recognition does not prevent us from making economic progress. We can strive for a higher value economy, and better life, not necessarily with more things, but with better things. More fundamentally, we may have fewer material things, but a more satisfying life nonetheless.

So, my message is that we need to achieve economic development with environmental protection. This is key towards our goal of being the best home for our people. As an island, we are more vulnerable to the effects of global warming and rising sea levels. Our growth thus needs to be balanced with development on a sustainable basis. As we come out of this crisis which we surely will, the process going forward is important and we must recognise the above implications - a strong rebound and a return to robust growth may not be desirable as it is unlikely to be sustainable.

In concrete terms, and for a real goal to aim for, I want to suggest that the Government aim to make Singapore one of the top 10 most liveable cities in the world by 2015. Why 2015? Well, that is the

year that Singapore will turn 50 years, and is a good sign of a maturing nation. It must necessarily mean a whole of Government approach to realise this - a collective will and effort to recognise what our limits are, and to treat these with respect. I have examined the criteria for the liveable cities ranking quite closely. I have spoken on these in the recent Budget debate, so I shall not repeat them here.

But I want to suggest a rethink on three fronts:

Let us aim for modest, sustainable economic growth.

Let us aim for growth which is inclusive. By "inclusive growth", I mean we need to promote sectors and industries which inherently employ more locals, more Singaporeans. It must necessarily mean we need to invest in and devote more attention and resources to these sectors.

Let us be less materialistic. Let us return to basics - building stronger and resilient families becomes even more important as stress lines will continue to be tested in these trying times. Let us spend our money on helping those who do not have, rather than giving those who have even more. Yes, we do have many safety nets and the many-helping hands approach is a good one. Still, my own view is that it is better to err on the conservative side and even good to have some overlap between the various safety nets and schemes so that no one will fall through any gaps which may be there.

Sir, an economist called Herman Daly writes about the depletion of “moral capital” of the modern economy. The term “moral capital” is defined using Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, and it says that men could be trusted not to harm the community even while pursuing their self-interest. And this is

because aside from the invisible hand of the market, there are also “built-in restraints” on behaviour. These include morals, religion, custom and education. Daly argues that this “moral capital” has been eroded by the forces propelling economic growth.

“The growth economy fosters the erosion of the values upon which it depends, such as honesty, sobriety, trust, etc.”

Sir, in Singapore, we rely on innovative policies to get out of some deep holes - for example, our ethnic quota policies in Housing Board estates give us a good multi-racial mix and help the different races to live together. Our Marina Barrage turns seawater into fresh water simply by using Nature’s water cycle. For many years, because we have overcome so many problems through new ideas and new technologies, the power of science-based technology may lead us to think that we can overcome all biophysical limits. I have said above that this is not possible. But, here, I think our moral value should also tell us that this is not desirable. Daly argues that that the forces of economic growth are “simultaneously eroding the moral foundations of the very social order which gives purpose and direction to that growth”. He says that “the glorification of self-interest and the pursuit of 'infinite wants' lead to a weakening of moral distinction between luxury and necessity. Moral limits constraining demand for junk are inconvenient in a growth economy, because growth increases when junk sells.”

Sir, we need to change our mindset to reflect the reality that more is not only not physically possible, but not necessarily better as well. I know that many young parents nowadays have given up the cheap plastic toys, which can fill shelves

in their homes, and prepared to settle for two or three good, well-made ones. I know of even more people who have chosen to give up a frenzied existence, and opted to downshift so that they can do voluntary work or spend time to take care of their aging parents.

The ways people act are ultimately governed by their system of beliefs. In the larger view of the way Singapore should progress, we need to change our beliefs that growth is a ceaseless striving. We need to feel proud of Singapore for what it is, and to take care of it, to protect it from over-exploitation, overcrowding and unsustainable growth.

One initiative which I admire is the National Parks Board’s idea to get people to plant a tree. You pay $200 and you get to plant a tree in different parts of Singapore. Of course, the Board can plant trees itself, and the $200 does not defray much of the cost of caring for the tree for any length of time. But this public effort has the effect of allowing people to feel that they own a tree and are part of the movement.

Here I again come to the idea of making Singapore one of the most liveable cities in the world, from both people perspective and business perspective. But to do this, we need not just a whole of Government approach, we need a whole of country approach. We need different perspectives - environment, people, Government and business. We are already top in infrastructure. I think we can now work more on the software.

There are three ways which I think the people sector can work together with the Government to make Singapore an even more liveable city.

Let us keep Singapore safe and clean. These include community policing, to keep it crime free. Public health demands also mean that we should work

together to keep public places free of rats and mosquitoes.

Let us be gracious. Clear our own trays. Give way, instead of speeding up when a car in front of us signals to filter in. Put our mobiles to silent mode without being reminded. Queue and be patient.

Educate our kids at home. I agree with the Education Minister that we should not push everything to the schools. Everything starts with values, whether it is about financial literary, whether it is about respect for elders, or even sexual identity.

In conclusion, and returning to Daly’s arguments, I think we need to increase the “moral capital” of society by building shared norms and values about what constitutes behaviour that will make Singapore the best home for our families. I think that we need to change our mindsets that a return to robust economic growth is the solution to our problems. And as we pursue sustainable economic development, we must strive for inclusive growth. We need to also transform our thinking - recognise the physical limits of a tiny island, inculcate moral limits against over-consumption and together, work on making Singapore one of the most liveable cities in the world.

Sir, I support the motion.

2.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of Second Session of the Eleventh Parliament.

President Nathan, in his Address, touched on the Government's priorities and plans to ensure that we continue to build our future Singapore in uncertain times. In his earlier address at the

Opening of the First Session of the Eleventh Parliament, we will realise that the priorities outlined then in November 2006 are still aligned and relevant despite the fact that we are now facing very different circumstances in both the local and global economy. While the priorities remain, new prospectus and approaches are needed. Of the priorities outlined in President Nathan's Address, I would like to touch on three of them:

Enhancing our economic competitiveness;

Strengthening our social cohesion; and

Evolving our political system.

We will all agree that it is critical for Singapore to continue to invest to drive the development of business opportunities and careers for our people in the various sectors. Minister Lim Hng Kiang in MTI's Addendum shared that MTI will continue to focus on strategies to strengthen the Singapore economy to ride out these uncertain times and gear up to seize new growth opportunities when the economy recovers. This will ensure that Singapore remains a leading city, where talent and enterprise can grow and succeed. We must continue to support these efforts to strengthen our presence in markets that we are already in as well as diversifying further into new markets. Helping our local enterprises, especially SMEs, will not just be in facilitating access to credits during these difficult financial times. More importantly, there continues to be a need for strategies on developing SMEs to deepen capabilities and to expand to new markets. This will require a whole of Government approach, from SPRING's efforts to help SMEs develop corporate capability and branding to A*STAR's work in connecting industry to R&D and EDB's facilitation of companies to conduct more R&D and develop new capabilities in Singapore.

MICA outlined in the Addendum to continue to develop the creative industry and infocomm sector. Strategies include capability development, providing advanced infocomm and media infrastructure, facilitating adoption of and exploitation of emerging technologies and the public, private and people partnership in digital media to develop both the local media scene and enable our local companies to participate in international market.

MEWR has outlined the strategy to invest in new capabilities to reduce waste and control pollution to add to existing expertise in clean water and energy. These capabilities will help position us as a global hub for environment and water solutions. All these measures are important initiatives of how Singapore will sustain our growth and stay competitive even in these difficult times, while we gear up for the recovery. Our companies must build their capabilities and be able to grow their businesses, both in our local markets and internationally.

As we drive strategies to enhance our economic competitiveness, there is increasing room, I feel, for the three 'Ps' - Public, Private and People - partnership to help build a vibrant eco-system for Singapore. As the Government continues to play an important role to drive new initiatives and strategies for growth, we must increasingly look at putting all our minds and efforts as we look for new ideas to enhance economic competitiveness. A good example of the private sector taking the lead, is the recent launch of the "Beat the Recession" initiative. This is a pro bono private sector initiative, led by young business leaders, a network of Singaporean business leaders and entrepreneurs, supported by organisations like the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the

Association of Small and Medium Enterprises and the National Youth Council.

This initiative provides new business persons without much experience access to a network of young business leaders and entrepreneurs and this is especially important in difficult times that we face. The three objectives are: to encourage, engage and empower Singaporean businesses to survive the economic crisis through best practice sharing and collaboration by these young business leaders and entrepreneurs. Everyone will agree on the importance of education in a country like Singapore. But as we continue to upgrade education in Singapore, and enhance our skill base, all the more we must ensure that our economy can absorb the skills and talent. As we put a higher premium on knowledge and skills, Singapore needs to be a global city, where our people can benefit from growth in the region and globally and build good careers. Without this, it will lead to strain on our social fabric and cohesiveness.

This brings me to the subject of strengthening our social cohesion. PM Lee, in his recent May Day Rally speech, touched on three potential stress points in our society which we have to overcome: one, between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans and, if I could add, between old citizens and new citizens; two, between successful Singaporeans and not so successful Singaporeans; and three, between the different races and religions in Singapore. As PM Lee has mentioned, these are real potential stress points for our society. We must work hard and ensure that we stay united as one Singapore. To enable this, we have to ensure strong economic growth while Singapore resists the temptations of protectionism in these difficult times. Being a small market, Singapore must look to the international markets for growth.

We must resist the pressures of protectionism in this difficult time and remain committed to free trade. Promoting an open and inclusive economy will have an impact on investments coming into Singapore as well as Singapore businesses investing overseas. Much has been said about the challenging political landscape, the need for the form and structure of our political system to evolve and renewal of political leadership in order to engage and stay in touch with the electorate.

On the point of engagement, I would like to touch on the following: the changing profile of our citizens and the need to focus on the process, the content and space for engagement. From the recent examples of the Mas Selamat escape from detention in 2008 and the sale of Temasek Holdings' 3% stake in the Bank of America, it is evident that citizens want more information, demand answers to their questions and accountability for what they consider key issues that impact Singapore society. The tension is in striking a balance on national security and business competitiveness respectively in the situations I have highlighted above, while addressing the need for Singaporeans for more information and accountability. Regardless of age, it is clear that with a more educated and globalised population, with greater access to information exposure, we are seeing a different profile of citizens.

It is because of this changing profile, the process content and space for engagement needs to evolve. What has become more important is not just the media or the platform of engagement but also the content, the process and how we engage. People not only focus on outcomes, but want information and participation in how decisions are taken. There is a greater need for a more consultative approach, views to be heard

and exchanged. The process of good engagement will help establish better buy-in and ownership of policies and hence a more inclusive and cohesive society. The recent AWARE saga has many lessons for us. One such lesson, as stated by Alicia Wong in her article in May 16th of Weekend Today, was on how civil society had jumped into action where "OB" markers of religion were seen to have been crossed. What she and many that I have spoken to appreciated was how the Government showed restraint and held back for intervening, allowing space for civil society, while providing clarity and balance on the approach of keeping religion and politics separate.

The political landscape is maturing and evolving in more ways than one. Not only must the Government have strong leaders and provide effective and efficient citizen services, it must also create an environment that Singaporeans feel that their views matter and that they can make a difference in the areas of their lives that are important to them. Regardless of the channels of engagement, we must nurture an environment where people feel that differing views are accepted and where they will have opportunities to hear differing views.

This will facilitate greater acceptance of diverse viewpoints.

I have mentioned before in this House that Singapore is an improbable nation, and that our success as a nation is the result of the will of our people. This is a journey - we must stay the course and encourage active citizenry and participation grounded in our fundamental values of an inclusive society and opportunity for all to succeed. These uncertain times will definitely challenge us and put a strain on our society and systems but, at the same time, provide opportunities for fresh ideas and new ideas. We must therefore be bold in our quest to continue to build our home and our future in Singapore. As the saying goes, "A bend in the road is not the end

of the road... unless we fail to make the turn."

With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion of thanks.

2.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to add my voice to support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

Today, one thing is certain. This is a different world with a different set of challenges. And I think that the challenge for the Government of today, as we find our way through this economic storm, is to find the right balance between the pace at which we fight for our economic survival and how much stress our society can withstand in the process.

The world's current economic storms show how quickly tides could turn, how easily Singapore could be affected. We can see for ourselves the degree to which our economy finds itself reliant on the global order. We thus appreciate the pressing need and efforts of the Government of Singapore to keep its growth to stay on course.

However, in our pursuit of policy changes and initiatives for fiscal growth, the Government cannot and should not see growth as our over-riding objective. There needs to be a balance, taking into account the social aspects of a Singapore that is maturing in its multi-faceted views, beliefs and aspirations. Sustaining growth has to be a priority, but it should not be done where Singaporeans feel that they are short-changed in the process, feeling that they are not getting the returns on their hard work and loyalty to the nation.

For a start, we should relook at our cost structures - our costs of living and

our costs of doing business. Singapore's economy is built on the philosophy that a seemingly pro-free market will hopefully maximise the potential of our limited resources. Hence, we almost allow unrestricted competition with the assumption that private sector competition can bring about cost-efficiency and increased productivity. Thus far, with the privatisation of our transport services and industrial real estate, for example, we have seen increased costs for people and businesses even if productivity and quality of services have improved.

This strategy has created unhappiness in many quarters. We cannot blame Singaporeans for feeling so. Many are experiencing rising costs of living despite the downturn affecting their jobs. Local businesses watch in despair as high costs of rental erode their business viability. As a result, many become dependent on low-cost foreign labour to keep prices competitive. Even before the downturn, we were hearing grouses on the ground on the increasing cost of living and the threats of foreign workers taking away jobs from Singaporeans.

Thanks to the hard work and vision of our forefathers, Singapore has flourished since Independence. Most Singaporeans have roofs over their heads, benefited from world-class education and live in safe, stable surroundings. Today, we are no longer at the stage where maintaining economic prosperity for survival is our sole objective as a nation. We cannot always put economic importance ahead of social and other interests.

There is a need to review this pace of development and have a strategy to balance the interests of the people. It should not be an approach in which we go full-steam on development, and then make attempts to assist the needy. This will create gaps - where everyone in between would feel stretched and pressured by increasing costs and other

constraints. Despite our best intentions, these gaps may not always be bridged.

Take the case of the Job Credits Scheme. The announcement was welcome by businesses. Yet the scheme can only provide temporary and limited relief. Even the Job Credits scheme and other Budget measures are not enough to mitigate revenue declines and high overheads, especially commercial rentals which have remained relatively high. Revenue-wise, we can help companies open new markets but we are still not able to reverse global tides.

The same applies to our assistance plans launched with the objective of defraying costs in these difficult times. The property tax rebates were of limited help to small businesses because they did not reach the tenants in many instances, especially for tenants of commercial properties. Retailers did not realise the full benefits because their small number of employees meant that the credits they received from the Jobs Credit Scheme were small compared to the increase in rents they had to pay monthly.

While I recognise the Government's difficulties in reaching the tenants directly, we cannot always take the easy way out as this would leave well-intended schemes at the mercy of commercial landlords. I have raised this concern before at the recent Budget debate that we cannot rely on the commercial sector to bridge our policies and social interests. There is, hence, a need to re-look at how the Government can administer such assistance schemes.

Our free market also means depending on foreign manpower. This, rightly or wrongly, creates resentment among Singaporeans. This is happening not only in the job market, but also in our schools and universities, where competition for spaces and top spots by foreign nationals

has caused unhappiness among many parents.

Even in the heartlands, many feel that the foreigners among them should abide by our norms in areas such as cleanliness and indiscriminate use of bicycles on pathways. The launch of the National Integration Council is a good start to achieve this balance and I look forward to their work. But we cannot let such issues of growing resentment divide Singaporeans and how we develop as a nation.

One of the key strengths of our system has been in it has always been open and transparent. The recent cases in the UK pertaining to MP expenses have shown the role that the public can play as checks-and-balances in Government excesses. This is made possible because in the UK as well in US, the system allows for people to request for information to be made public and the government is made accountable. Thankfully, in Singapore, MPs do not have expense accounts and our allowances are fixed and transparent.

I am not advocating that we go the way of the Freedom of Information Act in the US and the UK. But an approach mid-way can improve the Government’s engagement and feedback mechanisms. We can make the array of information more accessible - on Government spending as well as on other policies that impact us - so that Singaporeans can contribute to policy feedback with better data and foster closer engagement. While the Auditor-General’s Office covers compliance and financial prudence issues, the public may be better served if it has greater information on Government spending to ensure that we do not undertake excesses.

In the opinion of many from my generation, and as mentioned by my parliamentary colleagues earlier, Temasek and GIC investments are also areas that many believe should have greater public

scrutiny. Our reserves involve our savings as a nation, our future and our children's future. We have lost money, whether realised or unrealised, that took generations and many good years to create. While we trust commercial professionals to do their jobs, we should also be mindful that, at the end of the day, they are investing Singaporeans' money and Singaporeans deserve greater accountability in how our money is being spent.

Increasingly, we will also have to address issues on how we can match the commercial objectives of Temasek and GIC to the social objectives of the reserves that they invest in. Should greater transparency also be given to the public of the bonuses and performance of its staff, in return for the rate of return of investments over the years? We ask of the same of our professional investment fund managers and commercial banks, why not those who manage our reserves too?

Sir, we need to assure Singaporeans that they have a role to play in this island state we call home. We need to engage in conversation more. We need to run Singapore Inc with the mindset that this is an open partnership and prove to Singaporeans with concrete actions that their voices are being heard. Only then can this House build more trust with our fellow Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the issue of leadership renewal. I will speak in Malay.

(In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, renewal is an important process in any leadership, including in politics. With renewal, we can ensure that an organisation stays relevant and fresh, apart from bringing in new ideas.

Touching on the Malay leadership, we must let the renewal process become a key foundation of our strength. I am sure that we can do it as we have more talent now, especially in the past few years, where we see the emergence of more Malays who are better educated and have global views. In fact, many have made their mark at the international level.

Hence, we would like to see more Malays with potential to come forward, not only in politics but also in leadership roles of the Malay organisations. This is because there is space and opportunity to develop many programmes and initiatives that can help our community progress further. As a small community with limited resources, we need as much involvement as possible, especially among the talented young people, to come forward and contribute regardless of their education level.

In this matter, the current leadership must provide a platform to encourage and facilitate this renewal process, not only to develop the new generation as leaders but also to provide support for the organisations' activities. With that, we can help guide and train them to better understand and be concerned with community issues, in the hope that some of them can develop and step into government leadership.

By gaining experience in these issues, we hope that this will produce more Malay leaders that play an important role, not only in Malay issues and affairs but also in helping our community become cohesive, be economically relevant and connected to this region and the world.

Looking at Malay issues from a wider perspective, we must acknowledge that they are also national issues, and problems faced by the Malay community also affect the nation. Hence, this increases the importance of leadership renewal, so that we can continue to build

a wider and more capable group of leaders.

(In English ): One key aspect of global development is the evolving role of the old and new media. In the case of the new media, this space has been evolving to define its rules of engagement, and has widened participation exponentially.

Notwithstanding these developments, as far as the media is concerned, no matter the form, I believe the basics should remain the same - it needs to be unbiased and reflective of Singapore's social dynamics and tolerance.

This is more so in a plural society such as ours. Our local media has generally been responsible but there is still room for improvement. Coverage of the AWARE case recently, for example, could have been better done in a way that should not create division.

I brought up this case because there has been feedback that the coverage by the media has been pro certain groups. This is akin to the various media channels each taking sides. This might be just a perception. Nonetheless, such observations are worrying and should be avoided especially with the rise of the new media.

The reason is this. With the growing ease of communicating to masses online, people can extend their unhappiness through this platform amplifying discourse and divisions. Limited moderation of insensitive comments by other netizens or platform moderators further escalates reactions leading to netizens taking sides to defend their beliefs. This was also evident from the furour on issues relating to the unfortunate events of my parliamentary colleague, MP Seng Han Thong, and the late DBS corporate chief Richard Stanley.

While we can have more freedom, media entities should also assume greater

responsibility and seek to provide balanced arguments. They should promote online discussions and raise political awareness, but in a responsible manner.

I also feel that our local television programmes can promote greater awareness and understanding of issues instead of just pursuing commercial entertainment. It is a culture that we need to develop, especially with the current industry moving full-scale into paid television programming. The lack of quality television engagement may create even less interest among youths in current affairs and social issues as well as artistic contents

It would thus be useful for MDA to look into this area, where MDA could consider more funding and act as a catalyst for the local media industry to produce television programmes that balance commercial aspects with our social interests. MDA can work with MediaCorp, Starhub Cable, educational institutions or independent local production houses to explore creative ways to incorporate messaging into entertainment.

As we move along, we need to adapt to the changing media environment and, here, I agree with MICA's approach to have more frequent checks and relaxation of the new media space. Today, censorships may be less effective due to the variety of media. Children are more exposed to the global stage and are aware of alternative channels for information. Censorship is of limited practicality today, with the relative ease and availability of the Internet.

In this regard, I welcome the recent announcement of the appointment of the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) to update policies on censorship of the media and the arts. I am glad that this review will result in citizens getting more choices without compromising racial harmony, social cohesion and family values.

I believe that the Government is recognising that Singapore is a maturing society. The Government is gradually playing a lesser role in censorship and regulation while allowing space for the community to grow. We should encourage self-regulation, and develop a society that takes responsibility for its speech and actions.

While the Government could provide wider OB markers, this would still create grey areas - what is allowed and what is not. For example, while we avoid topics that bring religious discourse, do we avoid the discussions altogether? Or can we come to a stage where we are able to discuss such issues, yet remain sensitive and sensible as we engage others with different views and faiths?

I believe the community has to find its own answers through trial and error. What regulators can and should do is to provide a wider space for this to happen. And I have faith that Singaporeans can and will reach the maturity in due time.

With greater transparency of information and discussions, we cannot run away from the fact that there will be changes in political expectations. There will possibly be greater awareness and participation by the public. In fact, this House needs to be ready for a more vocal community, including minority segments, that will get louder over time. However, I believe this is a positive development for Singapore as we continue our on-going search for a Singaporean identity and way of life.

Singapore has developed as a communications hub, so it makes sense that we continue our evolution into an arts hub and media centre, and develop towards a more cultured society, and hopefully a more gracious society.

And I am glad that the arts community have banded together to ensure their representation in Parliament. Despite the downturn, I also welcome that several arts initiatives by MICA, such as the next phase of the Renaissance City Plan, continue to be promoted and supported by the sector. I also hope that this support also continues to nurture and develop our local arts talents.

We are moving along in a changing world, no one knows for certain what our future holds, as circumstances may change overnight. But we cannot afford to remain still. We need to be nimble, resourceful and creative. We have all the resources and capabilities to face these new challenges, along with the old challenges. We have to move on with this together, taking into account all needs and sentiments, and to ensure, as many of our leaders have expressed in this House, that no Singaporean will be left behind.

With this, I support the motion.

2.33 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] For several decades, the United States has been leading the global economy as the locomotive for world economic growth. America's capitalist system creates demand and promotes production of consumer products by encouraging consumerism bringing about value added economic development; it becomes the lifeline of global economic growth. Singapore is a new developing country with limited natural resources and lacks a sizeable domestic market; hence the only rational choice is for us is to attract MNCs and to sell goods produced locally in the market set up by them. It is through such

economic strategy that Singapore is linked up with the global economy. With the stability and growth of wealth of the US economy in the past several decades, Singapore has also laid down a strong economic foundation. We are lucky, as apart from the Government's correct economic policy and the people's hard work and solidarity in pushing forward economic development, the relatively prolonged world economic stability also made it possible for Singapore to have sustained growth, to accumulate massive reserves and to carry out various infrastructure works to make Singapore a modern country.

The stability of the global economy has provided us space and opportunity for our economic development. We seized the opportunity and hence we are in a position to weather the gloomy global economic prospects confronting us now. I am confident that Singapore will be able to deal with the challenges brought about by the new global economic situation.

It is correct, in my opinion, to attract foreign investments, encourage competition in a free market, and open up our market to go global as this had allowed Singapore to integrate with the global economy. Although such an economic strategy makes us vulnerable to changes in the world economy, as how we are now being burdened by the US financial crisis which has impacted us more than other countries and experienced a steeper downturn than others, I believe we shall continue to prosper and advance when the global economic storm blows over. Hence, I am of view that our economic model is a basically sound one.

However, as the global economy changes, the slowdown and the emergence of protectionism have raised the issue of reviewing our economic development strategy. We have been dependent on MNCs, especially the

manufacturing sector to provide job opportunities for our people. We also depended on these MNCs to sell products made in Singapore in global market. However, the rise of China and India and the increase in costs has made us less able to compete with low-cost countries. The world economic downturn, the slow growth and the drop in demand for products worldwide, have greatly undermined MNCs except in a few sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and the cutting-edge industries. We should therefore focus on our SMEs, particularly the knowledge-based and creative sector, as they will be our sunshine industries. The Government should boldly invest in such industries which have growth potential as we have done in our R&D sector, and help them globalise.

In addition, the fact that our business costs had gone up tremendously during the period of rapid growth, but have not been able adjust swiftly in response to the downturn, is a matter for concern. Although our economic problem is not due to rising costs but to falling demand this time round, whether a company is able to swiftly cut costs during a downturn is a critical factor in determining whether the company survives or not. While this year's Budget did help to alleviate business costs to a certain extent, we have to look into a long-term plan using both macro and micro economic measures to prevent costs from rising rapidly during boom times but remaining high during a downturn.

The President mentioned in his Speech that new immigrants and foreign workers may cause concern because of unfamiliarity with their different accents and habits and because of competition in workplaces. I believe the crux of the issue is not the different accents and habits and the competition in workplaces, but of national identity. Those Singaporeans born after the war have been instilled with our national ethos. Male citizens have to

undergo tough and rigorous military training in National Service so as to undertake the duty of protecting our home, defending our nation. Everyone knows the importance and necessity of making the sacrifices. During our nation-building, all contributed without grumble. But, when this generation of Singaporeans has aged and is not able to contribute as much as they did in the past, they are compared with foreign workers and labelled as soft and choosy in looking for jobs. The Government gave Singaporeans an impression that it even thinks that the moon in foreign countries is rounder and only foreigners are talents. Many Singaporeans will ask themselves what significance there is in being a Singaporean. Therefore, to avoid turning the “Singaporeans versus foreigners issue” into a political hot potato one day, the Government should clearly state its stand on the priority of safeguarding the interests of Singaporean workers first and foremost.

Our economic development model, in keeping up with changes in the world market, has resulted in our workers being unable to catch up with the pace of development. They are willing to work but are paid wages which cannot meet our high cost of living, or they may be thought too old for the jobs. This is the problem the Government should confront.

To strike a comparison between foreign workers and Singapore workers is neither fair nor practical. Many foreign workers come here to work mainly to earn money and when they have earned enough, they will return to their homeland to live there. Their families are not here. They can accept work conditions which may not comply with our employment laws. They are prepared to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day as long as they are paid adequate wages. In contrast, Singapore workers live here,

have different costs of living and require time and space for family and leisure as well. Therefore, I would like the Government to consider reserving for Singapore workers certain jobs which require special licences, such as safety management, heavy crane drivers, tractors and bulldozer drivers.

During good economic times where there is labour shortage, it is inevitable for the Government to relax rules that restrict foreign workers to meet the demand for manpower. However, when facing a prolonged economic slowdown, the Government should change its mindset and review its policies accordingly. In this way, we would be able to maintain our labour force competitiveness and ensure that those who are displaced by the economic changes would be able to find a decent job. Although SPUR and other skill training schemes had provided some assurance to our workers, this is insufficient to calm the current wave of unemployment. I was told by a furniture painter that after training his foreign worker colleagues on the relevant skills, he was retrenched by the employer. Following which, he had undergone SPUR training but was still unemployed a few weeks after the training ended. Hence, it should be the priority of the Government now to ensure that workers are employed after the training so that such skills will not be wasted after training.

Singapore is not a big corporation or a private company. It is a country. Economic development is important, but as a small state with a small population, we cannot ignore other factors that can promote the sustainable growth and development of our country. One important factor is social cohesion.

In the 2006 debate on the Presidential Address, I had pointed out in my speech that income disparity will continue to be a challenge for us. The Government has subsequently implemented the Workfare Income Supplement scheme which has

narrowed the income gap to a certain extent, but this is not enough to solve the problem in the long run. As we face global economic restructuring, we are likely to face a greater disparity between the two income groups. Different jobs demand different salaries in the global market; some jobs demand a high income while others continue to lag behind. This would ultimately result in the “M” model societal structure, where the middle-income group will lose out and the cushioning effect that it offers will gradually disappear. This is the challenge that we face in maintaining social cohesion.

I am of the view that social values would form the pillar of our social cohesion; they also support sustainable growth and development of our society. The Government should place on its agenda the building of a caring society. Policies should not be solely motivated by economy incentives and a person's worth should not be measured solely based on economic value. For example, as we face an ageing population, medical and social welfare expenditure will increase inevitably. Yet in response to this, the Government's attitude towards the need to increase medical expenditure for the elderly is merely to describe them as a "Silver Tsunami".

To build a caring society, the Government must be more aware of the intrinsic values of its policies. For example, the Government is generous towards allocating budget for education expenditure, but it is taken to be an investment, meaning the Government expects returns in future. This gives the people an impression that it is the not Government's duty to provide education for the young so as to ensure they have a bright future. If the same attitude explains why we also subsidize foreign students, this can be considered reasonable in principle, but the Government should let the people know what the returns for investing in these foreign students are. As

for tertiary education, the Government is not willing to increase subsidy level because it feels that graduates will earn a high income after graduation; the government also attempts to justify the affordability of tertiary education by allowing the borrowing from parent’s CPF and grant of study loans for tuition fees. As such, these graduates are in debt before they even start work- this seems to be sending a message to our young that it is alright to spend future money.

As we face the change in economic condition, is the Government’s assumption that every graduate will have a good job waiting for him, thus it is not necessary to provide higher subsidy for tertiary education still valid? Should we re-look at the affordability of tertiary education fees? It is true, however, that we cannot depend solely on the Government to foster caring social values. I am of the view that everyone should play a part in daily life, to have civic awareness and open discussion on social values. In this regard, the new media can play an active role.

Earlier, I mentioned that Singapore is a country, not a corporation or private company. The fundamental difference is that companies will be allowed to issue shares and the one who owns the most shares will be the biggest shareholder. They naturally serve on the board of directors as its chairman or directors and in turn appoint the CEO and management staff. They can exercise control over the operations of the company, and the means of livelihood of employees lies in their hands. Besides those who believe in the political theories perpetuated in autocratic monarchic states in the olden days, I believe that no citizen of the modern state in the 21st century will agree that political leaders own the majority of the country, the way shareholders own the company.

And so, every citizen should have a stake in the country and enjoy equal basic

rights. Under this premise, the political system must be people-oriented, the will of the people expressed and the leaders chosen based on the will of the people. In addition, to ensure that the will of the people is respected by the leaders, to prevent monopoly of power and authority, or even amendment of the Constitution to ensure certain political groups perpetuate themselves in power, a system of checks and balances must be set in place. The Parliament comprises of ruling and opposition parties and Constitution provides for the separation of powers - legislature, executive and judiciary. This is the concept that underlies the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Singapore adopted the Westminster model framework upon independence and several amendments have been made to our Constitution since, some of which involved fundamental changes in our political system. Examples include the Elected President System and Group Representation Constituency (GRC) System. The purpose of raising this issue is with the hope that Singaporeans will understand the present by reviewing the past and not forget the origin and meaning of our political system. It was also mentioned by the President in his presidential speech that, "Singapore’s political system must evolve over time as our society change".

The Presidential Speech highlighted that our political system encourages a strong and effective Government worthy of Singaporeans and responsive to the people's needs and aspirations. This is an affirmation that is taken as an honour by the ruling party, supported by the results of the last election, where the ruling party won 67% of the votes. However, I wish to highlight that under the present system, the true effectiveness of our system lies in individual political leaders and not the political system with checks

and balances built in to ensure its operational effectiveness.

We have had two Prime Ministers in the past. The transition of power was smooth, and this was the internal affair of the ruling party, similar to the replacements of leaderships in China. The ruling party controls the legislative process and can amend the Constitution at any time, retaining firm control of government machinery and state resources. Its power and resources far exceeds the power of any political party or non-governmental organisation in the country; this is not in line with the doctrine of separation of powers. If, one day, the ruling party abuses its powers, tramples on civil rights or is guilty of corruption, what can the people do? So far, our system is yet to be tested. One day, should we experience a political crisis similar to that of Indonesia and Philippines where a strong and effective government collapses, would Singapore be able to withstand the test and survive? I am not sure.

Some feel that PAP leadership team constantly self-renews and our leaders show great foresight and appear honest and upright. But who can guarantee that the leaders will never fall victim to corruption? Can a high salary really keep corruption away? Maybe the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) has a role to play, but as the CPIB is under the purview of the PMO as well, how can the CPIB play a checking role?

Some feel that we should not entertain imaginary or groundless fears; the ruling party will self-check, and it is impossible for all PAP members to collude and congregate like snakes and rats will. Even if the party breaks up, the remaining half can still rule the country. However, if we were to allow ourselves to reach such a plight, our political system would be greatly weakened by then. Therefore, the best plan is to reinforce external checks

and balances into the system to avoid such situations from happening.

The role of an opposition party is to play the role of checks and balances so as to ensure that the system is effective, but until today, our opposition parties are incapable of giving full play to this role. Even during election times, we do not have enough opposition candidates to stand for election so that Singaporeans can exercise their voting rights. Therefore, our democratic political system is like a one-legged duck.

The ruling party said that it is not her role to help sustain the opposition party, or this is like throwing stones at one's feet. This is the mentality of “the winner takes it all and the loser is a bandit.” But we cannot solely blame the ruling party. After all, the political system is the foundation of our country. Citizens should be concerned about this. Since the people have made their choice during elections and cast their votes for the PAP candidates, allowing the PAP to have control over amendments to the Constitution and elections, the PAP is supported by the vote of the people whereas opposition parties are unable to garner enough support from the people. Who can we blame?

Some blame the opposition for not doing their job well and not having talents. Maybe this is true. But if a person of noble aspirations does not join the opposition party due to whatever reason in the face of the realities of life, where do we get the talents? Even the ruling party cannot get talents, let alone the opposition parties! Even if we can find people of noble aspirations to stand for election, they may not be elected.

Some feel that the losing candidate from the opposition party can be appointed as a Non-Constituency Member and he or she can still represent the voices of people in Parliament. However, the role of the opposition party is not

merely to reflect the feelings of the people; it has a functional role in the actual operation of our political system which is based on Westminster model to ensure that the political system can function soundly. In order for the opposition party to play the role, opposition party must be elected into Parliament so that it has the mandate from the people and can have sufficient resources to build the capability of the party to enable it to play the role. Non-Constituency Member is a representative of no constituency! An elected member has the backing of his constituency, he will also have physical space to organize events to widen the network of support and strengthen the capability of his party. Furthermore, elected members will get to hear from their constituents through weekly Meet-the People (MPS) sessions. Only by doing so can the Member have a good grasp of the issues and problems faced on the ground. Through making representation to the government authorities on behalf of his constituent, he can better understand whether a particular Government policy has been effectively implemented. Such real-life grassroots experience is very important in the cultivation of a rational and responsible opposition party. If we want opposition parties to be able to play its functional role in our political system, we need to give them the space and time to grow. To provide for a rainy day, we must prepare in times of political stability.

For a small country like Singapore to continue to survive in the geopolitical crevice of Southeast Asia, economically, we have to be ahead of others. It would be better if we could play an important role in bringing about economic development in the region. Militarily, we should possess defence technology of the superpower, and even be capable of exporting our weapons to neighbouring countries to help strengthen their defence capability. However, these are merely the hardware. Social cohesiveness, the

people's national identity, and the solidarity as a people in times of adversity are the software that would ensure the long term survival of Singapore. Whether the software can run smoothly would depend on the operating system of our country- the political system.

&nMr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. In his address, the President says that we "must take steps to emerge from this global crisis stronger economically, socially, and politically". He also says that an important part of this effort is to ensure that we strengthen social cohesion.

The President observes that challenging times will put stresses on our society and our families. Globalisation, while benefiting Singapore as a whole, also widens income gaps and puts pressure on lower-skilled and less-educated workers. He says, "The Government has done much to help this group upgrade, and to supplement their wages. In this downturn, lower-income Singaporeans will not be left to fend for themselves."

Sir, it is true. We have done quite a lot to help workers prepare for new jobs, take care that children from vulnerable families have opportunities to reach their full potential in schools. Our Education Minister just yesterday announced another $67.5 million to help students and their families cope with the recession.

In the light of all these points, I would like to pose a simple question for the House to ponder over - do the Members feel that somehow, despite all the doom and gloom coming out of the US, that there is a recession in Singapore? Or is it really business as usual, with people still spending and being as cheerful as ever? And second, do the Members feel that this buoyant optimism is our fault? Sir, I

use the word "fault" purposefully, because it will come clear that I do not consider this unbridled optimism an altogether good thing.

Let me elaborate.

Today, as we go to some of the mid-priced restaurants like Crystal Jade, and Ichiban Boshi, do we feel that there is a recession? Even at Mezza9 in Hyatt Hotel, a fairly upmarket place, there remains a sizable lunch crowd on most days. So, what recession?

Today, if you were buying a property, you would have agents telling you that the market for the mid-and- lower-range properties is getting hot again, and sales are moving. You would read from the newspapers that sales remain strong, and that buyers are still snapping up new launches. So, what recession?

I feel Sir, that this time, the recession is worse on paper, but much less on the ground, compared to 2003. Perhaps in 2003, it was SARS and everyone was huddling at home. Maybe it was due to a psychological fear, the kia-si symptom when people stay at home. But this recession is every bit as severe as the ones we have experienced in the past. In fact, it is the worse one yet, since we have never had to draw down on our reserves before, and we are doing so this time. Jobs are lost, and growth remains very sluggish. The economic growth rate was forecast at -6% to -9%. Yet, people are still spending.

On the one hand, this is good because it adds to the economic multiplier, it prevents a downward spiral where liquidity is sucked out of the economy. On the other hand, it is worrying because this spending could have come about because of a false sense of security. Sir, this Government has been through many recessions with its people in the

past. In the early years, we had recessions once every 10 years or so. Nowadays, shocks have been coming more often. So, we have become "practised" at the craft of recession-cushioning. Each time the economy shows signs of slowing down, we have the NTUC and e2i coming out at the forefront to job match, get training and reduce retrenchments. We have MND pump priming with infrastructure projects and, of course, the MCYS and its numerous help schemes.

Sir, I am not diminishing the efforts of our civil servants and union partners. I am however, wondering what the true impact of these efforts are.

Suppose you are the father of an eight-old-year boy who wants to learn how to cycle. Do you line the streets with cushions so that he will not hurt himself if he loses his balance? Do you brace his knees, and every conceivable part of his exposed body with padding? You might, if you were an extremely protective father. But the commonsensical approach would be to let the boy have a go at it himself, and take the knocks and spills as they come. A boy who is mollycoddled is a very different person from one who is physically tough and to take spills without fear and whining. The latter, I think, could be the approach that we take towards helping Singaporeans during tough times.

Recently, I have seen many residents, especially the elderly, come and see me for help at the MPS. The difference is that in the past, many of them would be hesitant to do so and would rely on their children. Today, many see Government help as an entitlement. Something that they should tap on as a first port of call, rather than a last resort.

"I want to spare my children the burden of caring for me," they tell me. I am frankly astonished and dismayed, for

my traditional Confucius values tell me that it is a natural obligation for children to look after their parents, and for the parents to be cared for by their children when they grow old. I would sometimes tell them, "You should let your children care for you, not the state, not because it is a good public policy (although it is), not because society expects it (although it might), but because it is the right thing to do". This is filial piety, one of the most fundamental values of the human race.

Now, it is difficult I think to put forth ethical, foundational arguments like these, in defence of policy issues such as financial assistance, but is this not the bottom of what we all do for society and nation building? The President said that the Government is able to provide well for the people in this recession because it has cared for its finances prudently. He said, "We steered clear of excesses during the boom years. We strengthened our revenue base, budgeted within our means and accumulated reserves for a rainy day. We supervised our banks to be prudent, and avoided a credit bubble. When the financial crisis struck, we were in a strong position." Sir, I am very happy at these words and they were true of the Government, but can we say the same of our people?

Have we, as sons and daughters, as responsible parents, steered clear of excesses? Have we worked hard, saved enough and accumulated reserves for a rainy day? Have we taken care of our parents, our families, and become self-reliant, so that in a financial crisis, we do not ask for handouts? Sir, my own view is we have not.

We have become somewhat accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us - they make sure the poor children do not have to pay fees, the needy elderly have enough food, and even well-to-do

children who do not care for their parents, have VWOs to turn to. Sir, I am in a terrible position of making a criticism without having the foggiest idea of what the solution is. Sir, I do not ask the Government to do less - for that would make those in need terribly unhappy. And having seen many of my residents during the MPS - I know that their needs are genuine and I would not want to offer them anything less than what I am doing now.

But at the same time, I do think that our Asian family values and traditional ethics have been somewhat eroded. We have periodic discussions and collective hair-pulling about these issues in Parliament regularly and that explains why my hair is thinning at this stage. We have often said that schools should do more but I think this is something that the school system cannot tackle. I suggest that the families take this up on their own. Teach their children a core curriculum of five key family values, and these values do not have to be the same for all the families - after all we do not value things all the same way. But we ought to ensure that we do stand for something as parents, as a family collectively, and teach these values to our children. In my own family, the Tan value system, for example, would be:

Honesty; (2) Filial Piety; (3) Sincerity; (4) Compassion; and (5) Society above self. These systems are manifested in the things that we do as a family and,

hopefully, will stay with my children when they grow up.

On a national level, I suggest that this is something that the National Family Council can take up. For example, organise a campaign to get people to write down their family values; showcase how different families are living their “dreams” and being true to their values.

Sir, this, for me, is one way to balance the Government's doing more to cushion people against future shocks, and the people learning resilience and coping mechanisms on their own. Sir, it will take a long time to achieve this in any society but, as the familiar saying goes, a thousand mile journey starts with the first step. If we start this journey today, we will reach the destination some day. When that day comes, we would have built a resilient society with cohesive families.

Sir, I would like now to continue my speech in Mandarin on the need for creativity, innovation in a new world order.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] In the President's policy speech, the President spoke comprehensively and concisely on the topic of economics, research and development, education, training, politics, diplomacy, internal security, racial and religious harmony, as well as the challenges ahead and how we face up to the challenges ahead of us.

Due to time constraints, I will focus on the discussion of the topic “Innovative Mindset”. As for other topics relating to economics, politics, education, training etc, please allow other Members to approach the subjects. Why do we talk about “Innovative Mindset”? Singapore has achieved success over the last forty years, and to a large extent, it is a result of our investment in human capital, and boundless creativity. Innovation is the

main factor that propels the society forward. A small country like Singapore needs to depend on innovation to stand out, even a big country require continuous innovation to drive growth in all areas of development.

Last November, I accompanied the Prime Minister during his visit to China. When PM paid a courtesy call on the Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao, Premier Wen summed up Sino-Singapore ties in three words. These three words are: “Friendship, Cooperation, Innovation”. China has a population of 1.3 billion people; there are many talents as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in China. When both leaders met for the discussion, the Chinese Premier deemed “Innovation” as an important foundation for the Sino-Singapore bilateral relationship. This showed clearly that China think highly of the progress achieved by Singapore in this area; it also highlighted innovation as an important foundation for the development of big nations.

“Innovative Mindset” may sound abstract. But, it is not beyond reach. Not only new or unprecedented ideas and thoughts are considered innovative. Many old things can be improved and changed into fashionable and popular new products, so as to have a new role in the new era, and to lead the new fashion.

Let me use two examples to illustrate how can we apply innovation on obsolete ideas and things, so as to restore its prestige and radiance, and become fashionable for a time.

The first example is regarding a well-known Chinese Professor named “Yu Dan”, who gives lecture at a forum on the analects of Confucius “Lun Yu”. The Professor made her explanation lively and easy to understand, and so tens of thousands of people were attracted by her talk, they were brought back more than two thousand years ago to the ancient

time, to learn about the profound central thinking of Kong Zi.

The second example is about a very famous author in China named “Dang Nian Ming Yue”, and his series of books on the history of the Ming Dynasty titled “Ming Chao Na Xie Shi’er”. He used a very lively and interesting way of writing and turned the three hundred years of history during Ming Dynasty into a TV drama series, and it captures the interest of hundreds and thousands of readers.

I tried to read history books on Ming Dynasty written in biographical style, for example, “Ming Shi” (History of Ming Dynasty) and “Ming Shi Lu” (Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty). However, after reading only two lines and my eyes became very heavy, it is so dull and dry that I could not continue reading.

But, last week, when I open the first novel in the series “Ming Chao Na Xie Shi’er”, I read only one paragraph and I cannot help but continue reading page after page, and I finished the whole book in just three days. With 5 million copies published, it is said to be the most popular history textbook in China over the past thirty years.

What is the success factor of “Yu Dan” and “Dang Nian Ming Yue”? Their success lies in their ability to adopt an innovative method of addressing the audience, and dramatic way of writing, it has turned solemn and dull philosophy and history into the most superb and interesting source material of literature and art, it allows the audience and readers to explore modern sensory experience by stepping into the realm and level of the ancients. “Innovative Mindset” and “Dare to Break Through” is the foundation of their success.

I hope that the Government, despite continuous efforts to paying attention to research and development, it could also provide a favorable environment to

encourage Singaporeans to break through traditions and old patterns, and to carry out a re-thinking reform movement. If Singaporeans dare to innovate, dare to break through, regardless whether it is new or old materials, I think we can change it, make over and create, give it a new way of presentation, a new elegant demeanour and outstanding image, then I believe Singapore will rise to a brand new level of “Everyday is a new day, and everyday is an innovative day.” This is the survival technique for Singapore while facing competition of globalization in the 21st century.

Speaker, Sir, I fully support the President’s policy speech.

3.08 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me an early opportunity to speak on this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the human race is a marvellous creation that is built to thrive and re-invent itself in times of crises. Many inventions and good practices have emerged from the history of human crises. History has shown that civilisations have made tremendous progress because they boldly tackled the challenges of the day, demonstrating not only courage but creativity and a determination to succeed. But the flip side is also true. Crises have been the bane of civilisations who chose to remain in their comfort zones. Throughout history, the darkest side of the human race has often emerged during a crisis. So, what good or bad will come out of this current crisis? As I reflect on the President’s Address, three key themes came to mind, and these relate to the Government’s role in:

fostering and stimulating economic growth;

promoting free and open markets; and

developing a skilled workforce to give us a competitive edge.

All over the world, governments and business leaders were caught unprepared for the current global financial crisis. The crisis has prompted unprecedented levels of government intervention in businesses around the world. In an era where the role of the government has come under increasing scrutiny, the crisis has highlighted the importance of the role of the government in addressing global and systemic risks as well as fostering and stimulating economic growth. Because of the scale and extensiveness of the crisis, governments have been forced to intervene, some more promptly and boldly than others.

I believe that our Government acted with speed and agility when the Finance Minister unveiled the S$20.5 billion Resilience Package in his Budget Speech in early February this year. Since then, many countries around the world have announced fiscal packages to stimulate their economies or directly intervened to resuscitate ailing corporations and industries.

I recall that during our Parliamentary debate on the 2009 Budget, the questions raised centred on whether the Budget was effective and whether it was of the right size to address the crisis. We also debated on whether it is correct to tap on past reserves to fund part of the Resilience Package. After many days of robust discussions, we agreed to endorse the Resilience Package.

At that time, I spoke of the need for “off budget” measures to supplement, modify and tweak policies, both existing and those introduced in the Budget. I mentioned the need to do so swiftly and

decisively throughout the coming months. I believed then, as I do now, that our ability to pay for the Budget initiatives out of our own resources will give us a first mover advantage and will stand us in good stead when the storm has passed over, as it inevitably will.

In the past few months, the crisis has deepened considerably both globally and in Singapore. All over the world, governments have lowered their initial GDP growth forecasts. Unemployment rates have spiralled in many countries and there are lingering fears that a H1N1 pandemic may prolong the downturn. Yes, we hear of green shoots appearing but the rejuvenation of the ailing US economy will take years to achieve, not months. Yes, we hear of signs of recovery in some countries, but the general consensus is that the rebound in most economies is most likely to be a prolonged U-shape rather than a V-shape recovery.

Our own GDP growth forecast has been revised from the low range of -5% to -2% to the even lower range of -9% to -6%. At this stage, if the global economy worsens, we cannot discount the possibility that we may plunge into the unfamiliar negative double digit territory. Our Job Credits Scheme and SPUR programme have been successful. Notwithstanding this, as it stands, we still face the possibility of a second wave of retrenchment as many companies are still struggling to stay afloat due to plunging margins and empty pipelines in the horizon.

Against this backdrop, I would like to seek the Government’s view on whether it would consider off-budget measures or stimulus packages and, if need be, tap on our past reserves again. At S$20.5 billion, the Resilient Package we adopted is no small amount. But then again, in today’s environment, a billion dollar no longer sounds as staggering as the pre-crisis days. I know that it was only three

months ago that we last approved the Budget. But to many people in the business community, these have been the longest three months they have had to endure.

With this in mind, I would like to ask if there are triggering points before off-budget measures are introduced? By triggering points, I refer to indicators such as sub 10% GDP growth or when the retrenchment number crosses a certain threshold. The reason that I am asking this is because many of us would like to understand the Government’s perception of how bad is “bad” and when can we expect more assistance. I am sure that our forward-looking Government has already considered this. May I request the Minister for Finance to share with us the Government’s view of this matter. What are the different scenarios that we are planning for and how can we all work together more collaboratively in tackling the challenges ahead?

Secondly, I would like to urge the Government to actively promote free and open markets. In his address, the President highlighted the danger of economic protectionism that could emerge from the new world order. I cannot agree with him more.

Industries in countries from Australia to Chile are demanding special assistance from their own governments. And why not? Economic nationalism, in a world of local politics, has numerous advantages over a free market.

In Japan, economic nationalism takes the form of a special relationship between regulatory officials, automakers, and suppliers. Japan rarely refuses a request from its Big Three automakers.

In China, the government provides "loans" to various corporate enterprises - loans that, some will argue, may never be repaid.

In countries like Germany, nationalisation takes the form of advantageous national health care policies that allow local companies to compete favourably against foreign entities burdened with such costs.

In Russia, economic nationalism takes the form of aggressive actions regarding areas the government sees as strategic, whatever that means.

Most recently, in the US, the huge economic stimulus package limited certain projects to US-based suppliers. It is incredible to hear the US President announcing that the US Government wants its citizens to buy American cars first, ignoring the fact that Toyota, Diamler and many other manufacturers make many of their vehicles in the US. And it is most incredible to hear that President Obama has declared that Chrysler now has a competitive advantage because its warranties for cars are "backed by the US government."

In November last year, at the first G20 summit in Washington, the leaders pledged that they would refrain from raising new barriers to trade in goods and services or imposing new export restrictions. Not only has this pledge turned out to be sheer rhetoric, but since that Summit in Washington, 17 of the G20 countries adopted a total of 47 measures restricting trade.

True economic nationalists believe global commerce is not a win-win proposition but a contest in which there is clearly a victor and a loser. Above all, their mission is to protect capital and jobs in their own backyard. In other words, they have a two-fold mission: trade protectionism and human capital protectionism.

As jobs and livelihoods disappear, workers -- in an increasing state of panic

- are looking for help. The Mayor of the city of Lansing in Michigan -- one of America's countless manufacturing communities -- contends that free trade has sold out the American worker. As a local factory shut down and 300 jobs were eliminated, Mayor Bernero wrote: "The free traders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: how will Americans buy those goods when they don't even have a pay check that covers their mortgage?"

In other countries, the response was more dramatic:

British strikers, quoting the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s ill-chosen words back at him, are demanding that he provide “British jobs for British workers". If implemented, this will lead to a mass reverse migration of workers.

On a January day this year in France, more than 1 million people stayed away from work and marched for jobs and wages; and in Greece police used tear gas to control farmers calling for even more subsidies.

The proponents of free trade were outraged that the US stimulus package contained the wording "Buy American." But it leads to the root of the dilemma. If French or Australia or UK or US taxpayers are going into debt to pay for their nation’s recovery, it is easy to argue that those Euros or pounds or dollars create jobs for their fellow citizens.

Protectionism will affect all countries but clearly, small, resource scarce and export dependant countries like Singapore have the most to lose in these trade wars. Our reliance on exports to access capital, to drive growth and provide employment for our people would be hardest hit should government move to restrict trade and limit foreign workers as a way of surviving the global crisis.

It is with this in mind that I urge our government to actively promote free and

open markets and at the same time resist the temptation for human capital nationalism.

Our Government should make it a priority to weave into the agenda of key forums such as ASEAN, ASEAN Plus and APEC, joint statements or declarations to resist economic protectionism. Whilst this may not be a priority for some economies in this region, I urge the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry to take pains to patiently and repeatedly remind their counterparts of the dangers of protectionism and the importance of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) agreement. This economic crisis is a test for ASEAN solidarity and if ASEAN countries reneged on the AFTA principles, the future does not augur well for this region.

While the world’s multilateral institutions are often described as dysfunctional, these institutions are indispensable because demands to shore up global governance will only increase. The World Trade Organisation, World Bank manage government-to-government disputes, thus enabling international political and economic tensions to be resolved on a “rules based’ approach, rather than which country has the greatest economic or political power. Here again, Singapore should work with other like minded countries to empower multilateral institutions such as the UN, the World Trade Organisation, World Bank and the IMF to act more and more as real global bodies rather than a collection of national interests.

In today’s extreme conditions, which are beyond the control of any one organisation, the only way to mitigate risk and realise opportunity is through collaboration with many different stakeholder groups and sharing better information about critical business drivers. Governments need to adjust to this downside of globalisation and provide global leadership, supported

by a more effective system of global governance than ever before. I believe Singapore has an opportunity in “punching above its weight” in formulating and participating this new global order.

Sir, the long-term supply of key talent depends more on education systems than on business cycles, and a recent global survey of over a thousand CEOs has revealed that many global CEOs do not believe governments are doing enough to create a skilled labour force. For example, despite rising unemployment in the US and the UK, the percentage of global CEOs who remain concerned or very concerned about the availability of key skills is 43% and 40% respectively, not far below the global average. Only 17% of US CEOs and 18% of UK CEOs agree that the government has been effective in creating a skilled labour force. In contrast, one of the lowest rates of concern about key skills (25%) occurs in China and Hong Kong, where CEOs top the global table (43%) in believing their domestic governments are effectively creating a skilled labour force. Still, this means the majority of CEOs in every economy do not agree that governments are effective in creating a skilled workforce.

Sir, I see an opportunity here for Singapore. I am delighted that the President in his address has made it clear that Education is our best investment in Singapore’s future. The announcement that we will have two new universities and that our aim is to have 30% of our students admitted to State supported universities will give us a competitive edge as we continue to build our knowledge intensive economy. It will enhance Singapore’s competitiveness as an investment destination because apart from good infrastructure, a stable political and regulatory environment, the availability of an adequate pool of talented and skilled workers is important to attract global investors. Our emphasis on science

and technology, engineering and the life sciences and our collaboration with world class institutions will give our educational institutions the depth and branding which are so important in today’s competitive world.

In Singapore, we have the additional challenge of a declining birth rate which means that we are not even replacing our population, so the President reminded us that “we must also bring new people with diverse skills and experience into Singapore, to contribute to our economy and society and help grow our population over the long term.”

In his address, the President has also set the tight right tone when he expressed his hope that “Singaporeans will appreciate how we benefit from the contributions of non-citizens and new citizens, and welcome them into our midst”.

But the issue of keeping jobs for locals at the expense of foreign talent is not always clear to the ordinary man in the street. It is a highly emotive issue, especially when people perceive that their livelihood is threatened by the continued presence of expatriates.

According to the Department of Statistics, almost a quarter of Singapore’s population was estimated to be non-resident foreigners last year. This is not surprising as there are many jobs that Singaporeans alone cannot fill, especially in the high-tech and high value-add industries where foreign talent are needed. By engaging foreign talent, companies in Singapore are able to increase their competitiveness. Unlike the lower skill based foreign workers, these foreign talent will help to generate or retain jobs within Singapore. Hence, conversely, the discrimination against foreign talent will erode the competitive edge of companies in Singapore. In the

long-run, if companies in Singapore are not competitive, chances are that they will relocate and we will then run the risk of losing more jobs.

Our resource-scarce economy needs foreign talent to help us compete in the global premier league, generate more growth and create more jobs. I can understand and accept a “Singapore jobs for Singaporeans” policy if our role is merely to manage the current downturn. But we are also called to plan for the future and position ourselves to seize the opportunities when the economy rebounds.

Hence, as long as fostering economic growth is an integral part of our mission, we will have to regard our foreign talent as key stakeholders of Singapore Inc. In times of crisis, if we continue to take care of them, they will notice the difference. Some may even decide to take up permanent residence and citizenship in Singapore.

I would like to remind this House that during the current economic crisis, not all companies have stopped hiring. Crisis times provide great opportunities for rich picking of good talents at more affordable compensation levels. Hence, some companies have hired key talent from overseas and from distressed entities.

Like these companies, Singapore needs to continue to attract foreign talent. Getting rid of foreign talent may be an immediate way to improve your bottomline. But it will be disastrous in the long-run, especially if it is done indiscriminately. Sir, I would like to urge my distinguished colleagues in this House and all employers in Singapore to resist the mindset of “Singapore jobs for Singapore workers”. I do not see this as a problem today but the temptation to adopt a nationalistic mindset will become stronger as the retrenchment numbers increase as they are likely to over the next few

months. Some may find it more palatable to retrench foreign workers first rather than Singaporeans, regardless of the merit of the individual. It will not be easy to explain to members of your constituency who have just lost their jobs on why we still need foreign talent. Hence, it is a test of the character for the members of this House to remain steadfast on our position on attracting and retaining foreign talent.

Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to conclude with the observation that governments throughout the world are now preoccupied with addressing the current recession, and rightly so. However, with so much focus on the current crisis, it would be easy to dwell on the past and the present but forget that at some point in time we will emerge from this recession. A good and strong government is one which acts as a runway for future growth, navigating their economy through the current troubled waters while charting the way ahead. I am, therefore, pleased to note that the Government has already started planning for the future and this will put us in a good position to seize the opportunities that emerge when the economy rebounds. As the President has very aptly put it, “this adversity is another opportunity” for us to emerge stronger as a nation and “shine as a country”.

To emerge stronger, should the need arise, we must be bold enough to introduce off-budget measures even if it means tapping on our past reserves again. To shine as a country, we must actively campaign for free trade in the regional and international arenas and resist the tendency towards human capital nationalism.

On this note, I would like to thank the President for his timely address and reminder to both focus on the present and plan for the future.

Mr Speaker Sir, thank you.

Order, I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.26 pm until 3.50 pm

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, the momentous events of the past 12 to 18 months in the economic, political, military and public health spheres have been unprecedented in scale and ferocity. What shape will the post crisis world take when all these events are “over,” if one can conceive of a time when all this is well and truly “over?”

The business consultancy McKinsey describes the emerging future as the “new normal.” Whatever clever term one uses, the idea is the same – business, society, political life will no longer be “as usual” in the aftermath of these events.

As a statement of priorities and focus for the new parliament term, I applaud the government’s effort to navigate the treacherous waters of the new world to ensure that we will survive and thrive. But one key element of the new world is its heightened level of uncertainty. The financial crisis and H1N1 emerged unexpectedly as much as the good fortune, coupled, of course with the determination in the re-capture of fugitive Mas Selamat in Johor after a lengthy quest.

Planning can only go so far, because long tail risks and black swans always spring surprises. Therefore, government’s policy initiatives must always have a

dimension of equipping the country and the population with the skills, tools & flexibility to be nimble and open – nimble to change strategy if circumstances so warrant, and openness to embark on new directions.

With this backdrop, Sir, I wish to mention three things, each prefaced with a “P”, that is the three "Ps", but not the private, public and the people sectors that we know of.

1) Stay PLUGGED into globalization

Globalization has been stymied by events. Circuit breakers will be in place to prevent another contagion. There are protectionist pressures building up.

Globalization and competitive markets remain the best way forward to enrich societies and better the lives of millions, despite all its faults which the current crisis has made amply clear. I believe that Singapore will never capitulate or turn its back on market-oriented global economic system. Nor should we.

But other countries may, and this begs the question of how we should respond to such protectionist messures or anti-market moves. I support the clear statement in the Addendum to the President’s Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we will continue to engage in multilateral and bilateral relations to promote economic cooperation and resist protectionism in the face of the global economic downturn.

One aspect of this globalization issue is the economic model that has served Singapore well for the past 3 decades. I am talking about the role of MNC’s. Singapore’s economic growth strategy has been underpinned by luring MNCs to create jobs, and it has indeed been a resounding success thus far. Even Opposition Member of Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang agrees with this.

But growing protectionist tendencies -- such as President Obama’s revocation of tax deferment of offshore income for American companies – and over-dependence on MNCs which are often at the mercy of global demand and priorities of their HQs makes our labour market volatile.

It is still a valid growth model, but needs to be tweaked. By the law of large numbers, it is difficult, statistically speaking, to grow our own Singapore MNC’s (except perhaps GLC’s or TLC’s) that can successfully compete in the global arena. Consequently, it will have to be accepted that SME’s will always occupy a lower tier in the economic hierarchy.

Nevertheless, we need to put in even more effort to grow the SME sector which, with some exceptions, still remains largely uncompetitive and weak, but otherwise employ almost 60% of our labour force.

I am pleased that the Ministry of Trade and Industry has, in the Addendum to the President’s Address, stated that the Ministry will step up efforts to help our companies expand in key markets such as China, India and the Middle East and that SPRING will work with SMEs to raise their productivity. In line with this, Temasek may need to withdraw some of its reach in domestic TLC’s and take on a more catalytic role in seeding promising SME’s to help them grow. This could be a useful way to deploy some of the 30% spelled out in its new “10:20:30:40” strategy.

As an aside, perhaps, it is timely to consider the setting up of another Economic Review Committee (ERC) similar to the one in 2001 that plotted the current economic strategy in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis, Sept 11 and the dot com bust. Perhaps, the same old issues may be dug up, but it is still a worthwhile exercise to

have a broad based dialogue with stakeholders to think through and plan ahead in this highly uncertain world.

While I understand SM Goh’s perspective that the present crisis has its roots in the west, and does not negate Singapore’s proven economic strategy, I do believe that the landscape may shift dramatically in a form that is hard to predict, and we need, not just civil servants, but also, the participation of a broad swathe of society – private sector industrialists, academics, etc. -- to formulate new growth strategies in the totally different world order.

2) A PLACE for All

In the latest Worldwide Quality of Living Survey by human resource consultancy Mercer, Singapore is rated as Asia’s most liveable city. It is also rated to have the best infrastructure in the world.

But for Singapore to be a first class home that allows all citizens full opportunities to achieve their aspirations, for it to be a PLACE FOR ALL,--- it is not just about the physical environment. As Singaporeans become more affluent and plugged into the global community, they would like to know if Singapore has a place for them, regardless of their economic status, educational, social or demographic profile. Singapore needs to have the “bigness of heart” that tolerates, embraces and even celebrates differences.

In this light, MOE’s announcement that it will be setting up the Singapore Institute of Applied Technology to offer more foreign degree programmes for Polytechnic students and a fourth university as well as the possibility of a third medical school to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to realize their aspirations is clearly another step forward to making Singapore a PLACE FOR ALL. In fact, this announcement has come none too soon, having been discussed and debated for more than a decade since 2000 and with the MOE

blowing hot and cold over the idea of a 4th university.

In the meantime, many polytechnic students and aspiring doctors have flocked to overseas universities each year because of the limited number of places in our three publicly funded universities.

The irony is that many of these who did not make the cut for our local universities did very well in overseas universities with a number being offered jobs and staying put in these countries. Meanwhile, our hospitals employ foreign trained medical doctors to plug the gap.

Every year, we have top quality students with impeccable results that fail to make the grade into our local medical school and seek admission into foreign universities if their families can afford the overseas education. I had a resident, a divorcee, whose daughter had straight As in her GCE "A" levels but could not get into our local medical school.

She sought and subsequently gained admission into a UK university but could not get a student visa as she did not have the requisite deposit to show that she could afford the university fees and living expenses. Mother and daughter had sought my advice as to whether they could appeal to the British High Commission for approval of the student visa on the grounds that the mother will be turning 55 years soon and would be able to pledge the CPF she can withdraw then for her daughter’s school fees.

It cannot be denied that such experiences can lead to disenchantment and disgruntled citizens who feel that there is no place for them in Singapore.

Whilst these latest announcement to our education landscape are indeed welcome, I would urge the Ministry to exercise more responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of our Singaporean youths for higher education and for more pathways to upgrade themselves. The

Ministry should constantly review the appropriateness and the adequacy of the programmes offered.

Already, there are concerns that with the drastic reduction in the expected intake of undergraduates at the fourth University from an estimated full capacity of 12,000 in previous reports to just 4,000, the 30% university admission target for each cohort by 2025 cannot be met. As per MOE, some of the shortfall could be met by the degree programmes secured by the SIAT.

But this is only estimated to be about 3,500 per year for both full time and part time students by 2013. Senior Writer, Sandra Davie even questioned in this morning’s ST, if this targeted intake, which will raise the poly cohort participation rate in universities from the current 15% to 20%, is adequate to cater to the university aspirations of the polytechnic students themselves.

Indeed, this has to be monitored closely to allow as many deserving students as possible to gain admission into a state funded university. So long as academic standards are rigorously maintained, we should not fear an oversupply of graduates although that could occur at low points of the employment cycle. More importantly, having a more educated populace will raise the overall tone of our society.

The recent AWARE saga also brought to mind that for everyone to feel that they have a place in Singapore, all groups need to practice tolerance, restraint and mutual respect in order to preserve national harmony.

Given Singapore's openness to values, ideas and lifestyles from abroad and the influence of the new media, the AWARE saga is but a foretaste of the increasingly complex and pronounced challenges to social cohesion that we will

be confronted with and which needs to be managed dexterously.

Sir, I appeal for members of the public to practise restraint and decency in cyberspace which has become the new battleground in our society. Whether it is the AWARE saga, or the issue of NMPs, we should not allow such debate to turn into a crusade against others who are different or hold different views. These can easily deepen divisions and be taken advantage of by various groups for their own selfish ends. On issues where we can find no common ground, Singaporeans must learn to look beyond

these issues to the common good of the community as we have done so in the past. As an old saying goes, "In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity."

President Nathan has also hinted at a process of political evolution which Singapore will go through. Some are speculating that this could relate among others, to the size of the GRCs or the number of NMPs. Regardless of the form of change, and whether this will satisfy those in our midst with a more liberal bent, the overarching issue that keeps cropping up is how politically aware we as a nation are, and related to that, how robust is our system of politics. Granted, there will always be the perennial bread and butter issues that occupy the attention of most people, but what of our young? To them belongs the future of our society. I daresay, in my role as REACH chairman, that I have seen a growing political maturity and vigorous and no holds barred debate on issues of the day. Perhaps in cyberspace, such a debate is easier to achieve because of the perceived safety of anonymity. But it was as though the political awareness lay dormant until unleashed by a topic that sparks it life.

The discussion forum of our REACH website has seen active and vigorous debates on

diverse topics ranging from

the mundane electricity prices to the YOG, Budget 2009 and, most

recently, the NMP nominations. We are heartened that Singaporeans are increasingly demonstrating that they are not an apathetic lot, are willing to engage the Government and do want their voices to be heard. We certainly do want to encourage such active citizenry among many more Singaporeans both via new media and conventional platforms, out of which could emerge young men and women to lead Singapore.

The second issue of robustness of our political system is perhaps best represented, in the extreme, and as brought up by an ST Forum contributor Poh Lee Heng, by the difference between India and China. India is perceived to be messy, but democratic. China is viewed as less tolerant of dissent, but efficient. He notes that he personally would rather live with a certain amount of instability due to political differences, in exchange for political robustness. Indeed, he seems to favour the Indian model as against the Chinese model. But two recent incidents indicate that both seem to be starting on tentative steps in the opposite directions. India's elections was a resounding win for the Congress Party and PM Manmoham Singh's reforms and support for more decisive leadership, while the release of the late Zhao Zhiyang's Memoirs seem to indicate that there is a growing dissent movement in China's top echelons. Where will these trends lead? It is hard to say, but we need to be cognisant of them, as we chart the path ahead for ourselves.

There is also an implicit assumption in Poh Lee Heng's comment that a system of political robustness cannot be put in place within a single party. That assumption remains untested. In fact, history has shown this to be otherwise in Singapore whereby any accounts the PAP has governed ably and brought growth and progress to Singapore over the last 50

years. Identifying each generation of leaders and developing its own checks and balances. From a historical perspective, the many variations that Singapore's parliamentary system has undergone - from elected presidency, to GRCs, to NMPs, etc. - indicate that we will continue to experiment, but in a cautious way. The limitations of our population and size imply that, unlike USA, we do not have the maneuver room to embark on bold political experimentation without risking everything that has been painstakingly built up over the past few decades.

As SM Goh noted over the weekend, any changes to our political system must not end up after the election with a weak, hung Parliament resulting in an unstable coalition Government that Singapore with all its inherent challenges can ill afford. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that policy planning has its own inherent blindspot. Any plan is premised on assumptions and the assumptions may turn out to be badly wrong. In the final analysis, we need to have built-in flexibility to change course if there is a need to.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the President for his sober, yet reassuring speech. The President reminded us that the job situation is still grim. He also reminded us that when the storm clears, we cannot expect the world to be as before. The withdrawn global landscape will be less benign and predictable. It will be a challenging environment for Singapore.

Sir, this is an important message for all Singaporeans. In a survey conducted by AC Nielsen recently, Singaporeans listed job security as their biggest worry. Singaporeans have reasons to be concerned. Many unionised companies that we engage with, particularly in the manufacturing sector, were not able to

confirm with any certainty what all these will be like beyond the middle of this year. So whilst there were a lot of excitement over "green shoots", we continue to be weary of the "brown weeds" that may confront us in the second half of the year and it is important that we prepare workers for the long road to recovery.

Sir, with more than 5 million Americans losing their jobs since the start of this crisis and with falling wages, rising unemployment benefit claims, poorer pension and the credit squeeze, consumer spending is expected to remain weak in the US and we all know that recovery in the manufacturing sector depends a great deal on a sustained recovery of American consumer confidence. Hence, even as we continue to review our economic strategies, job creation should continue to remain the key tenet of an economic and development policy. And, most certainly, in this crisis, ensuring that jobless Singaporeans quickly find jobs, should continue to be our priority. We must prevent a situation where the number of our long-term unemployed increases, as research has shown that the longer a person is out of work, the more difficult it is for him to secure employment and the danger of the person being deskilled and becoming unemployable intensifies.

Sir, the situation is also not improving globally. In his report to the ILO conference entitled "Tackling the global jobs crisis" which will be debated in June this year, Juan Somavia, the ILO Director-General has urged governments to adopt a global jobs pact. According to him, based on current trends and ILO's monitoring of labour markets, the worst-case scenario which it had earlier forecasted that global unemployment will rise to more than 15 million is becoming a reality. The ILO believes that the world is looking at a deep and prolonged global jobs crisis which will last for the next six to eight

years and this would have serious social implications.

Sir, since the start of the recession, there have been a lot of discussion among economies and more recently, even the Asian Development Bank have suggested that Asia needs to revisit its export-driven growth model which is highly dependent on consumer spending in the US. We know that Singapore has a very small domestic market and boosting domestic consumption will not have a significant impact on our GDP. Hence, we have to continue exporting our products to the world and look for new markets. But the recession has also exposed the vulnerability of economies that are dependent on the US and exports as key drivers of growth.

The Prime Minister mentioned recently that a group is currently reviewing our economic strategies. I think Singaporeans would welcome more information about the work of this group, its terms of reference and when it is targetted to complete its work and make known its recommendations. If I could suggest, the Government should also share the progress made by this group when it is timely, as this would go some way towards allaying the fears and concerns of Singaporeans over the state and general direction of our economy.

Sir, I welcome the MOM's (Ministry of Manpower) focus on developing a globally competitive workforce. This is indeed Singapore's distinct comparative advantage as countries can duplicate infrastructure, systems, programmes, machinery and equipment, but the real difference is the value that resides in people and how we can convert that to competitive advantage. The NTUC has been working closely with many companies to put workers on the SPUR programme. This is a win-win strategy as workers acquire new capabilities while companies continue to keep their skilled

workers. I must also commend the Government for being responsive to our calls for change when it increased the absentee payroll, as this would help more companies train more PMETs who earn higher pay. Companies that we work with welcomed this move as we have seen in this recession that more professionals are affected.

Sir, I also urge the MOM to think beyond just the current downturn and to have a more comprehensive strategic training blueprint for our workers to prepare them for the longer term needs of the economy and to meet global demands. For instance, what workforce attributes do we need in order to remain globally competitive in a completely changed world environment? How can we help workers, not only to remain hardworking and disciplined, but also to be innovative and creative in their work so that they can become more productive, add greater value and earn better wages? Our workers cannot be globally competitive if we have weak management with backward human resource practices and poor employment conditions that do not help to bring out the best in people. So I support the need to build globally leading workplaces and I look forward to hearing from MOM what measures will be put in place to strengthen the quality and standards at our workplaces and what are the outcomes it hopes to achieve.

Sir, I support the need to calibrate the balance between the foreign and local workforce to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term. It is important that our foreign manpower management policy does not remain static, but should instead take into consideration the state of the economy and jobs situation. I hope that this would lead to some kind of a review of the existing quotas of foreign workers which was set at a time when we were experiencing strong economic and employment growth. However, the situation today is vastly different as

unemployment has gone up and there is weaker job creation. There are now so many foreign workers, even in the services sector, that Singaporeans are beginnning to feel squeezed out.

One danger that we must also guard against is the hollowing out of skills among our local population which could happen when large numbers of foreign workers occupy jobs in a particular sector and crowd out local workers. This is not, in my view, a healthy situation. Even as we prepare workers to reskill and upgrade, it is important that we also enhance the quality of our jobs as some jobs continue to be so lowly paid with poor benefits that few Singaporeans find them attractive. So I urge the Government to continue with efforts to upgrade existing jobs and to continue to create good quality jobs - a point alluded to also by the President in his speech. A globally leading workplace in my view must also be one which creates decent work, where work is empowering, has respect for workers' rights and the labour laws and there is effective social protection with minimal monthly contributions to the CPF. We should create sustainable jobs that will ensure that workers can earn wages that will enable them to take care of themselves and their families.

But Singaporeans must also be prepared to adjust their expectations and be prepared to work in new sectors or do shift work or work further from home. There are still some sectors where companies continue to find it difficult to recruit workers and it is not uncommon to find the night shifts mended largely by foreigners. Better management of foreign workers will also prevent an oversupply situation, leading to stranded foreign workers without jobs. Poor management of foreign workers will also affect our own image. It was reported recently that the Fujian province authorities had wanted to restrict their workers from working in Singapore because of poor treatment.

The President's call for better integration and acceptance of foreign workers is therefore timely and necessary.

Sir, we should treat foreign workers humanely. The same standards meant for Singaporean workers should be extended to them. Ferrying them in open lorries, which expose them to the weather and the risk of being flung out of the lorry during an accident or sudden jerks, is not humane treatment and will certainly not contribute to the goal of a globally leading workplace outlined by Ministry of Manpower. In a recent incident, as we all know, three workers died as a result of being flung around in the lorry during an accident.

Sir, I welcome the focus in helping Singaporeans to work longer and to enhance income security. Re-employment legislation will be passed in 2012 but, certainly, companies are well advised to start early in putting in place policies and programmes for re-employment. This is an important issue because of our rapidly ageing population. Overseas, especially in the US, more older people are returning to the workforce or deferring retirement. In the US, the number of workers above 55 years has increased but the unemployment rate has also increased. It takes longer for older workers in the US to secure jobs and age discrimination lawsuits have shot up. In fact, a recent survey by an online career site found that 60% of workers over the age of 60 were postponing retirement as the economic downturn had eroded their savings significantly. Those with relevant skills and experience, such as in nursing, find it easier to hold on to their jobs or find new jobs. In fact, the unemployment rate for older workers in the US is still lower than for younger workers. But many older workers have found it necessary to adjust their mindsets, learn new skills and accept a lower pay in order to land jobs. There

are now even special job fairs for older workers in the US. The adjustment has been hardest for the older PMETs because of the higher pay and employment perks but many have had to make the transition. In a newspaper article, a former boss of an interior design company described his experience of attending a job fair as very humbling.

In Singapore, we now see cases of older Singaporeans in their 60s and 70s asking for jobs. The Government has undertaken many efforts to help older workers stay at work and find new work through SPUR, WIS and re-employment initiatives, such as the ADVANTAGE FUND. However, there is a need for both employers and employees to change their mindsets. The Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment has been promoting the message of fair employment to employers. Among the complaints received by TAFEP, age discrimination is still the highest. Employers continue to ask job seekers for their age when they call up for jobs and in application forms even when age is not relevant to the job. Employers should assess job applicants strictly on their merits and not based on their age, race, family status or gender. Older workers have skills, knowledge and experience, a point which many employers would value if they could go beyond the age factor.

On their part, Sir, older workers too need to adopt a flexible mindset towards the types of jobs, conditions and salaries that they are offered. This also applies to their children whom may not want their parents to work in jobs perceived to be less socially desirable.

Work not only provides income but also an important way to stay independent, meet other people and learn new things. Jobs are still available for those willing to adjust and to try something new. I, therefore, urge more companies to tab on the ADVANTAGE FUND to

redesign work and to make them suitable for older workers.

Sir, in his Speech, the President touched on social cohesion and reminded us that our current situation could put stresses on our society and our families. He pointed out that globalisation benefits Singapore tremendously but it also widens income gaps and will continue to put pressure on lower-skilled, less educated workers. This is an important point. Even before this crisis, we have seen the income gap widening. In past financial crisis, employment returned to pre-crisis levels only four to five years after economic recovery on average. This is the experience of most countries.

Wage inequalities increased in several Asian countries following the 1997 crisis. At the Meet-the-People Sessions, we too have seen many more cases of people coming for financial assistance. In many countries, during a recession, workers and the lower income bear the brunt of the crisis. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) itself estimated that 200 million workers could be pushed into extreme poverty as a result of the current global crisis. We are fortunate that in Singapore, there are many schemes in place to help companies keep workers and to directly help families in need. We need to constantly review these measures to ensure that these are adequate and effective in helping families.

Therefore, Sir, I welcome the measures announced to upgrade education including opening more university places for Polytechnic students as well as the provision of S$68 million to assist students from low-income families. This is a very tangible way of helping low-income families to move up the ladder and to break the poverty cycle. I have heard from many schools that the number of students seeking financial assistance has increased, showing that there are now more families

in distress and, therefore, these additional funds is certainly a welcomed move.

Our low-income workers are also grateful for initiatives such as the WIS, especially the special payment that was made this year. Whilst it has been beneficial, one common complaint among workers is that the WIS penalises those who are hardworking as overtime is included for purposes of determining eligibility. This is unfair as the more hardworking a worker is, he is penalised, whereas his less hardworking colleagues get to enjoy the WIS. I would like to urge the Ministry to review this. Alternatively, the Ministry could also consider increasing the salary level for coverage - $1,500-$1,800 - so that more low-income workers will benefit. Or it could consider keeping the $1,500 but based payment on the family's income per capita, just like other schemes.

The WIS, Sir, is an important strategy as it helps to enhance the value of low-paying jobs and encourage people to continue working. But at the same time, we have also seen increasing numbers of Singaporeans who are not able to work because of health reasons, which will be exacerbated because of improvements in our healthcare system. The financial needs of such Singaporeans would increasingly demand a different treatment, as existing schemes which are short-term and which tie aid to work may not be very feasible. I, therefore, urge the Government to continue to pay attention to the needs of such Singaporeans, so that they too can benefit from our progress.

In conclusion, Sir, I support the call to strengthen tripartism which has been a distinct comparative advantage for Singapore and has helped us to weather previous recessions, and the current crisis is no exception. First company to embark on SPUR, for example, is an unionised company, which just shows how quickly we can move and make things happen once there is tripartite consensus. I am

confident that with our strong tripartite relationship, Singapore will not only be able to get out of this crisis but will be able to do so without disrupting our social cohesion, and in a manner that is beneficial not only to companies but also to our workers.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

4.23 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

It has been about four months since the Budget debate. Since then, the economic picture has gone from a despairing consensus view of doom and gloom for the world's economies, to the ongoing mixed signals of “green shoots” of growth struggling to overcome “brown weeds” of contraction. It seems that there may now be some room for cautious optimism. While the economy may still take a turn for the worse, nevertheless, things do not seem to have gotten as dire as some had feared. And that is something that we all need to give some thanks for.

Now that there is some greater clarity on the economic situation, people have started looking to a potential upturn. The Finance Minister, in his Budget speech in January, had already mentioned the need to position Singapore to take advantage of the inevitable recovery. That was wise and demonstrated much foresight.

Nevertheless, the global environment has changed. Overseas regulatory changes pose challenges to the continued success of Singapore's economic model. For instance, the US is currently considering tax changes that could eliminate

the advantages of our tax regime for US MNCs, directly threatening our model of economic growth which is heavily reliant on attracting MNCs to invest and set up shop here. Similarly, recent international pressure on jurisdictions like Singapore to subscribe to OECD-prescribed standards of banking secrecy could adversely impact the private wealth management industry here. I hope that the Government will clarify its position on these issues, and its proposed responses, if any.

At the same time, Singapore continues to struggle to produce homegrown world-beating private enterprises with global reach and global profiles. The other so-called Asian tigers have all succeeded in doing so - but we can still only point to the same few examples, like Singapore Airlines, most, or all, of which remain Temasek-linked companies. This is a striking symbol of our ongoing struggle to develop indigenous entrepreneurs. We need to fundamentally re-engineer our economy to solve this problem, and I look forward to more radical and innovative proposals from the Government on this, embodying the “fresh rethinking and creative answers” mentioned by the President.

Sir, the President also said, “Sustaining economic growth will always be a high priority.” It is heartening to hear the President acknowledging even implicitly that economic growth is not the only priority and it is not the highest priority. One important non-economic priority highlighted by the President was the evolution of our political system. As he said, “Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals, and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”

The Senior Minister has set out three fundamental principles for these changes: firstly, they must be fair to all contesting parties and not be biased in favour of any

party; secondly, they must result in a strong and effective Government, and not a weak coalition Government; and thirdly, they must facilitate representation for diverse views in Parliament, including Opposition views.

Sir, I have three comments on these principles laid down by the Senior Minister. Firstly, it seems to me that these three principles implicitly accept that fairness in the electoral system is critical for its legitimacy, and also that it is in the interest of Singapore to have a diversity of views in Parliament, including Opposition views. I applaud the Senior Minister, and the Government, for taking this stance. The rules must be fair, and must be seen by all Singaporeans as being fair, for the electoral system to have the necessary legitimacy and for the elected Government of the day to have the moral authority to rule.

My second comment is that any principles that we seek to apply to the electoral system must be limited to principles on the ground rules and the processes and procedures for elections. These principles should not seek to prescribe outcomes in Parliamentary representation, which should be determined through the ballot box.

Taking the second principle, about the system resulting in a strong and effective Government, I would agree with it to the extent that it argues against pure proportional representation. But we need to understand, and to accept, that even in a pure first-past-the-post system, it is possible to have an outcome where no single party wins an absolute majority, thereby necessitating a coalition government.

We should also remain open to the possibility of a hybrid system, where the majority of seats are determined by a first-past-the-post system, but with a limited number of seats allocated by way

of proportional representation. Such a system would be consonant with the Senior Minister's third principle of facilitating diverse views in Parliament, and would do so in a manner based on voting patterns, which makes it more consistent with democratic principles than a scheme like the Nominated MP scheme.

My third and final comment, Sir, is that these principles should be applicable to the system as a whole, and not just to the changes that will be unveiled this week. These are important principles that go to the fundamentals of our system and hence should permeate the entire system. Fair and just changes tagged onto a system viewed as lacking in legitimacy would not save the system itself.

Before we go into the changes themselves, we should first examine why we are seeking to change the political system. The President has explained that it needs to evolve, to respond to changes in circumstances and goals. I think globalisation may have made our longstanding problem of political apathy and disengagement among Singaporeans so critical, that we now have no choice but to squarely address them.

Why is it a problem that Singaporeans are apathetic about and disengaged from the political process? To begin with, Singapore is, and must be, fundamentally for Singaporeans. That being so, Singaporeans have to be responsible for shaping the Singapore story. We cannot leave it to anyone else to do so. And to shape the story, Singaporeans need to participate in politics.

We can import workers and professionals - construction workers, domestic workers, nurses, IT professionals, engineers, bankers, even CEOs, but we cannot import our politicians and our leaders.

We are an immigrant nation, but we are also a sovereign nation. We can take advice from foreign advisers and

consultants, but only we ourselves are capable of truly understanding the unique challenges facing our country and making the right decisions for Singapore. The destiny of Singapore has to lie in the hands of Singaporeans, and of Singaporeans only. There are only four million odd Singaporeans, and even one Singaporean opting out or being excluded from this collective process of decision-making called politics is one too many.

Today’s globalised world has made it easier for Singaporeans to pack up and leave this country. People leave for a combination of reasons, and economic opportunities are certainly a key consideration. But some research has shown that the perceived political climate in Singapore is also a relevant factor. More importantly, only Singapore can truly give Singaporeans a sense of political rootedness, and full participation in the political process and such a sense of political stakeholding can go a long way towards keeping Singaporeans here.

Meanwhile, technology has made it easier and more tempting for Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, to plug in and tune out. We have to engage these Singaporeans and help them understand the importance of staying anchored in the offline world, so that they can have a say in moulding the Singapore that they want to live in, one that provides them with the freedom, stability and security needed for their continued immersion in online social networks, computer games and Internet video, if they so desire.

So what can we do? What changes should we look at?

I think that there are many things that can be done, and there is no single magic bullet. But in this speech, I will touch only

on the most fundamental act in a democracy: the vote.

The act of voting represents the core of democracy and political participation. Yet, a large number of Singaporeans do not get to vote at each election, thanks to the prevalence of walkovers. Many Singaporeans have told me about their dismay at never having voted in their lives. While there may be other reasons for walkovers being so common, the size and number of Group Representation Constituencies is obviously one key reason. We cannot deny that the incidence of walkovers has been accompanied by the proliferation of five- and six-member GRCs.

For many Singaporeans, past changes in electoral boundaries, often pertaining to electoral wards that have just witnessed a close contest in the preceding election, have also undermined the sacred act of voting. The oddity of Braddell Heights being part of Marine Parade GRC is merely the most striking example of such changes. I must point out that the changes to electoral boundaries leading up to the 2006 elections were not so egregious, and for that I thank and commend this Government. I hope that there will again not be any drastic changes when it comes to the next general elections, whenever they may be called.

Even if we accept that GRCs are necessary to ensure minority representation in Parliament, which is consistent with the Senior Minister’s third principle about diverse representation, there is nevertheless room for reducing the size of GRCs. I believe there is also room to introduce more Single Member Constituencies, above the constitutional minimum of nine SMC wards. These moves, together with clear commitments to refrain from the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries and to openly publish the reasons and justifications for any such

re-drawing, will all go a long way towards restoring Singaporeans' respect for the political process in Singapore, and, hence, increasing their desire to participate in and engage with the political process. The act of voting embodies participation in democracy, and seeing and experiencing the potential for impact imbued in their vote will naturally lead to renewed political consciousness and empowerment amongst citizens.

4.35 pm

The process of awakening Singaporeans' political consciousness and getting them to become more politically engaged is a long-term undertaking, and there are many things that can and need to be done. But given the central role played by voting in a democracy, that has to be the starting place if we truly want Singaporean politics to evolve and Singaporeans to participate. The sheer symbolism of a reduction in the size of GRCs and the introduction of more SMCs will go a long way towards convincing Singaporeans that the PAP is serious about political change, even if it may potentially put its absolute dominance of this House at risk.

Sir, the next elections have to be called by 2011. Even as we work on overcoming the economic difficulties facing us, we cannot run away from the immutable reality of the electoral timetable, and we should not close our eyes to the long-term challenges facing Singapore as a society, as a polity and as a nation. There is no better way to start facing up to them than with the next elections, and I urge this Government to make the right choice for Singaporeans, even if it may be at a potential cost to the ruling party. Only then, can we truly fulfil the Singapore Promise, and create our Home, our Future and our Singapore.

Sir, with that, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I rise in support to express my sincere thanks to the President for his Opening Address.

Singapore is journeying into our 44th year of independence amidst a rapidly changing world. The world we all live in today is a very different world from the one we were so used to in the past. It is fraught with unexpected challenges, rapidly changing geo-political climate, fragile financial environment and constant threats of infectious diseases. While the fast changing world poses unprecedented challenges for Singapore, it also opens up an ocean of fresh opportunities. As this year’s national day slogan puts it: “Come together, reaching out, reaching up". To thrive in challenging times like these, Singaporeans need to stay united, move to where the action is and seize the golden opportunities and attain excellence.

The effects of the financial armageddon is not fully manifested yet as most analysts believe the economic woes in the United States have hardly been cleaned up. The American consumer is still deep in debt, housing inventories continue to mount across the world and the recent green shoots are sprouting only because of massive government spending all around the world. Many developed countries are expected to run a fiscal deficit of close to 10% of GDP, on average, in 2009. It is cold comfort that this quarter the Singapore economy contracted by a smaller percentage of 14.6% as compared to the previous quarter. Even then, the GDP growth forecast by MTI will not be revised, remaining as minus 6% to minus 9% for year 2009.

Amidst this economic uncertainty lies the unceasing threat of terrorism. The September 11 attack on mankind has

transformed the world into one of constant fear and mindless loss of innocent lives. Subsequent major terrorist attacks in London, Madrid and Bali served as constant reminders that any one country can fall victim to such fanatic ideologies should complacency set in and if we let our guards down. The escape of Mas Selamat was a costly lesson for our security forces and also served as a wake-up call to all Singaporeans that we should remain vigilant in order not to be outwitted by preying terrorists.

Against this backdrop of a changing global financial environment and the constant threat of terrorism, I would like to focus my speech on three health-related issues that affect Singaporeans, namely, the emerging threats of infectious diseases, ageing issues and the perennial concerns of rising healthcare cost.

With increased air travel and worldwide connectivity, the threat of infectious disease pandemic cannot be underestimated. Many people can potentially be exposed to an increasing array of infectious diseases, serving as effective vehicles for its spread. Air travel and globalisation have brought a whole new dimension to the epidemiology, surveillance, spread and control of infectious diseases.

Just last year, the House debated on the Infectious Diseases (Amendment) Bill, which empowered the Minister for Health with more power to contain the outbreak of infectious diseases. We will never have imagined that this enhanced power can be exercised so soon, in the recent handling of the Influenza A H1N1 epidemic.

Many experts have warned of the possibility of another influenza pandemic occurring. It is not about the certainty of it happening, but rather the question of when and how soon. Could this H1N1

scare be the one pandemic that the whole world has been anxiously waiting for?

During the Spanish flu pandemic in the early twentieth century (which also belonged to the H1N1 sub-type), the mortality rate of the disease was 2% to 5%, with the number of deaths estimated between 20 to 40 million worldwide. Not too long ago, SARS infected about 8,000 persons worldwide, between November 2002 and July 2003, with 774 reported deaths. This works out to a mortality rate of 9.6%. Till date, the Influenza A H1N1 has infected more than 11,000 involving 42 countries and 86 fatalities. The numbers are probably increasing as I speak. The mortality seems low.

The rapid evolution of the Influenza A H1N1 epidemic has caught many experts and government agencies by surprise. While we can take comfort that the morbidity and mortality of this disease is low, what is it to stop this virus from mutating into a more virulent and dangerous strain in the very near future?

The Ministry of Health has done an excellent job in handling the threat of H1N1. Our rapid and aggressive response was necessary initially when little was known about this mysterious disease that has infected many and claimed so many lives in Mexico, the epicentre of this outbreak. I have received feedback from fellow healthcare workers that perhaps the Ministry had over-reacted by implementing what perceived to be draconian measures then. But I beg to differ.

Have we forgotten the painful lessons of the SARS episode just six years ago? Have we forgotten how the lives of many selfless healthcare workers were lost just because we were fighting an invisible enemy with inadequate personal protection? Do we need to see lives lost before stepping up our defences against the threat of H1N1 in Singapore? We are facing a new enemy, a new virus in the

world. It is still evolving and its ultimate trajectory cannot be seen then when it first surfaced and not even now.

Sir, we have been fortunate thus far with no confirmed case in Singapore. Would we continue to be so lucky? Being an aviation hub, we are very vulnerable to the import of infectious diseases. We must therefore be prepared to see our first case eventually. What is critical is for us to remain vigilant, exercise good personal hygiene and social responsibility. This will invariably help to prevent the rapid spread of the disease should the virus reach our shore.

The Ministry’s measured response of progressively lowering the DORSCON level to yellow is appropriate as we are beginning to know more about this illusive enemy. As the Sun Tsu Art of War or 孫子兵法 (Sun Zi Bing Fa) strategies:

知彼知己，百战不殆 (Zhi bi zhi ji, Bai zhan bu dai);

不知彼而知己，一胜一负 (Bu zhi bi er zhi ji, Yi sheng yi fu) ；

不知彼，不知己，每战必殆 (Bu zhi bi, Bu zhi Ji, Mei zhan bi dai) 。

Translated to English, it means:

"He who knows his enemies and himself, will fight without danger in battles. He who knows himself, but not his enemy, will have an even chance of victory. He who does not know himself nor his enemy, is bound to suffer defeat in all battles."

We are still in a precarious position of not understanding our opponent fully. Scientists should step up their effort to unravel this virus and to produce effective vaccines against it. Meanwhile, we should not let our guard down. We should make use of this respite period to fine-tune our

flu emergency preparedness plans and also to stock up our armamentarium of flu battle gear. The recent episode has highlighted the inadequacies of some of our primary healthcare practitioners in facing up to such an adversity. I hope the Ministry can look into this expeditiously.

Being one of the fastest ageing populations in Asia, Singapore faces the continuous challenge of addressing the healthcare needs of the elderly. I have, on many occasions, raised this issue in this House. I am delighted that the Ministry of Health’s Addendum has highlighted many sweeping initiatives to enhance the capabilities and capacity of intermediate and long-term care services, including infrastructural, financial, manpower and professional developments.

However, I would like to urge the Ministry to look into homecare and caregiver support as another priority area in managing the needs of the elderly sick. While building more nursing homes is important in addressing the current shortages, we do not want to send the wrong message to Singaporeans that sending our elderly parents to the nursing homes is the quick and easy solution to the care of the elderly. I am sure most elderly would want to grow old in the comfort of their homes, surrounded by the love and concerns of family members. Homecare service in Singapore is still grossly under-developed compared to many countries in the West and in Australia. The Government should look into this area of support, bearing in mind that 20% of Singaporeans will be above the age of 65 come 2030.

In addition, what is also severely lacking is the emphasis on social independence and improving the quality of lives of the handicapped and the sick and aged who want to contribute to the society and continue to stay in their own homes respectively.

I hope MOH and MCYS can work together in the provision

and research and development of assistive technology for the elderly and the handicapped.

Many people are worried about the increasing cost of healthcare in Singapore. They are worried about the affordability of medical bills, in case they fall ill and need to be treated in the medical institutions. We hear of people being burdened with large hospital bills that can wipe away several years of savings. There is also a saying among the lower-income group that "it is better to die than to fall sick in Singapore". These Singaporeans are indeed apprehensive about the affordability of healthcare in Singapore.

The Government has repeatedly given the assurance that no Singaporean will fall through the cracks. Strategies to make healthcare affordable for all include means testing and subsidy for healthcare services and the 3M framework, namely, Medisave, MediShield and Medifund.

In a survey by Singapore Health Services in 2006 to study the public perception of healthcare in Singapore, the researchers sought to ascertain public perceptions of the Singapore healthcare system in general, paying special attention to issues related to cost and quality of primary healthcare vis-a-vis tertiary healthcare.

The quality of healthcare was generally well regarded by respondents. 55.9% and 65.7% perceived that they could receive good medical treatment at polyclinics and private general practitioners respectively, while 65.5% and 46.7% felt that they could receive good medical treatment at restructured and private hospitals respectively.

With regard to the cost of healthcare, 45.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that healthcare was affordable,

while 29.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Sub-group analysis by household income revealed that higher household income was positively associated with agreement that healthcare was affordable. This leaves us with more than half of the respondents, majority from the low- to middle-income houdeholds, who did not think healthcare was affordable in Singapore.

These findings are worrying as healthcare by its nature is very emotive and the perceptions, rightly or wrongly, can result in unfounded anxieties and dissatisfaction amongst Singaporeans.

Singapore's modest spending on healthcare, currently standing at about 4% of GDP, compares very favourably with other countries such as the United States (at about 16%) and the United Kingdom (at about 9%). With the rapidly ageing population in Singapore, it is inevitable that healthcare spending would have to be adjusted upwards. Keeping healthcare spending low, not in tandem with the increased needs of the population, will invariably result in the healthcare costs being passed to the general population. Having said that, we have to spend the health budget judiciously and in areas where we can reap most tangible benefits.

The average lifespan of Singaporeans have risen, 81.8 years among women and 78 years in men. However, a study in 2007 showed that out of this lengthened lifespan, an average of eight years will be spent in poor health. Whilst keeping good health can be argued to be a personal responsibility, the Government could do more in the areas of prevention and early detection of chronic diseases and cancers. More public education, screening and prompt medical treatment can help minimise severe illnesses and medical complications. Can we even consider giving rebates on medical insurance premiums just like for motor insurances, if

the policyholder maintains a healthy lifestyle and remains disease-free?

I applaud the Ministry's commitment to tackle the "silver tsunami" by developing the 3E framework, namely, Eldersave, Eldershield and Elderfund, to help meet the needs of the ageing population. However, I would like to urge the Government to consider providing Infantshield, or medical insurance for unborn children who may be inflicted with congenital illnesses diagnosed at birth.

Sir, I have come across cases whereby unborn babies have been diagnosed with congenital diseases that are medically viable should medical treatment be instituted. Parents in these cases are left in a dilemma of the prospect of being saddled with a lifetime of debts as a result of opting for medical intervention and the difficult decision of discontinuing the pregnancy. For every 1,000 births, up to 20 may have some birth defects with varying degree of complications, from cleft lip to heart or spinal cord defects.

Whilst children with congenital anomalies can still join MediShield to cover medical treatment that is not related to their congenital conditions, currently insurers, including MediShield, do not cover treatment related to congenital conditions. The reason often cited was that existing policyholders will not welcome a higher increase in premiums to fund this additional liability.

Insurance is about risk pooling. We debated about Eldershield in this House some years back. When the Eldershield scheme was launched in 2002, there were also heated public debates on the high premiums and low payouts. After five years of data collection, the scheme was revised according to the latest information available. According to analysts, theoretically, the odds in the equation for Eldershield claims are one in five for men and one in four for women. Therefore, if

the incidence of birth defects is only 2%, bearing in mind this can range from very mild to very complicated conditions, would Infantshield not be possible without having to charge exorbitant premiums?

Insurance is about giving people a peace of mind. Medical insurance is something that you buy hoping never have to use it. In a similar vein, medical insurance coverage for children with congenital diseases is to give would-be parents a peace of mind. I hope that the Ministry would seriously consider and study if this would be feasible. At the very least, we could start with baby steps of providing coverage for certain congenital diseases, and the extent of the coverage may then be progressively increased as our confidence and experience progress.

Sir, the Ministry of Health's mission is to help Singaporeans live well, live long and with peace of mind. And also to promote preventive healthcare and champion an active, healthy lifestyle among Singaporeans. I fully endorse this philosophy and would like to thank the President once again for his visionary address to Parliament.

On this note, I support the motion.

4.52 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it goes without saying that the current economic downturn has affected many Singaporeans adversely, and we can also see that a lot of people are very concerned about employment situation and retrenchment. Of course, we are very happy to see that, in a time such as this, the NTUC has been even more active in helping Singaporeans in need and, most importantly, we have a tried and tested tripartism system. This uniquely Singapore system of tripartite

relationships has grown from strength to strength. The labour, employer and Government, are able to work together on this strong tripartite platform to cushion the impact of the global recession. Each party understands the other and together, we strive for an all-win situation for Singaporeans. From the newspapers report, we know that in many countries, there is only one way out, ie, to demonstrate on the roads. But, even so, there could be no solution. We need to see how are we going to make sure that this system of tripartism will continue to grow from strength to strength, and the three parties are able to work hand in hand.

We do not know when the recession will end, or what its costs are. But as we navigate our way through this dark tunnel, we should still believe there is a light at the end of it. Though we cannot see it now, the tripartite spirit will keep us hand in hand and offer us the support, hope and opportunities to move onwards as one people, towards better times and days.

For instance, NTUC rallied for tripartite and business partners, union leaders and staff to work towards being the most pro-business economy, the most pro-worker nation, the most united tripartism and the most caring Labour Movement. The whole idea is to avoid record retrenchments, avoid record unemployment and strive for more up when up.

A young resident from my constituency recounted and shared with me a conversation with an Australian friend working in London. This London worker was worried that she might lose her job as more and more companies there are letting staff go and those who resign on their own accord are not replaced. When he read about Singapore in the papers and got to know about the various schemes that we have in Singapore to help

workers, he expressed the hope to be in Singapore. He told my young resident that in other countries, a lot of employers would try to cut down jobs to cut costs, ie, they cut jobs to save costs. But,he could see that over here the union, the Government and the workers are trying very hard to cut costs in order to save jobs. So we save costs to give more jobs to our workers. This is something unique about Singapore, and we should continue this way. Of course, there are other assistance schemes as well. We can see that the NTUC U Care Fund has raised $23 million to help the retrenched workers during this economic downturn to find new jobs.

However, some may still lament that there is not enough help. Recently, I have seen a video clip on YouTube and this short film is produced by the Singapore Enquirer. In this short film, they interviewed a man who claimed that he is 57-years old.He laments that CPF policies prevent him from withdrawing his remaining retirement savings till he is 64. He was retrenched a few months ago, and because of his ill health, is unable to find a job.

In the video, rather than probing on why this gentleman had run out of the first tranche of his CPF money, or offering constructive solutions as the remaining $1,000 plus in his CPF minimum sum account really cannot solve his problem, the reporter focused on the frustration felt by the gentleman, asking him if he felt very 'qi gek' about his situation. Is he feeling very angry because he cannot withdraw CPF money and no one will help?

This, I feel, is not helpful to those already facing hardship. Why do people keep saying, "I really feel for you. And I can feel your pain." But instead of extending a helping hand, they are rubbing salt onto his wounds.

In these times, it is important to keep positive and be mindful of those putting

salt on wounds and magnifying the negatives for whatever reason, especially if those reasons are political.

I empathise with this gentleman's situation. But at the same time, I also wonder why he did not seek alternatives to his situation. Withdrawing the rest of his CPF monies is not a sustainable solution. Instead, why not approach the problem another way?

Has the gentleman looked at other groups or schemes that can help him? He did mention that he sought the help of a Medical Social Worker in the past to pay for his medical bills. Perhaps he can seek similar avenues to help him out of his situation. For example, has he gone to CDC?

The example of the above video clip makes us feel for those workers who lost their jobs. We have plenty of assistance schemes to help them. As the saying goes, “All roads lead to Rome.” There are not one but many roads. Even if we allow him to withdraw this $1,000-plus from his CPF, how long will this money last? The best way is to let the CDC or other authorities give him some financial relief and then help him find a new job. One of my friends told me, in the midst of such an economic situation, "What I am concerned is mei bu mei (美不美?) whether we look good or not?" I find it very strange and asked why are you still bothered about your looks? Actually, what he meant was that we should be concerned about whether the economy of the United States paints a rosy picture. If the economy in America is not good, we cannot have a good economy. Therefore, we cannot just listen to hearsay and get overly excited, thinking that the economy is picking up. Recently, some of my friends get very excited because the stock market seems like rolling on with full force. But we should know that the US consumption makes up 14% of total consumption in the world. Whether the

economy is really picking up, no one will know at this point. We should continue to work hard, especially to help those workers who are affected to find new jobs.

I have read a heart-warming story in Lianhe Zaobao, Tian Nan Di Bei’s column. The author Wenyi in the article wrote: “Since the economic crisis happened, we have read bad news on pay cut and retrenchment in the newspapers all the time. One day, I myself received a call from the boss PA. She told me that my boss wanted to see me. At that point, I realised that it was different watching a fire from the other side of the river. You feel different when you are on fire, and it is different watching the fire from a distance. My boss told me that I was retrenched. At that point, I realised the impact it caused to the retrenched worker. I was told to clear my office within a short notice and leave this place which had been a part of my life for the past 30 years and had become my second home. As I packed my things, my heart was bleeding and I had to hold back my tears. I felt very sad to part with my colleagues.”

I want to share this story with Members because this person who got retrenched did not give up. He said that when he went home, he counted his savings and found that he had enough money to see him through. Most importantly, we must learn to stand up if we fall. He said that many friends comforted him and told him that this might be a blessing in disguise, meaning that a loss might turn out to be a gain. The concern from his family and friends made him feel better and on top of that, he felt that he should find ways to retrain himself so as to improve his employability. At that critical point, the care and concern from his family and friends, and the confidence he had was most important to him. I hope this short story can illustrate to our fellow workers that "All roads lead

to Rome", there is always a way out, and eventually we will be able to break a new path.

When people lose their jobs, they should try to find new jobs. It is not a matter of whether there are enough jobs for our workers. It is not as simple as what Mr Low Thia Khiang said: “So what if you send the workers for retraining? So what if the Economic Development Board creates new job opportunities?” Actually, retraining gives us an opportunity to upgrade our skills so that we can look for new jobs. By creating more job opportunities, we are providing new jobs for the workers. Of course, the problem is not only that. Most importantly, how we can let the workers or employers adjust to this situation at this difficult time? So the real problem is not whether there are jobs, rather it is about whether we have the ability to adjust to the situation. We must help the workers upgrade their skills and help them psychologically to be prepared to adjust to their new jobs.

At a NTUC prize-giving ceremony, I met an awardee, Mdm Sng, who is 56 years old and has worked in a garment factory for 30 over years. When she was retrenched in early 2009, she was among the first to take up the Employability Can Plus programme by NTUC Learning Hub, despite some initial fears about going back to the classroom. From there, she learned of the choices she had, but, most importantly, she had to dispel her own fears of going back to the classroom. Just imagine yourself as a worker, after having worked at the same factory for more than 30 years, and all of a sudden you need to change your working environment, it is not an easy task. Perhaps we can help them a bit more, whenever possible. I am very happy to see that Mdm Sng was able to pick herself up and build up new confidence.

During the training, as part of a confidence building segment of the course, she was asked to pick a stone that represented her. She picked a rough and cracked stone, likening herself to it – tough and able to weather any storm. She has since found a new job in a bakery and has gained new confidence, saying that she will continue to be just like that stone, undaunted no matter the circumstances wo jiang hui xiang na shi tou yi yang jian qiang (我将会象那石头一样坚强). Now, she has found a new skill and she has gone into the service line. This is a very good example of how a worker had adjusted to a new environment.

On the other hand, of course, we must also encourage our employers to adjust their mindsets at this time. I would like to ask employers in the service industry if they can reassess their hiring policies and hire more locals. Very often, the service sector, particularly in F&B sub-sector, hire foreign workers to make up for the shortage or perceived lack of experience of local staff. But today we see many foreign workers, who worked in our F&B outlets, do not understand English or speak it well. If employers can put up with this deficit, is it not better then to hire locals who have been retrained for the jobs in service line? Can MOM check that employers are complying with the ratio and can employers give locals a chance to prove themselves in the service line? Of course, these employers can employ foreigners as well but they should consider giving the chance first to Singaporeans. Let our workers find a new job. So I think a mindset change of employer is equally important.

Sir, in Cantonese, there is this saying, "Ma si luo di han, kei ow wun ma", meaning, to continue to walk after the horse has died, and we cannot just stand beside the dead horse and cry. And if we happen to come across an ox along the way, we should take advantage of this

opportunity to ride the ox while looking for another horse.

I visited Hong Kong lately and realised that they have very encouraging puplicity schemes for the workers, and the key message to the workers is: "In these times when the unemployment rate is so high, we still have tomorrow, we still have hope.” They have a small poster [indicating] which is an inspiring reminder that self resilience and resourcefulness remain valuable traits when the tide is not in your favour, and I would like to share it with Singaporeans. It says here: "If there is no wind, row". When our yacht is unable to move forward because there is no wind, what are you going to do? Are you going to just sit on the yacht and wait for the waves to bring you somewhere or should you use your hands to row? So, I find that the message in the poster "if there is no wind, row" very meaningful, and I would like to encourage our workers by citing this phrase in the poster. I hope that we can let more workers in this economic downturn continue to stand up and have a better tomorrow. Tomorrow will be better.

Sir, apart from hoping that our economy will recover soon, we also hope that Singapore could be a more gracious society. As an MP, we encounter different types of problems at our constituency. Let me cite an example. Recently, when I was having a walk at a garden in my constituency, a resident told me that some people who keep dogs let their dogs run around and poo everywhere. They simply do not care. So, why do we not ask the Government legislate to prohibit the dogs from barking unnecessarily and pooing everywhere and regulate that owner must put a muzzle on the big dogs, so that they do not frighten our children and old parents? But we should ask ourselves, “Is legislation the answer to all the problems?” Do we really want more rules? Enforcement is not the answer to creating a gracious Singapore. Instead, it

is important to be mindful of others. We want the freedom to do what we want, but it cannot be at the expense of the freedom of others.

In fact, every Singaporean should keep in mind that others also have the same freedom and liberty to use public amenities. As much as we have the right to take a stroll in the garden and our dogs have the right to stroll in the garden, we should also remember that others have the right to take a stroll in the garden too. We must bear in mind our own responsibility, so legislation is not the solution to all the problems. If everything has to be legislated, then there would not be any ending to it all.

Instead of relying on rules, we should all just be aware of the environment and community we live with and practice ownership over the society we live in. Let us not have a society that relies on rules to do the things we ought to do out of goodwill and graciousness.

However, while we should not have more rules to just remind people to be gracious and be considerate, I do hope that in other areas, we can put in more protective rules. In these areas we seem to be in a state of anarchy where certain things are concerned. One area to look at is there is need to strengthen our legislation to address the loanshark problem. We have seen how loansharks harass residents. A lot of residents hope that the Government will strengthen legislation in this area, especially for those people who moved out but did not change the addresses on their identity cards, and they continue to use the old information to borrow money and get the new flat owners into trouble. This is irresponsible behaviour. So we should amend the law to protect the innocent residents. This should include the consumer protection issue in the timeshare industry. I hope that the Ministry of Trade and Industry could consider reviewing the legislation with regard to timeshare issues, because it

is imperative that we protect consumer rights from a pro-business point of view.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the issue of political reform. I think political stability is an advantage to Singapore. Over the past 40 years, Singapore had been able to progress without corruption, and not influenced by evil forces, or other emotional issues. The people are free to vote for the right candidate to lead the country, and we must ensure that this system continue to go on. Like what Senior Minister Goh said, Singaporeans must have the right to vote for an efficient government that can work for the people, unlike some countries where the governments make promises but never deliver results.

If the Government does not adopt a “people-based” approach to serve the people, the people will not cast their vote for the Government. So in this equal "one-person-one-vote" system, we do not have money politics, no corruption or political problems involved. We can say that this is a good system. As we fine-tune our system, we should also ensure that we keep the good Principles and Practices. We should keep theses good principles and practices in the system for the interests of Singaporeans. Of course, no one can guarantee that the Ruling party or Opposition party will not fall to corruption. However, as PAP said in its pledge: “To pledge ourselves as one united nation, to build a strong party and to strive by every means so as to have a vibrant and equal society where every citizen - no matter the race, language or religion - can enjoy a happy life and compete on equal ground in the society.” This is what we want in a political party. Todate, we have a system to choose fairly, I called it : 主权在民，一人一票，公平投选 (zhu quan zai min, yi ren yi piao, gong ping tou xuan ), meaning that the voting rights lie in the people, one vote for one person, and the people vote

fairly. We should safeguard such a system. Only then are we able to choose the right representatives for the people.

I have a friend who just went to NTU recently to do his Masters and he told me that he is very happy to see that Singapore has such a system where every elected Member of Parliament is responsible to their residents. This is a basic principle in our system. Members bring the voices of his residents to Parliament, and these collective voices eventually form the voices of the nation. Under this system, Members could engage their residents, and eventually gain trust from them. Members will also safeguard the interests of their residents, deliver their promises and keep their word. Even after the general election, they work hard and stay committed to their promises to serve the people. My friend said that this is what he admired and I think this is an important principle that we should continue to uphold.

Sir, as we weather through 2009, let our strengths as a people, resilience, resourcefulness and respect for each other shine through the difficult times. Let us look beyond our current circumstances to take care of others around us, keep a positive and resilient mindset and outlook so that when the economy has recovered, we can look back at this period and be proud for what we have achieved. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. President Nathan's speech made on 18th May 2009 was a stark contrast to his earlier speech made in 2006. In the earlier speech, he laid out clearly the sectors that need to be focused on, such as the disabled, integration of foreigners and locals but in the recent address, he put emphasis on the current economic challenges,

strengthening the social cohesion, upgrading education system and evolving our political system. I was particularly drawn to his underscoring of the need for fresh re-thinking and creative answers. Being an octogenarian with sharp wisdom, he stated, "However, our political system is not set in stone". He knows that creativity cannot sprout in a rigid and dogmatic environment.

In my speech, I will touch on broad issues first before focusing on four main addenda to the President's speech,

ie, the addenda from MCYS, Ministry of Law, Prime Minister's Office, Committee on Ageing Issues and Ministry of Health. I will highlight some gaps, as well as questions that remain unanswered in my mind as we journey through the current era of economic and social uncertainties.

Broad issues: One, what is the Government's approach in running this little red dot, our relatively small city state of Singapore? From my understanding, it is a meritocritic system, a Singapore-styled democracy which adopts many characteristics of a mixed economy, defined as, I quote, "Type of economy in which private and public sectors co-exist and try to retain the advantages of capitalism and socialism while trying to eliminate the evils of both systems."

Some years ago, a prominent civil servant explained to me that as long as the economic principles are sound and sustained economic growth takes place, all the other conditions for progress will follow. Economic priorities are always at the forefront of the Singapore political leaders' horizon and social as well as other considerations, for example, moral and environmental priorities, are ranked lower in the scale of importance. This approach has proved to be our strength in the past, accounting for our miraculous success in the past 49 years.

However, is it timely to tweak this formula a little, in the face of uncertain

and changing circumstances? Let us consider some possible scenarios. What if our increasing inflow of foreign labour, including foreign talent, compared to local citizens reaches a fifty-fifty ratio? If social unrest and envy, fuelled by unemployment of the local population, increase and lead to greater divisiveness, not only along citizenship lines but also ethnic and religious fault lines, will the Government rank social cohesion and integration issues higher than economic issues? Would new policies be introduced to reduce the unrest and assure Singaporeans that the Government will put into action its words that "every Singaporean matters".

Let me paint another picture. Let us hypothesise that the two integrated resorts with casinos have been opened and due to the global economic situation and competition from neighbouring countries, the number of tourists that were expected fall short. Meanwhile, the social repercussions of the legalisation of gambling through the Casino Control Act start to afflict many Singaporean families, for example, gambling addiction, increasing in divorce rates, money laundering, prostitution and organised crimes. If an economic driven decision leads to strong evidence that the social and moral fabric of society is being undermined, will the Government scale back or even close down the cause of the social problems?

Some of you may be thinking that these are rather far-fetched scenarios, but I can assure you that these demographic and social factors change very fast. Political decisions made, based on purely economic benchmarks, run the risk of alienating citizens and this can lead to a country's social erosion. That is why I pose this question to the Singapore leaders.

Sir, I move on to the next point, MCYS has developed the "many helping

hands" concept, which basically means that there are many players in the social service delivery system and the Government is only one of them. The others are family, voluntary people sector, private corporate sector, and so on. It is important to note that the Government funds many VWOs, together with the National Council of Social Service and Singapore Totaliser Board. While this policy approach is good for the Government, ie, it is cost effective and it requires all the people and their families to be responsible for their problems. It has many drawbacks on the ground for lay people. There are gaps in services, duplication, wastage of resources and confusion for the potential end user. Services tend to be fragmented and the bridges that should link the services with the people are often missing, for example, volunteers are marginalised and disadvantaged populations are usually less literate. So the media that are used most frequently are unsuitable for outreach, for example, posters, flyers, Internet.

What are some creative answers that can address the shortcomings of the "many helping hands" approach? How can we increase efficiency and targeting of help and services to those who need it? A multi-pronged approach is suggested that advertises services and programmes through HDB open spaces, radio, TV channels and even in school assembly talks and workplace lunch time talks and workshops. I realise it would require many Ministries to cooperate, but at least there is assurance that the goal of targeting the invincible needy would be achieved. One example of the way in which relevant policies do not attain the impact projected is the Workfare Income Supplement or WIS. While I commend the efforts of NTUC staff in liaising with both employers and employees to swell the numbers of workers benefiting from this scheme, as I understand, all the informal workers -

daily-rated, casual workers who are not on the CPF scheme - fall outside of WIS. How can we prevent them from falling through the cracks?

For a start, if they have children in schools, the School Pocket Money Fund could help them, if they apply for it. If they work as dishwashers and cleaners at shopping malls and hawker centres, food vouchers and transport vouchers could be made accessible to them. During a community project that my undergraduate students conducted from February to March this year, there was feedback from the ordinary people that they interviewed that the Government should do more to help this group. They work hard and they work long hours, but they cannot cope with the rising inflation, especially in terms of foodstuffs, vegetables, and so on.

I move on to my third point, which I have called, "Competitiveness versus Graciousness". Can they co-exist? Under the topic, "Creating a First Class Home", the President talked about becoming a country of gracious people and raising standards of social behaviour. This made me reflect on the causes of lack of graciousness, one of which is unlimited and pervasive competition. From a very young age, parents instil the spirit of competitiveness, although the degree varies by ethnic groups. From the time the innocent kids start kindergarten school, they receive the message from teachers, parents, relatives - you must achieve. The "me first attitude" develops and gets bolstered when the children see that those who achieve, irregardless of the methods they use, are praised and rewarded. Our society rewards material and academic success. It does not reward helpful behaviour or consideration shown to a fellow mate. We need to break this cycle that goads our people to become egocentric, self-centred and ungracious. No doubt, the Singapore Kindness Movement has been a good campaign to remind us of the importance of being

considerate and compassionate, however, I feel it is sporadic, it does not sink into becoming a part of our daily behaviour.

So, can academic and economic competitiveness co-exist with graciousness? My view is that it can happen only if our school teachers and our parents act as role models to guide the next generation. The awareness and consciousness have to be drilled into all of us, that we, the people of Singapore, represent our country. A country is represented by the quality of its people and tourists are very alert in recognising the soul of a people. It is said that as a country matures and the main tracks to the people are no longer materialistic, the behaviour of the people will reflect their inner sense of security. However, in the current world of volatility and economic uncertainty, this is hard to imagine. Hence, we cannot wait for the day when our materialistic needs are fully met before we change into a more gracious society.

To summarise, to make Singapore a beautiful home, a shining red dot, as it were, the real test is in our daily social interactions with all those we meet, starting from family members. How do we seek creative ways to generate this? Well, one practical suggestion is for companies and offices to have recognition for the most gracious employee, just as we have for the most efficient employee. However, more subtle ways are through parent-teacher meetings, committee meetings, sports events, people and private sector, electronic and paper communications and, lastly, through the civil service, both internally as well as in interactions with the public. An integrated and multi-sectorial strategy is required with reinforcement from the media from time to time.

I move on now to the specific issues. Sir, I will refer to the Addenda by MCYS and Ministry of Law jointly, because they are interconnected. The priorities as laid

down by Minister Balakrishnan are relevant and comprehensive. However, my concerns are in the implementations and the details. For example, what guidelines will enable the officers to exercise flexibility to assist applicants of Comcare schemes and public assistance? Will the mentality of "just follow law" be corrected in the officers? I like the mentality of some frontline service staff in some developed countries who take the initiative of suggesting that you, the person in the queue, may be eligible for a certain scheme, just by their observation and their experience. They take the initiative to do this, in particular these schemes are for seniors and the handicapped.

Going forward, I would like to recommend a more proactive approach by policy makers and service providers in pre-empting future problems, such as the rise of child sexual abuse, and consider the idea of making it mandatory for all professionals, including doctors, especially GPs, lawyers, nurses, teachers, social workers, counsellors to report all suspected cases of child abuse to MCYS. I believe some inroads have been made by the Child Protection Branch of MCYS, but child sexual abuse has yet to be brought under control. Perhaps more public talks have to be held in libraries and other public spaces, so that this taboo topic can be aired and dealt with.

Another development in the legal sector that crosses into the family and child welfare sector is a Child Court, which is officially located under the Family Court. There was no mention of this new programme under the Ministry of Law, nor was it mentioned under MCYS. The child programme is in the children's best interest and less adversarial. It is mainly in relation to custody disputes in divorce proceedings, as it has been found that there were 4,505 children below age 18 years who were involved in divorce proceedings in 2007, a 3% increase over

2005, and this is from the Subordinate Court's website. Phase 1 was launched last year and at Phase 1 stage, the child programme was voluntary for parents, but I believe it should have moved into Phase 2 now. Could the Minister for Law update the House on the current status of Child Court and whether the family counsellor who sits through the proceedings is selected from the Family Counselling Unit of the Family Court or the Child Protection Branch of MCYS?

I believe that the Child Court is an excellent new development as we are keeping up with international trends and are also proactive in responding to changing circumstances. My concern is that if insufficient qualified family counsellors are available, due to the lack of foresight and planning, the programme may run into some problems.

Lastly, I would like to ask Minister Balakrishnan to outline the plans for publicity and public education regarding the Mental Capacity Act as I feel there is a lot of work required before the Office of Public Guardians starts operations.

Now, I would like to move to the Addendum by the Prime Minister's Office, Minister in charge of Ageing Issues. I would like to commend Mr Lim Boon Heng on the many achievements that his team have made in the past three years. The whole of Government approach to pursue the strategic thrusts of financial security, ageing-in-place, providing holistic and affordable healthcare and eldercare and, lastly, promoting active ageing among healthy citizens above 60 years, is a sound strategy. The goal of forging an inclusive society of young and old is an ideal that needs the sincere efforts of all residents for its realisation. I say this because in the current economic recession, older people may be seen as a burden to their families, an additional

mouth to feed. With the new means test introduced in hospitals, some families have had to struggle even more to continue their filial duties. Due to cultural reasons, such as wanting to save face, they may not take the initiative to apply for Medifund. Perhaps nurses and doctors have to keep a keen lookout for such families and proactively approach them for referral to medical social workers as potential applicants for silver Medifund.

Together with the wellness project and Council for Third Age or C3A, preventive steps to keep older people occupied and healthy have been implemented. I would like Mr Lim to provide more details about the plans he has for developing Singapore as a thriving research and business centre for ageing, as was mentioned in the President's Address and the Addendum.

A small suggestion I have for any thriving business or silver industry is that maybe 1% of the profits can be channelled back to the poor and the needy elderly. This is in line with the principle of distributive justice. This concept means that all people, in this case the sub-group of elders, should be treated fairly even when their circumstances differ. My point is that if economic gain is to be made from the growing sub-group of elders who will be big-time consumers in Singapore, from the middle and upper classes, then part of the profits should go back to the poorer segments of the population too.

Could the Minister also describe his plans relating to facilitating of ageing-in-place of seniors? As in other countries, does he envisage linking services, such as medical clinics, banks, parks and other community-based services to housing estates? Currently, we only have senior activity centres that are linked to the older people living in HDB flats such as studio apartments.

On the Addendum by Ministry of Health, I was heartened to read about Minister Khaw Boon Wan's plans for intermediate and long-term care for seniors alongside this infrastructural expansion. The Health Minister has outlined the plans for ensuring availability of qualified professionals and staff to run these institutions. Since it is not mentioned in the Addendum, can the Minister elaborate on future plans for servicing the fast growing dementia afflicted population in Singapore? It is my suggestion that another custom built residential institution be planned in Singapore following the Apex Harmony Lodge model. Currently, Apex Harmony Lodge is the only customised residential institution with a day-care centre in Singapore and it is a good model to follow.

My final point in regard to affordability of acute healthcare in Singapore is to request the Health Minister to ensure that the number of C class beds in the new hospitals is sufficient to meet the needs of future projections of possible six million people living in Singapore.

In conclusion, I believe that the Singapore populace is changing in its characteristics and in its landscape. This demands a response from the Government that is sensitive yet appropriate to meet the new expectations.

With that, I support the motion.

5.35 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to add my voice to the Motion of Thanks for the President’s Address.

Clearly the challenges facing Singapore have taken on a new slant since the opening of this Eleventh Parliament in November 2006, and the President’s Address was a timely

exposition of the road, certainly bumpy in stages, ahead.

By far the biggest bump in the road is the economic swoon that has engulfed the world. The Budget this year was spot-on in focussing on the preservation of jobs, the re-training of workers and the easing of finance for businesses. This is and must remain the priority, and measures such as the Jobs Credit should be maintained while the threat of large scale retrenchment continues to loom on the horizon. Programmes such as SPUR help to equip our workforce with new skills to meet the new demands of an ever-changing world, and should be continued even after this downturn becomes a distant memory.

But such measures serve more to lower the costs of businesses, to try and persuade them to retain, and re-train, their workforce. They are not aimed at stimulating demand, which comes overwhelmingly from our export markets, like the United States and Europe. It is precisely because those economies are so badly affected, that our exports are in the doldrums. The rise of protectionism in those countries may mean that even when they do recover, the level of exports those countries will accept will not be same as before.

It is correct for Singapore to remain an open, export-oriented economy. The small size of our domestic market is an inescapable limiting factor. It is simply not possible, nor perhaps desirable, to have an economy structured like the United States, where two-thirds of GDP is made up of personal consumption. But should we do more to increase the level of consumer spending here, to raise the proportion of our GDP made up of consumption, and reduce what is perhaps an overweening dependence on exports to fuel our economy? I believe we should.

Part of the reason for doing this is as a matter of balance. The bulk of our GDP

will still stem from our exports of goods and services, that will never change. But there is no need for it to be overwhelmingly so. Part of the reason is to build some level of buffer when overseas markets are in a tailspin, as they are right now. After all, we have our own hotels, restaurants and shops here in Singapore that depend on customers continuing to spend. Previously, stores and restaurants in Orchard Road and other central areas depended mainly on tourist arrivals. But in times like these, when tourism numbers are sharply down, they are badly affected. As for the small provision shops in our heartlands, their livelihood suffers when residents here cut back on spending.

What could we do to stimulate demand? I have a few suggestions, although undoubtedly those tasked with this responsibility could come up with other, and more innovative, ideas.

The first suggestion I have relates to personal taxation. A cut in personal income tax is regarded by economists (albeit not universally) as stimulating consumer demand. The issue is made more acute, by the growing gap between corporate tax - which was cut in the latest Budget to 17% - and our top rate of personal tax at 20%. The gap seems even larger when compared to the flat personal tax rate in Hong Kong of 15%.

Which brings me to yet another reason for closing this gap. Even in this downturn, the competition for talent is not over. As the recovery commences and gathers momentum, companies and individuals plan their next move to take best advantage of fresh opportunities that arise. Maintaining a tax regime which is competitive with other choice locations for businesses and individuals is a key weapon in the attraction and retention of talent, to drive Singapore’s next phase of growth.

When one looks at the bill after a meal, I am sure many of you have had the same reaction - which is, how did the total add up to so much? That is, until you factor in the 10% service charge and the 7% GST. The extra 17% makes quite an impact on any expense that many consumers are already wondering if they should incur.

When the 10% service charge was first introduced many, many moons ago, it was intended to replace tipping, which was considered troublesome and uneven, while rewarding good service. The fact is presently it fulfils neither purpose. Most establishments routinely absorb the service charge as part of their revenue, and still leave a space on your credit card chit for you to add a tip. At the same time, service standards remain highly erratic. Why not abolish the service charge and leave consumers to decide how much they wish to pay for the service they receive. This should be a sure-fire way to incentivise good service.

Yes, some restaurants would jack up their prices to compensate for the loss of this ill-named service charge. But at least, the real prices would become more transparent. And consumers could compare prices to those eating places which have not done so and make their own choices. At the end of the day, anything that increases the choice and range of options for the consumer will appeal to him, and likely spur him to consume more.

Turning now to the Goods and Services Tax or GST - this is vital in shifting the burden of taxation from being solely on income-generation to being partially on consumption. This is integral to our policies to encourage wealth-creation, and cannot be discarded. But could we not, in these troubled times, borrow an idea from the innovative Jobs Credit Scheme, and apply this by analogy to the GST, that is, not to suspend or

reduce the tax, but to subsidise the cost for the consumer?

We could give out GST vouchers with a difference. This would not act like simple cash rebates which could be used for other expenditure other than GST, and which might not even be spent at all. Rather, it would be a voucher to defray the cost ofthe actual GST incurred on an actual purchase, so that one would need to spend on consumables to redeem the voucher.

For instance, a $7 voucher could be used to make a $100 purchase “GST-free”. Likewise, $70 in vouchers for $1,000 in purchases, even $700 in vouchers for $10,000 in spending. Taking the last example, giving out $700 in GST vouchers might cost the Government less than the 20% income tax rebate cappedat $2,000, which was given out at our last Budget. But it could spark off five times the amount of consumer spending.

Whatever the measures to be adopted, the goal should be the same - to spur Singaporeans to consume, for the sake of the domestic economy. This is not intended to change the nature of our export-oriented economy, but to shift the balance a little bit away from an over-dependence on overseas markets that are beyond our control.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion.

5.45 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak today. Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Michael Palmer.

Sir, the President has set the direction for the Government and has made some very significant suggestions to tackle

issues ranging from the economy to the political as well as social challenges Singapore is facing today which is a very changed world and one where many of our fundamentals as a nation are being questioned and challenged. I would like to touch on four issues today.

First, on the restructuring of the economy. Sir, when listening to the President’s speech, I was happy to note he suggested that the Government work with the private sector to relook at how we need to restructure the economy once again. I had suggested the formation of an economic restructuring committee during the Budget debate and the fact we have not yet done so is disturbing, as I thought that the signals are clear that we needed to do something quickly and quite urgently. Sir, in times like these, the Government has to show leadership and initiate such a review as our economy is under stress and many companies are still struggling to survive the global economic meltdown.

Sir, from comments made by the Senior Minister as reported in the newspapers, which I read today, I understand that the proposed economic review committee is just a Government Ministerial committee. I do not think we have enough experts in the Government and among the Ministers who have a good feel of the business world, especially issues that companies are facing in the private sector. I therefore would like to suggest that the Prime Minister relook at this and have greater private sector involvment in the committee. In fact, I suggest a co-chair from the private sector with sufficient breadth of experience to advise the Government - perhaps someone like Mr Koh Boon Hwee or Mr Ho Kwong Ping, who can co-chair a committee together with the Minister for Finance.

Sir, the economic downturn is going to lead to a new world order which will

challenge the fundamentals, as I said, that we have used to build our economy up to now. An economic review committee is even more important today than in 2002 when we had such a committee convened. At that time, the core drivers of the economy remained quite similar, although we expanded the economic sectors, especially the core areas of attracting foreign direct investments through multinational companies. We have now however started to see major changes in other countries we have relied on for the flow of investments into Singapore. If the Obama government succeeds in tweaking their tax laws making it difficult for us to attract American MNCs into Singapore, we may see a major exodus of such companies and see less coming to Singapore in the future. There is no reason, Sir, why other developed countries that we have always depended upon for investments will not behave the same way that the USA is behaving today.

It is therefore timely to review our economic growth models to reduce dependence on multinationals who re-export their products that are manufactured in Singapore. We have been up to now content with our local enterprises being sub-contractors supporting the multinationals. We must question how much benefits we are deriving through the MNC strategy today where we are also giving up so much - by way of tax forgone, cheap land and other input factors that we make it very attractive for MNCs to set up bases here, and also the opportunity cost of not adequately supporting our local entreprises.

Sir, more Asian cities will be able to provide similar incentives and the question is whether we can compete with them, especially with India and China, which have a lot more to offer. We therefore need to develop a new model for

economic growth while we continue to sustain our multinational strategy. I am not suggesting we abandon our MNC strategy overnight but that we must develop an equally strong economic driver that can take over the lead if the MNC strategy starts to fail us. If the MNCs then continue to be a part of our growth, well and good. If they do not we would have been wise to develop options.

While in the past we have been helping strengthen the SME sector, the strategies put in place and resources allocated for this have been a far cry from what we have allocated and spent in supporting the MNC strategy. This has resulted in relatively weaker local enterprises. This does not have to be so. Singapore has created world-class companies before, especially in our early years and they are our Singapore brand-name multinationals today. In recent years however, we have seen too few succeed. I cannot shake the feeling that this is because we have not been wholehearted in wanting to create our future Singapore MNCs, contented as we are with the foreign MNCs coming to Singapore.

Sir, this was manifested recently in a mini-debate which was published in the papers. This was triggered by a former Chairman of EDB who said that there was no need for local entrepreneurs and that dependence on multinationals to fulfil Singapore’s social need was sufficient. With the greatest of respect, this, in my opinion, is short-sighted and is the result of us being too comfortable with past successes. Such complacency will stifle our future economic growth. Local entrepreneurship and building local multinationals that can become our future economic anchors are urgent issues for the Government and a key area that an economic review committee can look at.

Sir, the next issue is on the income divide. The President in his speech talked about the widening of income gaps and

about helping Singaporeans cope with this rising trend as a result of globalisation. I fully agree with all the initiatives for the long term, like skills upgrading and bringing in higher value-added jobs through foreign MNCs. This must be a logical thing to do for the long term, but we have been at it for a long time now and many Singaporeans are still seeing it as a struggle coping with the high cost of living that we have here. The reality is that the wages of lower income Singaporeans have remain artificially depressed for a long time due to competition from low value-added jobs from foreigners and they have not fully benefited from the fruits of Singapore’s success in the globalised world. I do not think we can continue with the current liberal foreign workers policies for long as Singaporeans in the middle and lower income brackets will generally become worse off over time.