Hansard, 2009-05-26

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) Dr Lim Wee Kiak 29 May 03 Jun 18 Jun 21 Jun Mr Michael Palmer 01 Jun 04 Jun 08 Jun 22 Jun Mdm Halimah Yacob 04 Jun 18 Jun 02 Jul 05 Jul Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 06 Jun 14 Jun Mr Goh Chok Tong 08 Jun 11 Jun Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 18 Jun 21 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25th May, 2009 ],

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

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I stand before this House, I cannot help but to feel a sense of mission. A mission placed on our shoulders by our President, which is to rethink new ways, to search for creative ideas and to prepare for a new beginning as he reminded us and I quote, "When the storm clears, we cannot expect the world to be as before." I thank the President for throwing this challenge to us and I am confident we will respond with a united voice and emerge stronger as we have always done in the past.

I speak from my heart as a Singaporean, as a woman, and as mother. I begin with our policy on education.

If there is one Ministry which has seen the most changes in policies over the years, it is the Ministry of Education. We have seen how streaming our students have or have not worked in the primary school, hence, the change was made. As we have recognised that individual student peaks at different levels for different talents then we should not stream them based on the overall performance. Streaming does more than segregating the child educationally. Streaming separates the child from the people he or she mixes with. It channels the child into a mental tunnel and, in the process, inhibits self-confidence and self-esteem. A child whose self-confidence is shattered will be scarred and that takes a heavy toll on him psychologically. The

child grows up with the belief that he is a man of dull mind. Hence, in my view, the adverse effect of streaming has more than absorbed its advantages.

Look at other alternatives. Now that we have more resources as we move up the ladder economically and, with improved information technology and the good experience we have with the modular system (presently used in the Polytechnics and Universities), I ask that the Ministry of Education review its policy and consider the adoption of the modular system into our secondary schools. This will greatly help our students to devote their focus on the subjects that suit their standards and do well, and then move on to the next level of subjects. Here I am asking for banding of the students at subject level. The child who takes Mathematics at Level 1 would be together with his/her friends who are comfortable at that level. However, in the next lesson, he/she would be taking, say, English at a higher level or highest level in view of his/her literacy skill. In this manner, the child would not only have a wider opportunity of interaction among his peers but would be able to learn and recognise the strength and weaknesses of his peers and learn to interact and respect each other for their individual capabilities.

It is easy to stay in a comfort zone but it takes courage to venture forward and explore new avenues in a constantly evolving social environment. The children are the foundation of our society. How we progress, how we prosper in the future will depend on what we give to our children and how we prepare them now.

Next, I would like to compliment MOE for doing away with examinations at the lower primary levels, in Primary 1 and 2. Although the emphasis is on learning life skills, I would like to urge the Ministry to give the children time to participate in mass sports. We should give them the foundation in character building through

sports, where they learn about team work, how to cope with losing and winning, and develop healthy bodies. We should not try to nurture them to go into excellence in sports in school. This role should be played by the National Sports Association to handle the grooming and training for excellence in sports. The aim of schools should be to provide each child a chance to play a sport well in school. Presently, our primary schools are selecting children for excellence in sports as early as Primary 2 and this must be changed.

Next, preservation of our family unit. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ] The Eastern societies have always emphasised the need for strong family relationships. They face challenges together – if any family member needs help or any relative needs assistance, if they are having financial problems or if they need daily necessities like fuel, rice, oil and salt – our parents, brothers and sisters, cousins, even relatives are always ready to lend a helping hand. They are duty-bound to help one another in the family. They feel the need to stay connected as a family and succeed together. They will not allow their family members to land in a predicament. They try to avoid having to seek external subsistence or government allowance or to be put in a tight spot unless they are at their wits' end! And then, they will take action. Also, they will try their best to look for opportunities through their own efforts and not blame God and Man, meaning, blame anyone and everything but not one self. Such sentiment has gradually thinned in our society after we moved into the HDB estates. Some have even lost touch with their family members. Over the course of the past few years, I have been a Member of Parliament for

some time. During the Meet-the-People Sessions with my residents, I often hear parents complain that their children will not look after them. They criticise their parents for being naggy, they treat them as a burden and throw them out of the house. Or they will move out of their parents' house. Some parents cannot get along with their sons' wives, and they are not willing to take care of their grandsons because these old folks want some free time and space for themselves. Some elderly people have many sons and daughters, numerous siblings but none of them look after the daily lives of these elderly persons. To the old folks, one day seems like a year. Each time I hear the families' stories, I am at a loss and I feel very sad. What can we do to help build up family bonds?

Mr Speaker, we hope to help more of those elderly residents, many of whom are the low income. And so, before the Chinese Lunar New Year, the constituency will approach business organisations or foundations for donations. Such contributions will be distributed as "hong baos" for the low-income elderly so that they will have a happy festival. However, those with financial ability feel that "hong baos" are something they must have and they insist on it. This makes me very worried. Do we care too little for those less fortunate in the community? During the Chinese New Year Festival, many Singaporeans go on overseas vacations with their families. If the whole family wants to take the opportunity to travel, I think that is okay. What we are worried about is that some Singaporeans are away for overseas vacations to avoid the etiquette and customs of the Lunar New Year. They want to run away from the Chinese New Year. If Singaporeans continue to do so, it will inevitably affect their family bonding and relationships between relatives and friends. This will affect the building up of family bonds and values. Eventually, it will be more difficult to build a caring and loving family.

Mr Speaker, I hope that MCYS will relook into its provisions for single-parent families, give more care to the children whose parents are divorced. A divorced man with children may want to get married a second time. But he may not be able to provide for alimony. This means that the ex-wife and children have to face financial difficulties. Can we consider imposing stricter regulations on those men who want to get married a second time? We should ensure that they have the financial ability to pay alimony to support his ex-wife and children. Statistics have shown that the rate of divorce cases has increased from 6.1% in 2001 to 8.3% 2008. I also wish to highlight that in Eastern societies, monogamy is the foundation of the family and family values. This is something we hold in esteem. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we prepare ourselves for the economic recovery, we should also look into how we can carry forward and enhance family cohesion to promote family bonding and ties. As the saying goes, "The people are the foundation of country". This ideology is the push factor for our continuous success.

*Cols. 395-396.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. I would also like to comment on some aspects of his Address.

The constitutional safeguards requiring the President's approval came into effect in November 1991, but were invoked for the first time only this year – in January 2009 – when the Government sought to use part of the reserves to fund the Job Credits Scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. The President gave his in-principal approval for the drawdown on 21st January, the day before Budget 2009 was presented to Parliament. The

amount of drawdown from past reserves was S$4.9 billion. This House passed the Supply Bill and Supplementary Supply Bill on 13th February, approving the Budget. The President gave his assent to both the Supply Act and the Supplementary Supply Act on 9th March, effectively giving his formal approval for the drawdown of S$4.9 billion from past reserves.

During the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Government announced in October that up to S$150 billion of past reserves have been set aside to guarantee deposits in Singapore until the end of 2010. The guarantee covered all Singapore Dollar and foreign currency deposits of individual and non-bank customers in banks, financial companies and merchant banks licensed by MAS. This move was to give banks in Singapore a level playing field with those countries where the Government had introduced similar guarantees, Hong Kong and Australia.

Whilst this guarantee did not constitute an actual draw on the reserves, it was nevertheless a contingent liability and should any of the depository financial institutions fail, the Government will have to make good the deposit. The Government prudently sought the President’s approval and he approved this guarantee. I would like to commend the Government for obtaining the President’s approval prior to guaranteeing bank deposits. Otherwise, in the unfortunate situation where a MAS licensed bank actually fail, the guarantee would have been called upon and would have to be honoured by the Government. The President will then be presented with a fait accompli.

Sir, in early 1999, when Singapore was in recession as a result of the Asian Financial Crisis, then President Ong Teng Cheong had said that he would approve the Government’s request to draw on past reserves to finance recession measures, if

asked. However, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said there was no need to dip into past reserves as the Government had accumulated sufficient funds in current reserves. In November 2001, Singapore was again in recession. Then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised the possibility of having to use past reserves to deal with the recession as the Government had only been re-elected to a fresh term. This turned out to be unnecessary again.

The above examples showed the Government has been very prudent in managing our reserves and I commend them. This global financial crisis has in fact demonstrated clearly the wisdom of the philosophy to spend tax dollars wisely, accumulating any surpluses, invest them thoughtfully and draw on them only in extreme situations. The reserves form part of our national economic defence and, if safeguarded wisely and managed carefully, it can provide for the economic safety net for our country and our citizens. As this constitutional safeguard has been in place since 1991, some 18 years ago, and we have drawn on the past reserves only once, we should learn from this event and further strengthen this important institution.

Recently, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong was reported as putting up three "No" signs for drawing on past reserves:

No drawdown to support social assistance programme;

No drawdown to fund permanent programmes, no matter how meritorious; and

No drawdown except under dire circumstances that require one-off extra ordinary measures.

I find Senior Minister Goh’s three "No"s useful in guiding our thinking regarding this matter. I would like to

propose two more "Nos" to help strengthen these guidelines:

No drawdown without Parliament’s approval; and

No distinction between actual drawdown and guarantees or any other contingent liabilities on the Government or any part of it.

I propose the additional "No"s to ensure that Parliament will always have a chance to debate any actual or potential drawdowns. People should be informed and their elected representatives should have a chance to raise questions and make comments on the Government’s intention to draw down on past reserves, even if the President has indicated his willingness to approve.

An emergency session of Parliament can be convened to discuss an urgent drawdown or any urgent guarantee. The fifth "No" will prevent the kind of fait accompli situation that a future President may find himself in, if the Government of the day does not seek his approval before granting guarantee or taking on any contingent liability.

Sir, it is imperative that as a young nation of 50 years, we need to keep building upon our national institutions. Institution building is a long and unending process. It is necessary to build these institutions so that we will have the social cohesion and social ballast to see Singapore through difficult and challenging times. The Presidential approval to draw down from past reserves, or better known as the "two keys" system, is one such institution. Sir, I was quite disappointed when a certain hon. Member in this House suggested in the Budget debate that the President’s second key was automatically turned when the Government’s first key was turned. He even wondered in this House if the second key had always been

left on the safe! It is one thing for Singaporeans to be witty in coffeeshop conversations or for Mr Brown to satirise any aspect of our national life but it is quite another for a Member of this House to make such an irresponsible suggestion. In fact, as a leader of the community, one should explain to the less informed the conduct of such a serious exercise and strengthen our collective faith in this institution. Sir, the fact that the President agreed to draw down from past reserves within a few days does not ipso facto, make it a mindless turn of the second key. The type of urgent and dire circumstances that will require such a drawdown on past reserves will always require the Government as well as the President to consider the circumstances and act expeditiously and appropriately. The decision to guarantee all bank deposits have to be made quickly as other jurisdictions move, otherwise most deposits will move to countries which guarantee them. The hon. Member should know that billions of dollars can be moved with the press of the "return" key on a computer.

Sir, I believe the hon. Member in question has confused speed of decision with the independence of decision. He should know that decisions even when made contemporaneously by two persons can be different or similar and, when similar, it can still be the result of independent thinking. Further, the President does not act alone. He is advised by the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA), which consists of eight distinguished former public servants and civic leaders whose reputation for independent thinking, independent judgment, good sense and integrity is beyond reproach. It is the CPA’s duty to advise the President on all drawdowns from past reserves.

Sir, I am more than satisfied that the second key of the President has not been automatically turned when the first key of the Government was turned this time. It was a deliberate, well-considered and independent decision.

Sir, the President’s speech was titled "Building our Future in an Uncertain World", and he called for "Enhancing our Economic Competitiveness". Building the right infrastructure – be it great airport, seaport, highways, MRT or ultra high speed broadband, incentivising R&D spending, improving education through building more schools and universities to educate and train our young, better and affordable healthcare for Singaporeans – all these are important and helpful in enhancing our economic competitiveness. I commend the Government on these efforts.

Sir, recently a former Chairman of EDB was quoted as saying that Singapore does not need local entrepreneurs. He said that we can continue to attract MNCs to Singapore and they will provide the economic growth for Singapore. Furthermore, he was reported to have said that local entrepreneurs will not hesitate to move their production elsewhere if situations are more favourable elsewhere. Sir, I find it difficult to understand his call. I hope it is mere romantic reminiscence as he recounted his early days of courting foreign MNCs to set up production bases in Singapore to take advantage of our lower costs of production here. He, together with other EDB pioneers, have done well and ought to be recognised and acknowledged for the great execution of our then policy of attracting MNCs to provide FDI to create jobs for our people. But I also hope that this romantic reminiscence is not meant as a prescription for tomorrow. Sir, the world has changed in these last few years. We all know it will be a different world after this global financial crisis.

MNCs come and go according to their own interests, not Singapore’s interests. In the new world, local enterprises like MNCs must locate their distributed value chain where it makes most sense. That is why we need to review our strategies and formulate new specific strategies to grow our economy in the new world order. I am glad the President has called on us all, in public and private sectors, to put our minds together, and he is confident we will "develop new ideas to help Singapore transform, advance and prosper" in its next phase of growth.

The 2001 Economic Review Committee under the chairmanship of the then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, dedicated 17 pages of its report on "nurturing an entrepreneurial and creative Singapore". I am happy to note that many of the recommendations have been implemented. A Minister for Entrepreneurship (Minister Raymond Lim) was appointed and ACE, a public-private sector collaboration to promote local entrepreneurship, was formed in 2003. The international press mocked us for requiring Government to be involved even in something like promoting entrepreneurship. They think it as an oxymoron. Local entrepreneurs, like Wong Ngit Liong, Inderjit Singh, Kwek Leng Beng, Kim Faulkner, Ong Peng Tsim, Elim Chew, Sunny Verghee, Patrick Daniel and Kenny Yap, were involved. Today, the local entrepreneurship scene has evolved. The entrepreneurial mindset is more evident in Singapore. There are networking opportunities, financing and venture capital opportunities, Government loan and grant schemes, loan-securitisation programmes, mentorship and referral services. Even schools are promoting entrepreneurship amongst their students. Today, start-ups find easier access to capital financing in various forms and ACRA has reported much higher new firms formation.

So, we, therefore, must continue to promote local entrepreneurship in order to

grow our economy and "help Singapore transform, advance and prosper in its next phase of growth". Many hon. Members of this House, like Inderjit Singh, Ahmad Magad, Edwin Khew and others have tirelessly and repeatedly asked for more support to help start-ups and SMEs grow. Sir, the start-up company is usually small, agile, founded by passionate high energy and often highly creative person and friends. Whilst they are all very sure they are on to the next great thing, the next Google, they are often wrong. Start-ups fail most of the time. It is usually a bad idea or bad execution, often both bad idea and bad execution. However there are also the occasional great idea and great execution and when this happens, successful enterprises result. So this is the story of Venture Manufacturing, Hyflux, Creative Technologies, OSIM, Raffles Education. Others have taken over old family businesses, grafted on them modern management methods and governance and grown them into robust regional businesses. Banyan Tree, Eu Yan Sang, Charles & Keith, Coffee Bean are some examples.

Sir, these local enterprises belong to Singapore. Some of them are listed on our Stock Exchange. They pay taxes here and they set up their headquarters here because this is their home, home of their founders and owners. The owners, when they make money, build their physical homes here, park and spend their wealth here and employ quite a lot of Singaporeans at home and abroad. Most of the senior management positions are occupied by Singaporeans. They use the services of Singaporean lawyers in Singapore law firms, Singapore accountants in the big four accounting firms, Singapore banks, and I am sure they buy Singapore goods and services reflexly both here and overseas. Local companies compete with each other but they also learn from each other and we are beginning to see signs of

collaboration overseas even as they compete here at home. As the economic space is greater in the region than here in Singapore, regionalisation is no longer a luxury. Every company needs to have a regional strategy if it aspires to grow. The region, Vietnam, China, India and Indonesia, still offers great opportunities for Singapore companies. But the window of opportunities may not be opened forever. Soon we may have to face competition from adventurous and daring entrepreneurs from China, India and Vietnam in other countries who, too, aspire to grow and prosper outside their own national borders. Sir, besides start-ups, SMEs and larger local enterprises, there are other bigger local enterprises that can play a part to help us grow our economy, our economic resilience and competitiveness. The Government-linked Companies (GLCs), like SIA, SingTel, ST Technologies, CapitaLand, Ascott, Keppel Corporation, Sembawang Corporation, DBS Bank, are big regional or even global companies. They have penetrated foreign markets significantly and they have competed successfully against other foreign market players. They should continue to push and grow further overseas. They have the financial muscles, the management depth and the competitive value proposition to grow and thrive. They represent the external wing of our economy.

Sir, besides producing better total shareholders return (TSR) for Temasek, I believe they can also contribute more to the Singapore economy. Many smaller enterprises can benefit from associating with and learning from these GLCs. I understand that CapitaLand actively supports smaller companies to venture overseas to markets where CapitaLand themselves are established. You will find many familiar local food outlets like Bread Talk, Bali Thai, Food Republic, and

retailers like Osim, Aussino, Spectacle Hut, and SK Jewellery establishing themselves in the food courts and shopping malls of the various "Raffles Cities" that CapitaLand has established in China. I also know of Singapore architectural, engineering, quantity surveyor and legal firms that have ventured into the region when they won appointments from CapitaLand. So, too, have many Singaporean subcontractors, including door makers and interior decorators. I have no doubt that these transactions are carried out on a win-win, competitive basis. I hope more GLCs will follow CapitaLand’s example and help open up more economic space for our smaller Singaporean companies.

We should also undertake an indepth study to assess how these GLCs are adding value to our economy as a whole. I suspect they are contributing more to our economy than paying taxes for their profits and paying dividends to their shareholders. If this is indeed the case, then we should aggressively promote more such GLCs and larger private sector enterprises to go regional first and then eventually go global.

Sir, being a non-economist, I was very reassured to read Prof. Linda Lim’s article "Why local entrepreneurs are vital" in Straits Times, 12th May, this year. Prof. Lim, a Singaporean, is Professor of Strategy at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. She said, "Home-grown entrepreneurs are more likely to create jobs for Singaporeans for each dollar invested. Their investments will be less capital – and foreign talent-dependent, and less volatile than those of global MNCs. They would be more likely to purchase inputs and services locally than globally, creating a market for other local entrepreneurs and developing the services sector, the main engine of growth and employment in mature economies. More local stock market listings will give Singaporeans more

options for investment." I fully agree with her sentiments and she concluded the article by saying "MNCs, foreign capital and foreign talents have done a lot for Singapore. We need and should continue to welcome them. But openness to foreigners does not mean that we do not need home-grown entrepreneurs. We do." I agree with her sentiments.

Sir, in the post crisis new world, I believe the Singapore economy would be better served if these GLCs are managed as strategic assets, with KPIs which also reward them for adding value to the Singapore economy as well as rewarding them for their profits and EVA growth. When appropriately incentivised, we will see management of GLCs help nurture other local enterprises and, in the process, help grow and strengthen the Singapore economy. As this nurturing activity requires a different mindset, a different time horizon, different reflexes from that of managing a fund purely for maximising total shareholder value, I call on the Government and Temasek to consider holding all strategic GLCs under a different division with a different mission, and a separate management team with different KPIs. If these strategic assets continue to add value to the Singapore economy beyond total shareholder returns, then I would strongly suggest that we keep them and resist any temptation to sell them for a profit, especially in times when operating profits look sub-optimal. However, if this proposal creates difficulties or confusion of having under the same roof two big strong divisions with differing missions, different management teams with different KPIs, then I urge the Government to consider having two separate Temaseks – Temasek I and Temasek II – each with a separate board and management team to execute the different missions and strategies and both can add value to Singapore, albeit in different ways.

Sir, I am sure that such a proposal has been considered by Temasek and the Government before and found not appropriate. Sir, if we really want to build "a future in an uncertain world", I urge the Government to leave no stone unturned in reviewing our economy and our competitiveness. Sir, I recommend that the Government gives this proposal serious consideration again. I promise to be satisfied, if after turning the stone, the Government put back the stone exactly to where it was.

Sir, the NMP scheme was introduced in March 1990 to add diversity of views and opinions to Parliament in its deliberations. There were reservations, particularly amongst Government backbenchers, that the scheme was tantamount to allowing a back door entry into Parliament. Opposition members were also apprehensive about the scheme for their own reasons. So the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made a concession that each new Parliament will decide if it wishes to have Nominated Members of Parliament.

The scheme has been in place for 19 years. It currently provides for Parliament to have up to nine NMPs, each serving a term of two and a half years. To date, 49 NMPs have served. Some have contributed more than others. NMP Walter Woon outstandingly moved a Private Members Bill that is today the Maintenance of Parents Act. Some penetrating questions have been asked and quite a few suggestions have been made at Supply Bill debates and Committee of Supply debates. NMPs contribute even outside this House officiating at functions, events and certain NMPs also help at EGMs! Collectively, I think Parliament and Singapore has been well served through the diversity of opinions and views brought into this House and onto our national debates.

My observation is that, by and large, NMPs' diverse views have been non-partisan and pro-Singapore. It is important that views expressed by NMPs to be "independent and non-partisan" as intended in the Constitution.

Sir, I believe it is time for us to accept the NMP scheme as a permanent feature of our Parliament. We have tried, tested and tweaked the scheme for 19 years. How much longer do we need to wait to know it is good? I therefore call upon the Government to introduce appropriate amendments to the Constitution to do so. As the President has said, "our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time", I believe this is the right time to make the NMP scheme permanent.

Sir, I support the motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate.

In his Address, President Nathan outlined the challenges that lie ahead for Singapore as well as the broad strategies and framework of the policies which the Government intends to follow to meet the challenges facing us.

On politics, President Nathan noted that our basic system is sound because it encourages strong and effective government, and is responsive. He also noted that our political system is not set in stone and that Singapore politics must evolve over time as the world and our society change.

Clearly, the Singapore of today is a very different one from the Singapore of 1965 when we first became independent. Along the way, we have made many changes on the political landscape to adapt to our system. These have included things like the GRCs, NMP scheme and

the NCMP scheme. All of these have been in response to our changing needs over the years. One thing, though, must remain constant, which is the need for clean and honest government. In this connection, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Member for Hougang, in his speech yesterday advanced the proposition that only an elected Opposition can provide effective checks and balances.

In support of this proposition, he made six points. He said the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) currently dominates the House, can amend the Constitution freely and controls key levers of power in the country. Second, what if one day PAP were to abuse its powers, trample on people's rights and become corrupt? What can people do then? He noted then maybe the CPIB has a role to play, but suggested that if the CPIB is under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office, it cannot play an effective checking role. Fourth, in his Mandarin speech, he noted that some believe the ruling party would be able to check itself and it was not a nest of snakes and rats – not very polite. And that even if it were to break up, the remaining half could still run the country. However, he argued in response that the best way was to have external checks and balances in the system in the form of more effective Opposition presence. He also called Singapore democracy a one-legged duck – more animals.

Next, with respect to the PAP's argument that it was not responsible for helping the Opposition grow, he said that this smacked of a winner-takes-all, loser-is-a-bandit approach. And with respect to the argument that losing Opposition candidates can still be appointed as NCMPs, he said this was not enough as the role of the Opposition is not merely to reflect the views and feelings of its people, and that only by having a geographical constituency would an Opposition party be able to grow a support base and strengthen its

competency, and these MPs need to have weekly Meet-the-People Sessions to be able to appreciate people's real concerns as well as to assess the effectiveness of Government's policy.

There are several fallacies in the arguments advanced by Mr Low and I would like to address them. His main proposition is that only an elected Opposition can provide effective checks and balances and keep the Government free of corruption. In a nutshell, he is saying that Opposition in Parliament equals or ensures clean and non-corrupt government. That assumption is not only simplistic, it is simply incorrect. If that were true, then why is it that in many other countries, which have two-party or multi-party systems, there is nevertheless still problems of deep-seated and endemic corruption. If it were so simple, and all you need to have is an Opposition to have checks and balances, then why is it that in these other countries which have strong and vociferous Opposition parties in Parliament, that they still have problems with corruption? Going by Mr Low's argument, the logical outcome is that in every other country in the world with an Opposition, they should be squeaky clean, and in Singapore, in which a large majority of the Parliament comes from a single party, then Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world. That, as we know, is not the case. And it has been widely acknowledged, not just by us, but internationally, that Singapore today, with the PAP Government at the helm, is one of the least corrupt systems in the world, and that there is a high degree of respect for the Government and Members of Parliament. And that is not just the PAP Members of Parliament but also the NCMPs, the Nominated Members of Parliament and the Opposition Members of Parliament.

Since we have only two elected Opposition Members in Parliament, the fact that we currently have a honest and

clean Government clearly cannot be attributable to the Opposition. It must obviously be due to something else. And the question is: What? It is due to the fact that the PAP Government has set for itself and its Members of Parliament a high degree of accountability and integrity. What is it that keeps us from the path of corruption? From personal experience, I can tell you that it is the values taught to me by my parents, the values imbued in me in school, which is an education system set up by the PAP Government, and by my training as a lawyer within the legal system, which was set up by the PAP Government.

On becoming an MP, what keeps me from the path of corruption, aside from the things I have already mentioned, is the fact that I am conscious that as an elected Member of Parliament, I am accountable to the people of Singapore. By electing me as their MP, my constituents have placed their faith and trust in me, something that is not to be held lightly. I have no doubt that all of my fellow MPs and, most certainly, the PAP ones, feel the same way. All of us who sit in this Parliament hold our positions in trust for the people of Singapore and the members of our constituency. And it is also because the leaders of the PAP expect of all the PAP Members, including its Members of Parliament, the highest standard of integrity. That is not to say that some do not fall short. We all know of the case of a Minister who, in the past, had accepted bribes. He paid a very heavy price for that. But the point that what keeps us focused on the path of clean, honest Government is that the party and the system expect it of us, and the system has inherent checks and balances to deal with it.

After the last General Election in 2006, people may recall the letter from the Prime Minister to all PAP Members of Parliament, released to the media, which

reminded us of our responsibility and accountability to the people of Singapore and the need to maintain honesty and integrity. These are the things that keep us on the straight and narrow. It is not the fact that there is an Opposition. It is the value system that we have, the concept of honest, clean Government with integrity which is a concept that was advanced and implemented by the PAP from the time of internal self-Government and independence to today. And this concept is now taken as an axiomatic requirement by all Singaporeans of Government and it is something that was introduced by the PAP Government.

Mr Low asked the question: What if one day PAP were to abuse its powers and trample on people's rights and become corrupt? What can people do then? The answer is: If that day ever comes, then the people are at liberty to vote out the PAP Government, and should do so in that situation. The premise of Mr Low's suggestion is flawed. He is really saying: just in case PAP becomes corrupt in the future, then people have better vote for the Opposition now. But if you apply the same logic, then the argument can also be made that if you vote in the Opposition, then they may become corrupt in the future. So in order to avoid that, you might as well vote for PAP now. It does not make any sense. What Mr Low is suggesting is that people should vote on the basis of speculation and this is premised on the assumption that Opposition equals clean government. I have already shown why Opposition does not necessarily equal clean government. And as it is speculation, people cannot vote on the basis of speculation. People have to vote on the basis of track record and trust, and that trust must be earned and kept by our politicians at every stage of the way. If the PAP keeps faith with the people of Singapore, then why should the people of Singapore not vote for

them? On the other hand, if the PAP does not keep faith with the people of Singapore, then they should be voted out and deservedly so. But that should be done at the point when it is shown that faith has not been kept, and not on the basis of "what ifs".

Mr Low called the Singapore democracy a one-legged duck. The democracy that we have today is a democracy which the people of Singapore have voted for and which they have helped to shape, because the system takes into account Singaporeans' feedback and our changing social mores. Quite apart from the fact that it is not very polite to call the choice of Singaporeans a one-legged duck, I would give Singaporeans a lot more credit than Mr Low has done.

Singaporeans know and understand what they vote for. If Singaporeans do not approve of something, they also have no hesitation in showing their disapproval and making their views known. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga and the AWARE sage are just two instances of where when Singaporeans have felt strongly about something, they make it very clear and very plain.

The suggestion that if the CPIB is under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office, it cannot play an effective checking role is misconceived. When the Prevention of Corruption Act was passed, the very reason why the CPIB was put under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office was precisely so that it could play an effective role. By making it directly accountable to the Prime Minister's Office, the CPIB, unlike the other departments, do not have to report to any other Ministers or Ministries. They go straight to the top, and that enables them to carry out their duties effectively without fear or favour.

Mr Low felt that having NCMPs is not enough because the Opposition is not

merely to reflect the views of people but they need a geographical constituency and they need to have weekly MPS sessions to appreciate the people's real concerns. So the argument appears to be: please vote the Opposition in on the speculation that PAP may become corrupt and so that the Opposition can have a geographical constituency to grow a support base and strengthen its constituency, and so that they can have Meet-the-People Sessions. That proposition cannot be correct.

If the Opposition wishes to have a geographical constituency, then, like the PAP, they must work for it, and they must earn it. Many people ask the PAP Government for many things but, surely here, a line must be drawn. The Opposition must take responsibility for its own growth and its own progress.

Suppose the PAP or the WP were to invite a candidate, like myself, for example, to stand for elections. The PAP's premise is – join PAP, help make Singapore better, strengthen the team planning and build the country. Certainly, that is the way it was put to me. Going by the proposition advanced yesterday, the Workers' Party's proposition would be – join the Workers' Party. The PAP is doing a very good job. There is not much that the Opposition needs to do now. But if you join the Opposition, then, one day just in case the PAP becomes corrupted or bad, then you can be available as a member of the second team or Team B. But which offer makes sense? Why would we want to encourage people to go and join the standby team, instead of joining a strong first team? Have we got so much talent that we can afford to do that? The proposition advanced yesterday truly does not make sense.

What we have to do – all of us – is to take responsibility for our own growth and progress. And I move on now to the thrust of the President's Address, which

is "Building Our Future in an Uncertain World". He outlined many challenges: the economy, the global financial crisis, strengthening social cohesion, the need for social harmony, education, security, social space and creating a first-class home. These we have done 50 years from becoming a self-governing State. And the question is, where will we be in the next 50 years. There is so much to be done but it actually boils down to taking responsibility – each one of us – for Singapore and working as a team.

In this connection, I was searching for something that would be an adequate response to the President's Address. Like many things nowadays, you can find things on the Internet. And, oddly enough, I found the response to the President's Address on the Internet. It is something a friend of mine sent to me, and it is from YouTube. It is called "The Lost Generation" by Jonathan Reed. It won second place in the AARP U@50 contest. Basically, contestants were asked to create a two-minute video describing their vision of the future and what life would be like by the time they turn 50, and this was the entry by Jonathan Reed. I will read it out. When you listen to it, you will hear echoes of many of the issues that face us today. It goes like this:

"I am part of a lost generation and I refuse to believe that I can change the world I realise this may be a shock but “Happiness comes from within.” is a lie, and “Money will make me happy.” So in 30 years I will tell my children they are not the most important thing in my life My employer will know that I have my priorities straight because work is more important than family I tell you this Once upon a time

Families stayed together but this will not be true in my era This is a quick fix society Experts tell me 30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce I do not concede that I will live in a country of my own Making In the future Environmental destruction will be the norm No longer can it be said that My peers and I care about this earth It will be evident that My generation is apathetic and lethargic It is foolish to presume that There is hope. And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it."

The thing about this is it is written as a song. It is the last line "unless we choose to reverse it". And if you read it backwards, this is what you get:

"There is hope. It is foolish to presume that My generation is apathetic and lethargic It will be evident that My peers and I care about this earth No longer can it be said that Environmental destruction will be the norm In the future I will live in a country of my own making I do not concede that 30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce Experts tell me This is a quick fix society but this will not be true in my era Families stayed together Once upon a time I tell you this family

is more important than work I have my priorities straight because My employer will know that they are not the most important thing in my life So in 30 years I will tell my children “Money will make me happy.” is a lie, and “Happiness comes from within.” I realise this may be a shock but I can change the world and I refuse to believe that I am part of a lost generation."

And this is very much the same challenges that are faced by other people thinking that this is the attitude we have today. It is much more effective on YouTube, but I thought I would be pushing the boundaries if I asked Mr Speaker if I could actually play YouTube here.

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

2.22 pm

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

In the last three years, the Singapore economy has been put to a "stress test", with both extremes tested in every sense of the word. We started the new term of Government in 2006 worried about high inflation and the severe bottlenecks caused by our then-strong GDP growth.

Fast forward to 2009, and our worries have shifted dramatically to growing unemployment and excess capacity. The economy has never been this volatile. Sharp growth has given way to deep contraction. The pace of GDP contraction in the last two quarters has been unprecedented, with our national income

contracting 16.4% in Q4 last year and another 14.6% for Q1 this year.

Thankfully, the unemployment situation thrown up by this downturn has not been too serious. So far, the retrenchment figures have neither been as bad as past recessions nor as significant as previously feared. I must commend the Government for taking the bold decision to dip into our national reserves to fund one-off assistance measures such as the Jobs Credit Scheme. Such programmes have no doubt provided companies with some financial cheer amidst all the gloom, and obliged large companies which have received the Jobs Credit to hold on to their staff.

Nevertheless, this crisis has again highlighted that we are not as economically resilient as we had hoped ourselves to be. As a small and open export-oriented economy, our fate in this economic storm depends almost entirely on the fortunes of those bigger and stronger than us. Without major world markets such as the US, Europe and China leading the way, there is very little chance we can get out of the wilderness on our own.

It is therefore timely again for us to do some soul-searching and take a hard look at our economic strategy, particularly with regard to building stronger economic resilience. Is our economy diversified enough to power on even with our main growth engines down? Have we done enough to nurture our home-grown companies? Are we still overly reliant on foreign multi-national companies to add value to our economy, and in the process leave ourselves vulnerable should they decide to pack up when the going gets tough?

Just as the President has said in his Opening Address, our economic problems will not disappear the moment the economy recovers. Our constraints of

limited land and labour could derail our progress once we start growing again. Major developing economies such as China and India, on the other hand, will emerge from the crisis as bigger and stronger competitors, and they will be in a better position than us to pick up the slack.

Also, we must expect a new world order in the post-crisis economy. In the US, for example, all signs are pointing to a structural downward shift in consumers’ propensity to spend. On the other hand, we can expect an increase in households’ propensity to save as individuals rebuild their falling net worth. De-leveraging at the private sector will continue to dampen demand.

So, what are our options?

In his Address, the President had raised key questions necessary to take Singapore to its next phase of growth. Among them were: one, how can we capitalise on new markets and emerging industries for growth and diversification? Two, how can we build new capabilities and anchor value in Singapore for the long term?

Despite our attempts to diversify the economy since 2001, we continue to rely extensively on volatile sectors such as the electronics and manufacturing industries for job and wealth creation. The pharmaceutical sector, which increasingly accounts for a bigger share of our non-oil export, is dependent on a handful of large companies based here. Our export strategy continues to be weighted heavily on developed economies such as the US and Europe, where demand has taken a nosedive since the crisis began. We have suffered as a result of our dependence on global circumstances.

In the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI) Addendum to the President’s Address, MTI stated that it

will step up measures to help our companies expand in markets such as China, India, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The Government will also enhance efforts to engage and understand emerging markets with potential, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe. This "cast the net wide" approach is sensible and necessary in building our economic resilience. It gives the economic agencies the opportunity to be re-oriented to these markets, while motivating our local industries to gear up for the export frontiers.

Besides the new export markets, we should also build emerging industries as new growth areas. One promising emerging industry that I want to zoom into is the sustainable energy sector. With increasing volatility in the price of crude oil and the growing concern on climate change, the global search for alternative clean and efficient energy will pick up speed. Staying at the forefront of the energy technology scene would also help strengthen our energy resilience as we are almost totally dependent on piped gas to power our economy. Building new capabilities on this front could also spur demand for such services as Government, companies and homes look to improve their energy efficiency.

In this aspect, the Government has made some headway through the various support programmes, such as the $20 million grant recently awarded under the Solar Capability Scheme. Pending further breakthroughs in technology, however, the cost of solar energy is still higher than that of conventional sources. Commercial companies would be hard pressed to invest in the solar sector, especially if they are unable to price solar energy competitively.

Here is where I hope the Government can come in. We should take reference from the way we introduce our fourth

national tap to enhance our water self sufficiency. Desalinated water on its own would not be a viable alternative as it costs more than the traditional source of water or NEWater. To overcome that, PUB entered into a long-term Water Purchase Agreement to buy a certain volume of water at an agreed price so that the company can have a viable long-term business model to base on.

The Government could look to similar approach to encourage investment in alternative energy by agreeing to off-take a certain amount of electricity powered by, say, solar over a period of time. This will encourage more fixed investments with a longer term horizon, which will also enhance our energy and economic resilience.

In the MTI's Addendum, the Ministry also emphasised the need for a more concerted effort to deepen the capabilities of our companies, so that they can compete on the global stage. It mentioned that the Government will encourage more foreign MNCs and high-growth companies to anchor their key functions here and partner Singapore-based companies so that they, too, can be part of the Asian growth story. I fully agree with the Ministry’s strategy, and call on the Government to make this a top priority in our economic action plans in the next few years.

To anchor the value of these multi-national corporations here, I suggest we adopt a "pick and choose" strategy when chasing the MNC dollar, rather than a "all are welcome" approach. We should offer maximum concessions to MNCs that invest in Singapore with a long-term view. These firms should also be prepared to sink in significant fixed capital expenditure, as well as have a higher share of their earnings retained in Singapore.

To foster the internationalisation of our home-grown companies, we should

also incentivise MNCs to partner or form joint ventures with them. Here, again, without the economic agencies acting as middlemen to broker such partnerships, it may be unrealistic to expect these tie-ups to take place organically.

In our effort to nurture homebred industry champions,

we should leverage on our strengths. Notwithstanding other constraints, Singapore does have its competitive advantage in this race. Besides the presence of talents, excellent infrastructure and a stable Government, Singapore, as a triple A-rated jurisdiction, is also well-endowed with capital.

Our high savings rates, ample reserves and continued foreign capital inflows are a good source of funds for our companies to tap on for expansion and growth. Even during this financial crisis, our promising companies have little issue raising funds to strengthen their balance sheets. The missing link we have to address is how best to channel such capital into companies, so that we can anchor value in Singapore for the long term.

Perhaps, this is where our history books can serve as a guide. In the early years of our industrialisation, state-managed development financing, through the then-Development Bank of Singapore, was available to help promising companies expand and grow. Many of these firms today are established and successful, contributing significantly to our GDP, and, through the total or partial ownership of Temasek Holdings, remain firmly rooted in Singapore. With such dedication to funding and developing businesses, we were able to establish regional companies, including the high-flying global brand name like Singapore Airlines (SIA).

Today, the development bank model no longer exists. Agencies like EDB, SPRING, A-STAR and others have stepped

up to fill the void, but their roles are less direct, and the assistance they offer limited. More importantly, while such agencies can help companies obtain financing with more favourable terms, they do not necessarily anchor companies and value in Singapore for the long term.

In my view, Temasek can play this role of nurturing more regional and global champions, and, in so doing, root them in Singapore. Since its inception in 1974, Temasek's track record speaks for itself, having been an exemplary steward of the companies it owns. After 35 years, I think it is opportune time for Temasek to review its role and harness its capital to strengthen the resilience of the Singapore economy.

While this is admittedly a change from Temasek's current stated role of an investment house with purely commercial objectives, I believe the organisation can make a great difference by producing more respected and admired companies in the region based in Singapore.

The benefits of homegrown global brands are exemplified through the likes of smaller European economies, which have generally performed better and are less severely impacted by the global downturn. For example, countries with similar population like Singapore, such as Denmark, Belgium, Finland and Switzerland, have been pretty resilient.

On closer examination, I noticed that these are also countries whose economies are well-anchored by large homegrown companies headquartered at their cities. They are the same companies brandishing well-established global brands – such as Finland's Nokia and Denmark's Maersk – that play a significant role in keeping their respective national economies humming along.

For all our tenacity and business acumen, Singapore has yet to exhibit the

same kind of resilience. Therefore, our target over the next 10 to 15 years should be to nurture and develop between three and five global brands, similar to the likes of SIA.

In conclusion, Sir, let me stress that I am not calling for a 180-degree U-turn of our economic strategies. Our policies are sound and have served us well, and they will continue to do so as we emerge from this crisis.

However, simply reinventing the wheel is not the ticket to survival in this harsh new era. Instead, we should expand our economic machinery by playing an active role in fostering the growth of homebred companies; companies that were firmly rooted in Singapore. Rather than take a backseat and be content to act as a mere source of capital, I urge the Government to take the steering wheel and, if need be, give companies the direction they need at this critical juncture. After all, history has shown that the model works in our circumstances, and there is no reason why we cannot continue to engineer successes.

So let us be brave and venture out, focus on securing future opportunities and, in so doing, turn our dreams of achieving economic independence into reality.

Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] At the recent Boao Forum, the world famous Hong Kong film star Jackie Chan made a somewhat controversial statement. He asked, "Is it good to have freedom?" What he meant was political freedom. He further said, "If there is too much freedom like what we have in Hong Kong, we will have chaos. Taiwan is chaotic because there is too much freedom there. I slowly feel that we Chinese need to be

controlled." This is Jackie Chan's view, and such view has evoked some robust responses from netizens and the press.

I have adored Jackie Chan's movies since I was young, particularly when he acted in some thrilling movies without using a stuntman. And I admire his dedication and professionalism in his acting career. It cannot be denied that Jackie is a very successful film star and a hero in the eyes of Asians. But many would have reservations about his political views.

I do not agree with his view on the need for people to be controlled. However, his description of Hong Kong and Taiwan being very chaotic has given me some food for thought. The word "chaos" needs to be clarified. Why?

Jackie Chan is a Hong Konger. He was born in Hong Kong where he has developed his career. His wife, a Taiwanese, was a famous film star. Taiwan is his wife's homeland. Hence, he understands both countries better than any other person. Furthermore, he has been to many parts of the world making films, including Singapore. So he has good knowledge of various countries.

Perhaps when he talks about a country being in a mess, he does have some basis. According to a news article published by Taiwan Economic Daily, after 18 days of voting by the public, the "Chinese character of the year" chosen to best reflect Taiwan’s situation in 2008 was the word "disorder".

Having being exposed to the chaotic incidents taking place in the countries in this region, we Singaporeans are by no means unfamiliar with the word "disorder" or "chaotic". Some of us who have been to Thailand know what it was like to be in a chaotic or even violent situation and trapped in Bangkok's International Airport. We could not even come home. The fight

between the red-shirt and yellow-shirt protestors had evolved into international incidents which had caused the ASEAN Summit meeting to be scuttled. Even our Prime Minister had some unusual experience at the Summit meeting.

I am appalled at the chaotic conditions in such countries. Are we going to be like that one day? When disorder is the order of the day? Will we forget the livelihood of the people because we are too much pre-occupied in politics and the country is manipulated by a few opportunistic politicians?

I am not so sure that we will not have chaos in Singapore as there had been troubles in the past.

In the early stage of our nation building, we witnessed troubles such as the Hock Lee bus strikes in 12th May 1955 which resulted in four deaths, 31 people injured. Then there were the racial riots in July 1964, resulting in scores of deaths and hundreds of people injured. The older Singaporeans still have a vivid memory of such ghastly incidents.

We are lucky in having far-sighted pioneers who succeeded in steering the country through chaotic and storming water to a peaceful haven. Can we take the peaceful livelihood we are enjoying for granted? There is a saying, "It takes three years to build up but only three days to destroy." The stability which we have laboriously built up could come to naught overnight. The widespread use of advance info-technology and new media could bring about chaos and instability in a society in a twinkling of an eye. It may lead to unthinkable consequences.

As the President said in his Address, our political system is not set in stone. Singapore’s politics would evolve in tandem with world situation and societal changes. But the evolution must proceed with our unique characteristics and the change must be incremental and gradual.

I feel that there are two aspects on which we can continue to strengthen. Firstly, we must continue to maintain social stability while enhancing the transparency and accountability of our political system. This will foster confidence towards our political system. With credibility in our political system, Singaporeans will stay calm and be matured enough to deal with any untoward happenings in the country.

Secondly, we must invest more to broaden the various feedback channels and network to enable people to voice their views on Government policies and grievances. At the same time, the Government should pay more attention to such feedbacks and give more transparency to such feedbacks.

Lately, we have read in our media about some Chinese nationals resorting to violent demonstrations because they were not happy with the way the Chinese officials dealt with their grievances. Such demonstrations sometimes resulted in casualties. Then I read about the Chinese leaders telling their officials to keep in constant touch with the people and that they should meet the people often as what the Singapore MPs do regularly.

The Chinese classic Lunyu said we should avoid entering a chaotic country nor should we live there. Only an orderly and stable country can provide an ideal home for us. Only a strong and capable government can safeguard order and law in a country just like what we have here. We should support the Government that has an interest of the people at heart, that carries out policies which are beneficial to the people. The government we would like to have is one that looks after the interest of the people that provides peace and happiness for the people. We have gone through a rough time in our history. We hope the "disorder" mentioned by Jackie Chan will not befall Singapore.

*Cols. 397-402.

2.42 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

As I listened to the President's Address, I reflected on the events of the last two years that left an imprint on me.

One event came to mind. This happened about a month ago when the Overseas Singaporean Unit hosted a major gathering for 12,000 in London's Hampton Court. Singaporeans, living in the UK and other parts of Europe, had made the effort to attend the day-long event, together with friends and family. As they enjoyed the sumptuous selection of local favorites like laksa, chilli crab and roti prata, they were entertained by artistes like Jack Neo, Dim Sum Dollies and Taufik Batisah. It was, by all accounts, a very happy and proud occasion.

But, for me, the occasion left an imprint because, 50 years ago, as Singapore was about to achieve self-government, no one could have imagined that we would one day host a big party for overseas Singaporeans on the lawns of the palace of our former colonial masters. That year, in 1959, my father was just 20 years old. My grandmother was newly widowed. Broken by the war and with nine children in tow, the entire family faced a future as uncertain as that of Singapore.

Standing there on the grounds of Hampton Court, together with the thousands of happy Singaporeans, I could not but feel a deep sense of gratitude to our founding fathers. Thanks to their undying commitment and dogged persistence in rallying all Singaporeans towards a common vision, we have a Singapore today we can be justifiably proud of.

In that moment, it occurred to me that more than any other role expected of us in the House, we are expected to be custodians of Singapore's future. It is not hubris to think of ourselves as such because every Bill that passes into law in this House and every policy that is agreed to has a significant impact on the lives of Singaporeans and, more importantly, the shape of Singapore's future. If we decide poorly, it is Singapore's future which we gamble with. As custodians of Singapore's future, even as we keep an eye on overcoming present difficulties, we must not lose sight of the better future we hope to create for Singaporeans. What will our nation be like 50 years from now in the year 2059? Will it still exist? Will our city be beautiful? Will our people be gracious?

Will our economy be dynamic and will our workers live a better and more meaningful life?

Sir, my esteemed colleagues have talked about what needs to be done, I would like to outline the potential failures that the Government must avoid. Perhaps I could call them the "seven deadly failures".

The first is the failure to respond quickly and decisively in the face of crisis. In this era of uncertainty, we must not expect the journey to be smooth-sailing. We can have the best plans but these are useless unless we overcome the problems as they emerge. A good example is how the Government responded to the SARS crisis of 2003, and how we have again demonstrated capabilities to manage another pandemic if it occurs. Also to be commended is the swift introduction of SPUR and Jobs Credit Scheme which have helped Singapore keep unemployment to 3.2% and kept many Singaporeans working.

This leads me to a possible second failure and that is the failure to build up resources for a rainy day. If there is

anything to learn from this crisis, it is that having deep pockets help. If we had not been prudent and grown our reserves, we would not have been able to mount an impactful $20.5 billion Resilience Package to help businesses and workers in the current downturn.

The third possible failure is the failure to reinvent ourselves. At the birth of our nation, we depended heavily on entrepot trade to make a living. Today, our economy is much more diversified, with capabilities in high-end manufacturing, financial services, research and development. Building up resources is not just to overcome crises. Government's job is also to allocate resources to areas that will position the country strongly for the future. Singapore must anticipate trends and be ahead of the curve. Only by staying nimble and reinventing ourselves can we hope to thrive against the intense competition.

The fourth possible failure is the failure to excel. At a personal level, I know and appreciate how one can feel tired by the relentless drive to excel, to do better and better to be number one or two. And yet at an organisational level, there can be no substitute for excellence. No company or business is interested to invest in Singapore because we are "nice people". No foreign government will treat Singapore seriously if we are mediocre. No visitor will call on our shores if our attractions are sub-standard and our services of poor quality. Andy Grove, founder of Intel famously said that "only the paranoid survive". Sir, we do not need to be paranoid but we do need to have a deep passion for excellence.

The fifth possible failure is the failure to unite. Sir, I see this as a big threat to Singapore's existence. The biggest strength of Singapore lies not in military equipment we possess, not in the tallest towers we have in the city, nor even in

the skills and capabilities of our workforce. Singapore's biggest strength, in my humble view, is the people's willingness to stand together as one.

Ironically, as we become more developed as a nation, as the dangers to our survival appear less acute, and as our people become more accustomed to success, it is harder and harder for people to accept that they may get less while others get more, to accept that they need to make more adjustments than others, or that they need to make sacrifices for the larger good. When "me" becomes more important than "us", our social cohesion becomes weakened.

The sixth deadly failure is the failure to inspire. Sir, at 50 years old, Singapore faces a perception problem. No matter how successful we have become, we have also thought of as being quite predictable. While that is considered a virtue by some quarters, we must be mindful that a younger generation of Singapore aspires to build a Singapore that is perhaps different from what we have passed on to them. We must inspire them to take ownership of Singapore and build a future they are proud to call home.

The final possible failure is the failure to stay clean and honest.

Sir, on staying clean and honest, the hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang had some views on this yesterday and I would like to comment on his views, please. I will do so in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang commented on our political system and pointed what he considered to be flaws. He said when people cast their votes for PAP, they must also consider what would happen in the event that the PAP failed to self-regulate, faced obstacles in leadership renewal or

became corrupt in spite of Ministers being well-remunerated. He said that the preferred strategy was to strengthen external checks and balances. In other words, he is saying that if one day the PAP were to fail or become corrupt, Singaporeans should at least be able to depend on another political party to take over the Government.

Mr Low’s concerns are not invalid. The continued stable development of Singapore cannot be taken for granted and as such, every citizen should take an interest in our political system. The key question, however, is whether the strategy articulated by Mr Low will indeed be an effective one. In actual fact, there are few examples that would affirm Mr Low’s proposition. On the contrary, there are many examples in the world where the opposition party, after flushing out a corrupt incumbent, in turn becomes corrupt in Government. We need not look much further than in our neighbouring countries. Voters in these countries were led to believe that a multi-party system would lead to a better and more disciplined administration, and that the people’s interests would be better protected. However, there is no absolute guarantee. When the politics of a country is corrupted, talented individuals who are genuine in wanting to serve the people may not be able to win political power. Those who can wrestle political power from their opponents are sadly, not always talented individuals with a genuine desire to serve the people. The people become gravely disappointed by such outcomes.

Mr Low also said that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) may not be effective in checking corruption in Government as the Prime Minister, to which it reports, could prevent it from carrying out its duty. Mr Low has not

told the House the whole story. He must surely be aware that the CPIB can apply directly to the Elected President for permission to investigate any individual or organisation, and the Prime Minister would not be able to stand in the way. Is this not a kind of check and balance that the ruling party has imposed on itself?

Mr Low also referred to the policy of remunerating Ministers well to avoid corruption. While he did not negate the effectiveness of such a policy, he expressed some doubt that it would always work. Mr Low is a senior MP and he must have read in the papers that in the UK, many MPs from both the ruling Labour Party and the opposition Conservative Party were involved in the scandal on MPs' allowances. Does he believe that a system of low remuneration would better promote incorrruptability?

Mr Low reiterated that the Government must be people-centric in its approach. I agree completely. But how does one determine if a Government is indeed people-centric?

In certain Parliaments where members from the ruling and opposition parties are equally well represented, there are many interesting verbal battles, rebuttals and retorts. On the face of it, the people’s voices have been heard. And yet these governments fail to improve standards of living. Unemployment rates far exceed the 3.2% in Singapore today. Would such governments be considered people-centric?

(In English ): Sir, Mr Low has raised valid concerns. What if the PAP fails? What if the PAP cannot remain clean and honest? He has argued that we must grow an opposition to be a back-up, in case the PAP fails or becomes corrupt.

I have pointed out in my Mandarin speech that there are few examples in the

world where non-corrupt parties are able to win elections to flush out corrupt parties, and then to clean up a corrupt system. More often than not, the opposite happens, ie, an opposition wins against a corrupt incumbent, and then becomes corrupt in government.

The better strategy therefore is to work assiduously to preserve a corruption-free political system, and to keep up a political culture where there is zero-tolerance for corrupt persons, corrupt organisations and corrupt political parties. That is our assurance. To the people of Singapore, I hope they will think seriously about this issue. Is it better for Singapore to support an opposition, even if it is not up to mark, in the hope that it could govern well when it overthrows a corrupt PAP, or is it better to make sure that the PAP does not fail Singaporeans, that it has the strongest team to serve Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, I would like to thank the President for his timely reminder that this is the 50th year of Singapore's self-government. To end, I would like to quote Minister Mentor Lee who wrote in his memoirs "The Singapore Story", and I quote:

"For my cabinet colleagues and me, our families were at the heart of our team efforts to build a nation from scratch. We wanted a Singapore that our children and those of our fellow citizens would be proud of, a Singapore that would offer all citizens equal and ample opportunities for a fulfilling future. It was this drive in an immigrant Asian society that spurred us on to fight and win against all odds."

Sir, I submit that in this new era of uncertainty, this pioneering spirit remains relevant to all of us in this House today, the custodians of Singapore's future.

Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

*Cols. 403-404.

2.56 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

The President's Address was a comprehensive one, summarising the way forward for Singapore in the new world order. We take pride in our economic development and we have to continue to stay an open economy as we strive to develop new capabilities to adapt. The Singapore brand is a much admired and strong one but can our future generation uphold this for the next 50 years, building on and strengthening the foundations that we have built? For this to happen, we need certain attributes as a society and I have come up with a mnemonic – CITES:

C – Creativity; I – Innovation; T – Teamwork; E – Enterprise; and S – Soul.

These are the values we need to negotiate rapid change, face new challenges, increased competition and the greater uncertainty in a new strategic environment. We have been successful in the last 50 years and continuing to be so can be even more difficult. To do this we need our populace, our residents and our civil servants to adapt their mindsets.

On creativity, we need to be open to each other's ideas, seek new opportunities and move out of our comfort zones. We may have been good at incremental improvements, but we need to look for break-through ideas and look beyond our boundaries at the global village. From our preschool to our senior citizens, we need to emphasise the spirit of discovery. As we strive to be a global city of the arts, we must continue to strengthen our creative businesses, ranging from film making to PC game development, fashion designing to developing gene therapy techniques, and

so on. These creative services and international cultural events have high value-added components. They will attract foreign talent, as well as tourists and the spin-offs are indeed tremendous.

Innovation and creativity: You cannot have one without the other. Thus, the concept must be inculcated from young, starting from our schools, where our young start to develop their intricate network of values. We must continue to be innovative in our strive to survive. "We are what we are today, out of necessity", that is what Foreign Minister George Yeo said, and I agree with him. Therefore, we must continue to do so, for example, continue to be innovative and proactive in our approach to handle emerging infectious diseases, such as the current H1N1 flu outbreak.

When we talk of team work, we talk of collaborative culture. When we really work together, we will then begin to change beliefs, practices, tensions and disagreements. The "no wrong door" policy is one such example. All of us are familiar with the multiple re-appeals we have to do for some of our residents who come to see us at our Meet-the-People sessions (MPS). Often, they will narrate to us how they had communicated with the frontline staff of different agencies, informing them that they will be seeing the MP to ask for help and appeal. The response from the staff, according to some of the residents we have seen, had been, "You can see the MP if you wish, but there is no point because we will not change our decision". Where is the empathy we want to see? Where is the hope we want to give? And where is the case-by-case consideration we promise our residents?

In life, if you can give someone hope, you practically can give them the will to live and persevere. Thus, I am heartened to hear that the PS21 initiative in the civil

service will be re-energised and finetuned to develop greater sensitivity.

DPM Teo Chee Hean himself supported this in the article in the Straits Times titled "Empathy, the buzzword", Friday, 22nd May. Another example of innovative teamwork was seen in 2003 during the SARS outbreak. The Ministry of Health had to work with other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law, Singapore Tourism Board, and WHO. This required a different mindset altogether. It meant working with people from different organisations with different sets of rules, regulations and codes of practices, and even people from other countries with different mindsets. We are quoted in the literature for the novel way we handled the SARS outbreak. We applied cutting-edge technology and knowledge in vaccine search, case handling, rapid infrastructure turnover, and even developing the SARS ambulance, the first in the world. But even with all this experience behind us, we must never let down our guard because we must continue to remain vigilant in the changing world. How we came up with our 3M and 3E policies in healthcare have indeed helped us evolve them, changing healthcare needs over the years, is yet another very innovative approach.

Another dimension for MOH to consider in the long run would be how Singapore can tap into the latest techniques and development in science to provide excellent and affordable healthcare for us. MOH would, for example, in this case, have to work closely with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research or the Biomedical Research Council. This collaboration would require a different mindset of collaborative culture. Building a cooperative relationship is the first step towards engaging a collaborative culture.

Also, how we move forward with the foreign workers issue, which is very hot

indeed, is entirely up to us. We need them in our economy, they need us. Instead of complaining, we need to come up with innovative ways to have a win-win solution for both sides.

On enterprise, Singapore must continue to be a vibrant converging point for enterprises and businesses from diverse geographies looking for stable and conducive environment to bring new ideas and innovation as well as new markets. The spirit of enterprise must prevail. It is all about finding and creating opportunities, taking and managing risks, feeling comfortable even if we do not have all the answers but discovering them along the way, one at a time. Last year, I was approached by a person who had invented a novel, first of its kind, quick-to-set-up portable sanitation system. This was the kind that could rapidly be deployed in crisis situations, in disasters, third-world countries and even rural areas. He had even participated in the WTO Conference demonstrating his product. It was not the World Trade Organization Conference, it was the World Toilet Organization Conference. It attracted an overwhelming number of interest from businesses, companies, countries and even the United Nations. He had applied to the relevant departments and agencies in Singapore for endorsement of the product as one that was made in and originated in Singapore. However, there was no response from the appropriate parties despite emails and correspondence. Will experience like this cripple our spirit of innovation and enterprise? It is for us to answer.

We are now living amongst Generation Y. Their culture is more towards I, me, myself, a more individualistic approach rather than the kampong spirit that our previous generations were used to. The Singapore soul is that strong emotional attachment that gives us the close affinity to the ideals of national cultural identity and nation building. It is about our

heritage and conservation. It has to be the ethos of our being as we strive to become grateful people in a gracious society. In the new world order, Singapore will have to ask how we balance, firstly, a continued drive and a less stressful lifestyle. Secondly, the needs of the elderly versus the aspirations of the young. Thirdly, looking after Singaporeans versus the balance of regionalisation and internationalism. And, finally, consultation and consensus versus quick decisiveness. We need to use our soul to reach out to the needy, the low income, the disabled, the elderly with their sets of issues in Singapore.

As we start to face the beginnings of the silver tsunami, we need heartware. We need to bring back the heartware in our society. It has been said that how a nation takes care of its elderly is a reflection of its soul. The time for reflection is indeed now. And let me end off by having a quotation from Helen Keller, she said that "No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, sailed to uncharted lands, or opened up a heaven new to the human spirit". So that is for us to consider.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Courteous, hospitable, highly ethical, morally strong, big hearted and generous. These are the Asian characteristics and culture that we must enhance in ourselves.

In addition, there are the spirit of cooperation, working together, loyalty to friends and neighbours, and the culture of collaboration. The basis is simple – instil a positive, proper and resolute behaviour in our children from their teenage years. Parents and families play a crucial role in this. The principle is easy, that is, if there are dysfunctional family units in a country, this will affect that country’s stability.

We must develop these characteristics, as it will help us overcome the challenges in the coming years. Firstly, achieve better social cohesion. This is especially with the increase of new citizens and foreign workers. Secondly, increase the number of people who come forward as volunteers and philanthropists. Thirdly, make Singapore a first class country to live in. And, fourthly, enhance and strengthen Singapore’s brand name in all international arenas.

All these will certainly take time. But what is important is that we do not delay and begin now, open our minds, be far-sighted and continue working hard to take the appropriate steps. "Where there’s a will, there’s a way."

*Cols. 405-406.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.

Our President in his Address said that the economy has gone through a roller-coaster ride, with two good years in 2006 and 2007, a disappointing 2008 and a very gloomy 2009.

Yes, indeed, we are in for a very tough season. If you speak to the workers, they will share with you their darkest moments in the first quarter of this year, probably during the Chinese New Year period. Companies which were previously bustling with activities and a lot of overtime have just come to a halt. In some of the chemical companies, there were absolutely no activities at all in the month of February and March.

Can they feel the recession? Yes, certainly! They find it coming much earlier than any one of us. They could feel when the overtime was cut, when the orders were not coming in and they were not meeting their monthly KPIs.

The President in his Address has also said that we have not allowed ourselves to slacken during good times. Instead, we have restructured ourselves, upgraded our workforce, and also brought many new and high-end investments into Singapore.

We should pay tribute to our workers too. They have been standing tall, rallying behind us in good and bad times. I joined NTUC in 1991, 18 years ago, as a young officer. I took an elective module in Industrial Relations (IR). I thought I knew a lot about IR but I was wrong. What I learnt was the textbook knowledge. It did not demonstrate to me the resilience and the perseverance in our workers. I was an officer with Metal Industries Workers’ Union. We dealt with workers in the metal industries – stamping, machining and tooling. Issues confronting the workers then were bread and butter issues. We usually talked about annual increment, bonuses, individual grievances, and of course talking about allowances when we renew our collective agreements.

I remember this branch, Lea Hin Metal Factory, along Alexandra Road. They fabricate aluminium for doors and windows. Then annual increment negotiation was about 5 cents, 7 cents or 10 cents because they are monthly rated. The pay of the workers there is not high. They are long-serving employees. But what we have seen in them is that their dedication to work. Although they do not draw very high pay, they take pride in their work, and they enjoy working as part of the organisation. Today, the company is still there but they have downsized tremendously and they are very much in the maintenance and refurbishment business now. During then, there is no WIS, SPUR, Jobs Credit, ADVANTAGE FUND or Job Recreation Programme. But, again, because these are dedicated workers who have worked hard and who believe in themselves that they have to be self-reliant. I remember explaining Retirement Age Act to them in 1993. Before then,

we do not have any retirement age, but the unionised sectors were in the forefront pushing for retirement age to raise it to 60 years. Most of the companies were adopting 55 years as the retirement age. So when I explain the retirement age to them, they told me that with or without the legislation, they will continue working as long as they can.

I also took pains to explain the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which was introduced in 1994, to them. They were very unhappy when they knew about the implementation of GST but they accepted its implementation. Their concerns then were that as long as they can make decent earnings to bring up their children, and that their children can have good education and get good jobs, I think these are the priorities in their life.

In 1998, we were hit by the financial crisis. First time after many years, there was a quantitative guideline in NWC. They recommended a wage cut of 5% to 8% to survive the economy. In addition, there was also a 10% point CPF cut. I remember we held numerous sessions. It was led by the then NTUC Secretary General Mr Lim Boon Heng, explaining the rationale for such a painful measure to many workers through many rounds of sessions. And we managed to pull through that crisis pretty soon.

Over the years, our economy has been transforming, so are our workers. They have to transform, adapt and pick up new skills. We have restructured the wages, introduced flexible work arrangements, co-payment of medical benefits, job redesign. We have introduced many schemes and changes which our workers today understood that these are necessary changes for them to adapt and continue to grow. Again, the current crisis has shown that our workers can be resilient by working closely with the companies to cut cost and save jobs.

Where can we find unions that take initiatives to talk to the companies to restructure their working hours, so that we can optimise the manpower and that companies do not have to incur extra costs? One of the companies, Avanstrate, is in the chemical sector. The orders are still there but in order to cut cost, the workers, together with the management, agreed that instead of working from Monday to Friday, they shift their work days, one group from Monday to Friday, another group from Tuesday to Saturday, because there were always orders coming in on Saturday and they have to make production on Saturday. They could have chosen the easy way, just have the overtime earnings on Saturday. But what they have done is that, in the mood to cut cost, working with the companies, they move the working hours for certain groups of people. It was not a simple decision to make especially in explaining to the workers, when workers were actually hoping for more overtime pay. But the union leaders then took the decision, explained to the workers, and they persevere, accepted the decision and moved forward.

Today, some 30,000 workers have gone through shorter work week or temporary layoff. On non-working days, we schedule classes and courses for them to attend, to make use of the opportunity to reskill themselves. Since November when SPUR was introduced, about 30,000 workers from the unionised sector have committed to the SPUR training. They could or could not be on shorter work week.

So while there are strikes and demonstrations in Europe and countries in protest of the economic troubles, the workers here braced themselves, accepted pay cuts and tough measures. Many forums, workshops, dialogues were held with the Secretary General, Mr Lim Swee Say, explaining the need for these

tough measures. And we never fail to emphasise that management must take the lead in such measures. We are happy to note that while it is difficult for most of the workers to accept, most of them accepted the need for us to take on these measures. And, in fact, there are times when we get more resistance from the managers in cost cutting measures!

Our strong tripartism has played a pivotal role in enhancing the industrial peace, even at a time like this. More issues are now being resolved at the company level. Before 2000, there was an average of 300 disputes that were referred to the Ministry for conciliation. The last few years, we have seen that reducing to just about 150 per year. It does not mean that we have less cases now because we conduct surveys. We know that on a quarterly or yearly basis, there are still a lot of issues. But most of the time, the workers will try to resolve them at the company level, seek some understanding, forge closer ties, strengthen relationship and move forward. Many tripartite guidelines have also been effective in formulating closer understanding and, therefore, leading to fewer disputes. I have full respect and confidence in our workers. The determination and resilience in them is clearly seen in the many international recognition we have gained for our excellent workforce. Singapore's workforce came in amongst the top in various research and ranking reports by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI) and World Economic Forum (WEF). In 2009, Singapore was ranked first again and with a composite measure of productivity, quality of labour and technical skills. So bread and butter issues are certainly still important today while workers have many more issues to deal

with, in terms of flexibility and enhancing their competitiveness. So, indeed, our workers have worked hard to actually earned those top spots.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight two particular groups of workers today. The first group – the older workers. The older workers are those who have made contributions, helped built the economy that we have today. The labour movement has been, over the last four years, working with our unionised companies to support the re-employment of older workers. Today, we have some 70% of our unionised companies implemented, one way or another, policies to support the re-employment. We must not lose sight of this cause, even in down times like this. It will be challenging when companies are facing excess manpower. But we are also glad to note that a lot of our older workers have also made adjustments to benefits and pay in order to stay on the job.

Similarly, companies must believe in employing or re-employing these workers based on merit, skills and experience.

We have another two-and-a-half years before the legislation takes place. There are many areas that we can develop further – such as reorganising the work, redesigning the work so that it can be more older worker friendly, workplace health programmes, healthy living for the elderly, employability training to stay relevant in the job, even to move on to new jobs. We have been saying that working beyond 62 need not be the same job or the same pay, as long as there are opportunities to continue working and making meaningful contribution to the economy.

These are the workers who have brought us where we are today. They have been through the difficult years and they can continue to play important roles to contribute to our workforce.

Next, I would like to touch on the PMETs – the Professional Managers, Executives and the Technicians. The Singapore workforce profile has changed over the years. More Singaporeans are now employed in the positions of the PMETs. PMETs form the majority today, 51%, compared to 41% 10 years ago.

There have been numerous programmes introduced recently to help these PMETs to tackle the downturn. We have PCP, PSP and also some recent improvements to the absentee payroll for PMETs undergoing SPUR training.

Currently, out of the 530,000 union members that NTUC has, about 127,000 of them are PMETs, which means that we represent about 13% of the PMETs. And we understand that they face the challenges of the downturn as well. We have a unit whereby we have officers that deal with workplace issues faced by the PMETs. They are what we call the General Branch members, not from the unionised companies. Hence, there is no legal representation for them. But we could adopt a moral suasion approach when we speak to the companies.

We have seen an increase in the number of cases raised by the PMETs in the last few months. Most of them query about labour law. They asked where they can seek help if they are in trouble. And we have also seen cases where they were retrenched without retrenchment benefit after serving many years in the company or they were being terminated in disguise of retrenchment or they were just told to go on one or two months' unpaid leave, with no visibility whether there will be work when they return. In most of the cases, what they have wanted to is a listening ear – somebody listens to them – and somewhere they can seek redress and, in most of the cases, there were no proper communications between their employers and them.

So, with more than 50% of our resident workforce who are PMETs, I believe it is appropriate for us to have a new thinking on how the PMETs will not be left on their own, and whether more can be done to help the PMETs to ensure that there is fair play and fair treatment at the workplace.

Sir, we must continue to engage all our workers, whether they are young or old, PMETs or the rank and file.

This is the 50th year since Singapore has become a self-government state. That is something we should be proud of. The Prime Minister in his May Day Rally speech has also mentioned that this is a significant milestone and we should continue to look at what more we could want to achieve together.

Our workers have rallied behind us all these years. They have weathered many storms with us. When times are bad, they tighten their belts. When times have improved, they would want to be remembered of the sacrifices they have made and also to share the fruits of the labour. The President said that we will want all citizens to have full opportunities to achieve their aspirations. Let us not forget what our workers have done for us. Let us win this battle and reaffirm the trust in them again, and let us help everyone achieve their aspirations.

Sir, with this, I support the motion.

3.19 pm

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion of Thanks to the President's speech.

I am a strong believer in fundamentals. Even as Singapore is experiencing its worst recession ever, even as we anxiously await for a second wave of

workers losing their jobs, even as we await for the first news of the H1N1 virus arriving at our shores, I am happy that the Government has not lost sight of ensuring the right fundamentals as we help soften the impact of any crisis on the population.

You can call me a fundamentalist at the end of this speech. I want to give some fundamentalists a good name. In fact, because basic policies over the boom years have remained sound, we have been prevented from being "thrown off" the economic roller coaster during downturns. Thus, as we face this economic downturn, we must not relent in continuing our focus on important and basic fundamentals such as the emphasis on training our retrenched workers for new and alternative vocations as opposed to just handing out the dole and continuing investing in and funding the education of our children instead of cutting the budget for education in a recession.

Fundamentals are good because they are not only sound and ageless, they are often scaffolded by simple rules. For example, to succeed in stocks, buy low sell high. A very simple rule indeed; unfortunately many of us cannot do it. In fact many of us cannot succeed because we cannot keep true to this maxim when market sentiments overwhelm. My father taught me to spend no more than what I earn and to save for a rainy day. Very sound too; but credit cards, overdraft facilities, "buy now pay later" schemes and many other clever financial schemes easily tempt us to finance our wants with future earnings we may not already have.

Unfortunately, too, keeping to fundamentals is often too onerous. Earning from hard and honest work is a sure but slow way to accumulate our wealth. Get-rich-quick schemes work on our impatience and greed, often very

successfully. A good number of our youths, in my ward, I find out, drop out of school because they can get by, working at fast food chains for $4 an hour and leaving school immediately rather than wait for 12 long years of education to earn a basic trade certificate and in the process with much less pocket money.

Keeping to fundamentals is hard work because the perceived short cuts are many. The Government’s priority has been to tackle the crisis and help Singaporean cope with the downturn. We are grateful for the President’s assurance that every worker and family will be helped, where the lower-income group will not be left to fend for themselves and where every retrenched worker will get help to be trained and prepare for new jobs. But retraining especially in an area one is not already familiar with and in mid-career is hard work and no easy task. I am happy that Singaporeans have not expected handouts only but appreciated the need to keep to the fundamentals to be ready for a different future where their current jobs may not even exist.

I believe that long-term success can only be ensured by sticking to principles and fundamentals. This must not only be held by Government, but also by us all. We may lose our jobs, but our children’s future must not also be lost by letting them pre-empt their education. In a recession, as things get tougher and we have less money for certain luxuries and comforts that we have been used to, we must not lose sight to ensure our children continue to attend school and focus on their studies. The gravest mistake that any of us as parents can do in our sorrow and depression when we lose our job or suffer a pay cut is to affect our children; in the extreme some may even encourage them to drop out of school on the mistaken belief that they may even be better off helping the family by starting work. They can certainly find a job without completing school. But by

continuing and completing school, we will have prepared them for a career, not just for a job.

Therefore, as we face this economic recession, we must not lose sight of our fundamentals. The Government’s measures to soften the impact of the economic downturn and to prepare us for the eventual recovery will come to naught for us and our children, if we ourselves do not keep to the fundamentals both when we are in a crisis as well as when things are fine. In fact, keeping to fundamentals during a crisis will help us to emerge even stronger, knowing well even it is the more difficult route.

Mr Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Almost every day in the mass media, either in the newspaper pages, television screens or radio channels, we read or hear news about the current economic downturn. News reports about the high number of retrenched workers, the shrinking global or local economy from one quarter to another quarter, the fall of the once mighty global companies, as well as investors who faced losses due to the sharp fall of share and property prices, have become daily affairs. Recently, the spread of the H1N1 influenza epidemic that began in Mexico affected the world’s population, and worsened the fragile and uncertain global economic situation.

In his speech during the Opening of this Parliament, President S R Nathan said that this global financial crisis also affected Singapore’s economy. After enjoying years of good growth in the previous years, he described Singapore’s economy as going up and down like a roller coaster since 2006. Even so, we can still feel positive and confident as we can still continue our journey and not get thrown off this roller coaster economy – thanks to the Government’s effective

policies. In fact, we still see many people go to restaurants and holidaying in these uncertain times.

How is it that we can feel less pressure from the economic downturn, while in many countries, their people clearly feel anxious and worried? In Britain alone, two million workers are retrenched and an estimated one million more will lose their jobs. In Singapore, the economic downturn is not felt to be too strangling, as mentioned by my colleague Mr Sam Tan. My assumption is that many who are still working continue to feel stable. They have taken appropriate and wise steps during the good times in order to be ready for the hard times.

However, my worry is whether the lower income group is also ready to face the second wave of crisis that is expected to be bigger and more threatening. I am concerned about the reactions and actions of my own community, where many of them are working in fields that mostly cannot endure when faced with the economic downturn.

Clearly, the Government has focused on measures to resolve this economic crisis, and help Singaporeans to ride through it. We are very grateful for Mr Nathan’s assurance that each worker and family will continue to be assisted, and the lower income will not be neglected, and each worker will be helped to train and be ready for new jobs.

We are lucky as the Government so far has looked at the fundamental and main issues. Due to the fact that it did not indiscriminately overspend to gain popularity, it was able to have extra funds that were able to be compiled into the nation’s asset and used to fund the measures during this downturn. This emphasis on main and fundamental issues should not only be followed by all governments, but also to be reflected on by all of us.

These fundamental and basic issues can be easily understood but not many people can hold on to it well. For example, we acknowledge the importance of getting a proper and high standard of education. But how many are patient enough to go through 15 years of education with diligence and perseverance to reach university, while their households face difficulties?

It is the same for meritocracy. The policy of meritocracy is fundamental in our nation’s development and has made everyone work hard to prove themselves. It has produced the Singaporeans’ work ethic and culture, including in Malay Singaporeans, that are admired and trusted in the eyes of the world. But some still complain that they lose out and always feel that meritocracy has been contaminated by discrimination. To me, even if there is discrimination, it is an inborn individual prejudice and not a systematic one, and can be overcome by proving our abilities and building trust. In fact, we have to be thankful that there are factors that give benefit to minorities, and that we are not burdened by barriers that are set up purposely and give advantages to a particular race only. What is there to complain, when Singaporean minorities are not forced to embrace the majority’s language and religion? In Denmark, minorities are forced to absorb the Danish language; while in Sri Lanka, the Tamil minorities must master the Singhalese language, which is among the reasons that a civil war erupted. In fact, everyone in Singapore must speak English, even though there is no majority English race that is in power in Singapore. Why complain when our journey to improve our lives through education is not blocked on the basis of our origins? In fact, we are given support and assistance so that poverty will not hold anyone back. All Singapore schools have high standards and give equal treatment, so that our

children can receive good education wherever they are schooling, even in schools that may not be considered as elite. This is not like many other countries where only the rich or the royalty can have the chance to receive quality education.

In tertiary education, the Government is committed to give more university places, with the setting up of an institute that will give an advanced route for polytechnic graduates to obtain university degrees. In fact, those less well-off financially can get more help to continue schooling. I support President Nathan’s emphasis that education remains the best investment to guarantee Singapore’s and our children’s future. It is this basic policy, whether to encourage economic growth, close the income gap or build the future for the next generation, that education remains key.

As we ride through this economic downturn, we must continue focusing on basic policies like giving emphasis on education. We may lose our jobs, but our children’s education is the one thing that we must not neglect. We may have less money to spend as luxuriously as we are used to, but we must ensure that our children remain in school and can focus their attention on their studies. The biggest mistake that we can make as parents is to let our confusion and situation become the reason for our children dropping out from school, or even encourage them with the wrong notion that is better for them to work to help out the family.

It is true that our children can get jobs even without finishing school. But the Government realises that it is not enough to just create jobs. What is more reassuring is not the presence of jobs, but that our children are prepared to have careers. At the very least, our children must complete 10 years of education in primary and secondary schools, and get

the ITE certificates, to help them continue upgrading themselves in their careers in the future.

Two more groups that are far-sighted and held on patiently to fundamental principles will definitely be safe in this economic situation. My late father used to tell me not to spend more than what I earn and always save money. This is another fundamental principle that is easily accepted, but hard to follow. This downturn has woken up those who are faced with retrenchments; especially those who overspend beyond their means, do not have savings and in fact saddled with a lot of debts. Instead, those who think far, have savings and set aside some money each month, are not facing a lot of debts, and spend within their means, they must surely be in a better position to ride out this crisis. In fact, for some families, this is the time for them to think about investing for the sake of their families’ long-term well-being.

For those who have "saved up" in terms of upgrading their job skills, that is by ensuring that they always possess the skills and qualifications that are needed by employers, and are aware of developments in the world economy – surely they now are more confident that their services are still needed by employers. This is apart from being more ready to accept job opportunities in new or emerging fields.

In conclusion, today’s economic gloom will certainly bring many challenges and hurdles. But the storm will pass. In this downturn, we must hold on to main and fundamental issues, just as the Government has held on to the basic principles that have brought prosperity to Singapore so far. We must continue to focus on education, be prudent and spend within our means, as well as continue to upgrade our skills. With that, we can overcome this crisis successfully, and emerge in a stronger and steadier position than before. What is important is that the community must together grab the

available opportunities, especially in the fields of education and jobs, so that no one in our community will be left behind once again when the country’s economy recovers.

*Cols. 407-412.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.37 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

The President's Address is comprehensive and thoughtful. And he set in tone the right priorities and focus for the Government. It rightly highlighted the work cut out for everyone in Singapore – both the necessary interim measures to tackle the immediate challenges and the long-term philosophy that has guided us well and will direct us into the future.

The asset markets made some stunning recovery of late. The blue chip stocks chalked up gains in the last one month as confidence seems to return in the US. Property launches in Singapore seems to be selling better.

But the latest economic indicators remained disturbing. The Singapore economy registered a contraction of 14.6% in the first quarter compared with the previous quarter. This is better than

the fall of almost 20% estimated just a month ago. However, this marks the fourth straight quarter of contraction for Singapore. We have suffered slowdowns and recessions before. But this is the most extraordinary for an economy to contract by 14.6%. Sir, the talk of green shoots may just be premature. And I do not think we are out of the woods yet.

The global economic crisis has, in some way, affected the political and economic thinking that have emerged. I would like to share with Members some of my thoughts and concerns on some prevailing misconceptions and the need for continued progress and reforms in our system of politics, public policy and governance, particularly, the role of the Government and the electorate in our public policy formulation and implementation.

The crises bring out the best and the worst in people. The good thing is that most of them are well-intentioned. For public policy practitioners around the world, there is always this inherent need to show that they have made visible changes to the policies and programmes during a crisis. The notion of doing nothing or inaction is politically unacceptable. Yet, there is also the risk of over-reaction where governments swing to the other extreme in policy responses. In the US, we are already seeing some of the disturbing signs of government intervention in unprecedented proportions. For example, there had been calls for the government to take more radical interventionist measures in interfering with executive pay or board matters. We must resist the urge to do something radical, or even populist, just because we want to be seen doing something during crises. Excessive reactions may lead us to losing sight of the right public agenda.

What we must not forget is that we have done well with tested principles and

policies. We have delivered sound economic principles. We must not let recent setbacks in the global markets detract us from our successful prudent economic formula that has served us well.

Overseas, there is this increasingly misguided notion that globalisation has failed us. Anti-trade and anti-globalisation lobbies – out of their self interests – have also seized on this agenda and attempt to derail real progress and they pronounce the failures of globalisation. But let us not mistake that the current crisis is a failure of globalisation. We are still dependent on MNCs, free trade and global markets for growth.

We do not need more regulations. But we need better regulations. We would have failed if we fail to learn some of the lessons and build integrity in the market systems.

The spate of Government interventions – be it nationalisations, bailouts, asset purchase or even equity injections – to me, they are merely standard operating procedures (SOPs) in crisis management for the financial markets. They are pretty standard fare. And the role of the Government must be tempered once the crisis is resolved. What I mean is that big governments are not here to stay. We must let market forces work.

That said, there are indeed some takebacks from the current crisis. I would like to highlight two. One, the need to diversify our global markets and lessen our reliance on the final destination of the usual markets like the US and G7 markets. The crisis highlighted the fact that Asia is far from being decoupled from the US and the developed markets. Singapore needs to step up efforts to build new capacity, capability and new sources of revenue to sustain our long-term economic growth. We need to spread our risks and explore new markets.

Second, we need to smoothen our economic cycles in managing the capital flows. We need to deal with asset bubbles and economic swings more effectively. Asset bubbles, in particular, tend to reward the community unequally. But the US experience shows that excesses are created during good times. Bad investments are made during good times. Bad loans are also given during good times. On the other hand, excessive regulations and controls implemented during the downturn may cause more economic hardship and risk sabotaging the recovery process.

So we need to find the point of balance. And it may not be appropriate to over-regulate on the way up and over-regulate on the way down. Our public policy philosophy would have to incorporate the realities of the situation. We must be bold enough to sometimes say that it is enough and we are going to slow you guys now, we are going to moderate.

The financial crisis is not an excuse to look inwards. Protectionism, as the President rightly pointed out, must be rejected outright. While we restructure and retool our economy, we need to diversify our markets and risks, but we should never shut our doors to the external economies. Globalisation has its setback. But it will grow stronger as the developed countries impose better regulatory framework for trade and investments. We must work even closer with our neighbours and other strategic partners for global economic solutions. Because Singapore, with its open economy and experience, can help to lead some of the global discussions on economic reforms and even contribute to the new financial structure to build the new economic order. We must provide the right checks and balances on some of the anti-trade movements, particularly

those who want to see the free markets and to over-regulate economic activities.

The global financial crisis should not affect our efforts to build a more efficient Government. We must continue to build efficiencies in the public sector so that we do not have to over-tax the public eventually of the creative resources and energies that are possessed within.

The Government must continue to reform its decision-making process in public policy formulation and implementation. A participative engagement with the markets and constituents can more often than not produce better, if not more robust, policy decisions.

The Government cannot be the sole provider of all public policy solutions. It must not be too quick to abandon the process of sharing that decision-making process with the multiple stakeholders in finding the innovative solutions for the society.

Leadership experts such as Dean Williams have proposed real leadership and what it meant was that real leadership comes from those who are able to mobilise communities they represent to confront real problems and issues facing them and provide innovative solutions so that everyone can achieve progress. Simply said, the community solves the problems themselves. So, real leadership is not about dominance and control. But it is to allow the community to take ownership.

Authority alone is not enough to provide solutions for the country in the long term. We must tap on the energies and creativity of the markets and the community for political, economic and social solutions. The complex globalisation process brings a lot of new dimensions and challenges to public policy making. As such, we must reform our engagement process and expand the network and participative Government.

The multiple levels and breadth of Government and the wide network of interested stakeholders ensure that a single level of Government rarely has single power and influence over the way policies are designed, funded, managed and delivered. Instead, the management of public sector programmes should involve a wide range of players from the people, public and private sectors.

The fact is that Government officials may not always be the closest people to the market or public problems. At times, a top-down approach may not work as effective.

I heard of a story from a friend and this is a story about a small village, and it actually happened just recently in Thailand. There was a community leader that was not every educated, but he successfully led a community-based research focus group and a resolution to a dispute over a water gate. Because the dispute over the water gate had affected a large number of people and their livelihood, living both upstream and downstream at the Mekong River. But what is important here is that the efforts to resolve the dispute over the shared water gate was largely driven by the community leaders with some help from the provincial and central governments, and it was the villagers who provided the technical solution to the disputed water gate, not the well-educated engineers from the department in the central government. This community leader had little formal education. He even started an innovative mini-savings scheme in his village to encourage their members to live their lives honestly, help one another and be self-reliant. There are lessons to be learnt here, and we know that in some of our own communities and constituencies, our community leaders are doing the same.

Sir, in many of the public policy issues, a bottom-up approach can be just as effective. Here, in Singapore, we can do that through different channels such as the grassroots organisation, Resident’s Committee, CDCs and the virtual space, we have portals such as REACH to reach out to the netizens too. But, even so, I believe that the system needs to be reviewed for more effective engagement and participation in policy formulation.

A more affluent and assertive community can only demand for more say, and they would demand for more say, in the public policy arena. The elected and the bureaucracy must be prepared to expand that decision-making process. Other community-based activities should be explored and expanded for the community to work out their own issues, problems and resolutions. This is where our real leadership comes in during the adaptive and adjustment process where we must provide the guidance and wisdom to direct these communities in the right direction to change for progress.

On a more practical level, the approach towards citizen engagement is important as we attempt to alleviate the hardship faced by the community, particularly the lower-income group. Are efforts and reliefs getting to the right targeted constituents? How can we improve on the service delivery and policy evaluation? The emergence of a dual economy and the widening income disparity, if not addressed, can produce cracks in the social fabric. We need flexible and robust policy innovation and evaluation that can meet the real needs of people on the ground. Above it all, empathy, compassion and flexibility are what our officers should possess.

Singapore has succeeded by taking the route of the straight and narrow. In times of crisis, we must go back to the basics again and, like some of my colleagues, we have a question on

fundamentals and ask ourselves – what was it that has made us tick in the last 44 years? What is essentially Singapore success and Singapore brand? What was the differentiation that got us all here?

Reliability is our brand and reality is where we should go. You want rule of law, good Government, financial stability, political stability, efficient communication, capital mobility, friendly tax regime, corruption-free market, educated and honest workforce, good public service and a safe location for your children. You should come to Singapore. That must always be our position in the global marketplace.

But nothing would happen, whether now, in the past, or in the future without our people, our Singaporeans. Human capital is all we have. In a knowledge-based global economy, human capital becomes even more critical in the differentiation process. We have built a nation of well-educated, honest and skilled people. We have always believed that our education system will continue to produce them for renewal. The international community has also endorsed our system and society too. And the younger generation is a product of that system. This is the fruits of labour. And the fruit is ripe now and we should start to maximise the talents, creativity and potential of the generation. Let us empower and embrace this new generation. Give them a stake in the process to create change within and build the New Singapore for the future. We must believe in them. Because I am confident this power of belief would carry us through in the next 50 years, so that, together, we can build the New Singapore.

I support the motion.

4.12 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate.

I thank the President for his Address which eloquently captured the key elements of how we should move forward if we are to triumph in the face of the adversarial economic conditions. Without doubt, we have done extremely well over the past 50 years since self-government. Compared to most others, we are far ahead, in terms of economics, social cohesion, national development, education, transport, environmental control as well as politically. Now we are at another crossroads. The whole world has to come to terms with its past insatiable appetite for wealth and greed which has plunged the global economy into a financial abyss. Optimists are bandying around the green shoots but the sober consensus is that the present downturn will last longer than previous ones. What does the current downturn mean to Singapore? How does it affect our long-term plans and future? Will the downturn distract our Government in the long-term strategy to tackle other equally important issues such as environment protection and ageing population?

In the interest of time, I will dwell mainly on the ageing population. Singapore has done well for the previous downturns. We have managed to turn adversary into an opportunity to grow and further strengthen our social compact and social fabric. Likewise, we should be able to see a re-play of opportunities this time around. With the economic slump, many who were vulnerable even during the good times, were shoved unceremoniously into the dumps of hardship. Although there are many Government programmes to support these groups and they have been implemented, many have fallen through. It is perhaps prudent to remind ourselves that like the swine flu, no one can claim immunity. Retrenchment can also happen to any of us. Vulnerability comes with age. The older you are, the greater the risk of getting the

boot. While the economic outlook is uncertain, we know for certain that Singapore is changing demographically. By 2030, 21 years from now, one in five Singaporeans will be 65 years and above. Are we prepared for that?

While we recognise the magnitude of the issues when dealing with an ageing society, I feel we are not moving fast enough with some of the policies. In fact, some people from the ground felt that it is not in sync with the overall policies articulated by the Government. I would like to throw some light on this issue and some suggestions from the ground.

First, transportation. I applaud the Government's move to transform our public transport to be more elderly-friendly with more barrier-free access features, such as lifts at MRT stations and wheelchair-accessible buses. By next year, 40% of the buses will be wheelchair-accessible. Many have asked, since we only took two to three years to achieve 40%, can the Government speed up the programme to convert all buses within the next five to six years, instead of waiting for 11 more years for the rest to be converted? As our population is greying at an alarming speed, I feel that there is an urgency to move faster, otherwise our elderly would not be able to move at all.

Elderly concession for public transport – the elderly concession fare scheme is good one to encourage elderly to remain socially active and also to encourage more to extend their working life and delay their retirement. The current scheme should be enhanced. Under the current scheme, senior citizens with EZ-Link concession card can enjoy concession rates for buses from 9.00 am onwards to closing operation and for MRTs from 9.00 am to 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm onwards to closing operation. Many elderly who are still

active in the workforce have already accepted pay reduction to continue to work. They have no choice but to use the public transport during the peak hours. I am sure if they have a choice, they would rather use the public transport during the non-peak hours. I am hoping that the authorities and transport operators would consider waiving the travelling restrictions time for elderly and make their concession full day.

Let me quote some senior concession schemes from overseas. In London, senior railcard discount entitles the holder to travel anytime, singles and return trips, among others. Bus passes and railcards are issued free of charge to those above 60 years. Let me read an "FAQ" on the Colchester Borough Council website:

"Under the Transport Act every local resident aged 60 or over is entitled to receive a free bus pass for free travel in England (including London). This is the National Travel Concession scheme."

In Queensland, Australia, senior citizen card holders enjoy not only concession within the state, but also when they go inter-state. I do not think we are ready to go so far as to provide free transport for elderly, but at least consider the waiver of restriction times, please.

Reservation of seats for elderly on public transport – currently, there are limited seats catered for the elderly on our buses and MRTs. Should the ratio of such seats follow our demographic changes? The ratio of seats for the elderly is too low to accommodate a growing elderly population. I hope more seats can be allocated. Currently, an MRT has six carriages. In fact with the demographic change, perhaps a whole carriage that is closer to the lift or escalator should be reserved for the elderly? Lowering the cost of public transport as well as making public transport accessible would encourage elderly to remain economically

and socially active. It is important in strengthening our social compact. By 2030, one in five will be 65-years old and above. The elderly will form a very significant portion of our society. Keeping them active and healthy is definitely a worthwhile investment for Singapore in the long run. I would like to see more schemes in place to encourage our elderly to remain active and I hope that a senior citizen season pass can be introduced so the elderly can maximise the use of public transport.

Keeping our elderly employed and economically active – we are seeing many elderly workers losing their jobs and I suspect the figures could be much higher because many may have been forced to retire prematurely. As such, they would not be captured in the statistics as "retrenched". The Government should review its policy for the employment of matured workers beyond 60 years old. Many upon attaining the age of 59 harbour a fear as their next birthday arrives. Why? To begin with, they will face a 10% pay cut. Their benefits, such as annual leave may also be cut. It is indeed a "two-face approach" in our policy to encourage employment of mature workers. On one hand, they are asked to work beyond 60. On the other hand, they are told that they would not be paid the same wages for doing the same job, and putting in the same time, if not, longer hours. If there is a consensus that an older worker is unable to contribute in the same manner as the younger worker, then why not adjust shorter work hours for the mature workers so that they would not be overstrained and they have more time to rest? Why should older workers be asked to work more with less leave and less pay?

Let me highlight a survey in Toronto, Canada, and I believe that our workers too share the same sentiments, if asked. The survey found that shorter work

weeks, flexible hours, extended healthcare benefits, longer annual vacations are key factors in attracting older workers to stay on in their jobs. This was a study by Ipsos Reid, a Canadian market research company, which polled 2,052 people online. Sixty percent said that the top factor in retaining older employees is extended healthcare benefits. Fifty percent rated flexible work hours as their second priority. In fact, a guaranteed wage or salary ranked only 34%, while phasing in retirement is only 24%.

I think we should remove all age limit to employment, as we have done so for the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA). This is a form of discrimination against elderly. Let me share an example of how our policies are not keeping up with the times. From July 2006, the age for taxi drivers is extended from 70 to 73 years. However, the age limit for driving instructors remained at 70 years, even if the instructor is certified fit by his doctor. The policy on driving instructors must have been set decades ago. I do not think the job demand of a taxi driver is less than that of a driving instructor. In labour-scarce Singapore, we are encouraging our people to work for as long as they are fit. So why set an arbitrary age limit? Moreover, the advancement of medical science and improved healthcare facilities make our seniors today much healthier than their colleagues of yesteryears. Yet, this age old policy is not updated to keep pace with science, let alone keeping up with other parallel policies.

Healthcare for elderly – I understand that my parliamentary colleague, Dr Lam Pin Min, has highlighted some of the issues. But I would like to just point out that healthcare needs for elderly are unique and the demand will increase exponentially over time. The elderly are particularly susceptible to infections and

chronic diseases. Undoubtedly, our current healthcare system is one of the best in the world. However, I would like the Ministry of Health to consider setting up special geriatric clinics within the polyclinic setting and these clinics should offer something similar to the NTUC FairPrice format, which they set a day or time or even a particular location for the elderly. This will not only cut their waiting time, but also reduce their exposure to possible infectious agents, such as flu, from other patients.

Enhancing recreational and social activities for elderly – I feel this sector has good potential. With a growing number of elderly citizens, this is actually a sunrise industry. The demand for entertainment and social services for senior citizens can only increase with time and investors in the silver industry will find opportunities beyond Singapore, as there is a large pool of greying population in the other parts of Asia as well. Perhaps the Government can consider introducing more incentives to accelerate the growth of the silver industry with more grants and tax incentives for businesses and I certainly hope that more SMEs will tap into this new market innovatively.

Housing for elderly – small apartments are best suited for the elderly. They are not only affordable but they are also easy to maintain for elderly residents. I am therefore happy that HDB is speeding up the building of more studio apartments, so that more such flats are made available. I hope that the HDB will also look into its policy and see how preferential treatment or a priority scheme can be introduced for the elderly so that they can get these flats more easily.

The Lease Buyback Scheme is a good way to monetise the assets of our elderly. The current scheme limits only to 3-room

flats and below, and the payout is based on CPF LIFE which is a flat amount. The payout amount does not account for inflation, as this monthly payout will diminish in its purchasing power over the years. I hope that the Government will extend the scheme to the larger 4-room and 5-room flats as there is a sizable group of elderly living in such flats and are not willing to move. They have grown accustomed to their community and relocation will certainly give them undue stress and adversely affect the community. Application of the Lease Buyback Scheme of larger units will also provide more income to the elderly and also provide them with the option to rent out some rooms for supplementary income in future. I do not foresee the payout from CPF LIFE can sustain the elderly without supplementary income in the near future.

Retirement homes and villages it not a new concept. The key cost for such development is still land cost. While we can take advantage of low land cost of our neighbouring countries for such developments, many elderly will be uncomfortable with the idea because they will feel abandoned. I think the Government can re-think and, perhaps, allocate and zone land specific for this purpose. Such land should not be a white site, it should not be used for any other development and, in doing so, I hope that the cost will be lower. I hope that more low cost retirement homes can be set up so that the elderly can apply for such homes, instead of going to MPS to request for HDB rental units.

Care for elderly – I hope that MCYS will look into this very carefully, in terms of setting up more day care centres for elderly people. I am pleased that the Ministry has indicated that more day care centres and senior activity centres will be set up but I hope that this can be accelerated. Presently, more focus is given to establishing childcare centres and

providing subsidies for young working couples. But we must not forget that young working couples will need to take care of their elderly parents as well as grandparents. At present, the ratio of childcare to day care centres is somewhat disproportionate. The Government will have to consider enhancing the eldercare facilities and also provide more eldercare subsidies similar to the childcare subsidies for working spouses.

Lastly, I would like to touch on facilities for elderly. The Town Councils have been doing a wonderful job in providing three-generational facilities in parks, catering for both young and the elderly to exercise and to keep fit. I think we can take steps to further explore, especially for the older blocks of flats, to set up exercise facilities at the void decks. This will serve two purposes, one of which will enable the elderly to exercise, even in the early hours of dawn while it is dark. Second, it will provide them with an all-weather facility to exercise and stay healthy. I propose that separate specific government grants be allocated to the Town Councils for elderly-friendly facilities. In conclusion, I support the President's call in his Opening Address for us to build our future Singapore in an uncertain world. The world is indeed uncertain but we know for certain that our population is ageing. While one in five Singaporeans will be 65 years and above, let me remind the House that four out of five parliamentarians will be 65 years and above by 2030. If we do not take active steps to address some of these issues, the future of our elderly will indeed be uncertain.

I support the motion.

Sir, uncertainty breeds insecurity. We now face the deepest recession since Independence. The President's Address

struck a note of sobriety. He spoke of the "global financial crisis" and the turbulent waters the good ship Singapore must navigate "when the storm clears" in a "less benign and predictable" post-crisis global landscape.

The only safe ship in a storm is leadership, where the only constant is change. Leadership must give hope that we can survive this storm. The Government's intention to address immediate priorities and to continue investing in the future well-being of Singaporeans is encouraging. For example, to help the needy, ComCare will be updated, struggling HDB households will receive assistance with immediate mortgage repayments.

To secure Singapore's long-term survivability, there are plans for a new university and tertiary institutes, perhaps a new medical school and more hospitals to care for the coming "silver tsunami". To foster economic competitiveness and development, new markets are being sought, Singapore is being promoted as a prime international arbitration venue in Asia. The Singapore Companies Act will be reviewed and re-employment laws will be enacted to strengthen social-economic infrastructure. The Government knows that economic troubles can have social and political consequences too.

A ship sailing into a maelstrom must batten down its hatches, to secure the vessel. In this, it is good to have the moral compass of our fundamental values to cohere us, and a strong hand on the rudder to ensure we do not run aground on the shallows. Seneca, a stoic philosopher said, "If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."

The MICA addendum states that a mid-term censorship review committee will be convened to review new media regulations to provide "more choices in

content without compromising Singapore's racial harmony, social cohesion and strong family values." Similarly, MHA states that cyberspace's dark side, such as facilitating transnational crime and terrorism will be dealt with by "remaining committed to the values and fundamentals which have made Singapore what it is today".

I will focus on two things the President highlighted: first, the need to preserve social cohesion; and second, the evolving political system; and may I add, the evolving nature of Singapore politics.

The President warned that challenging times exert "stresses" on society. As Singaporeans, we are in the same boat and the rowers need to have some unity in spirit to propel the boat forward. Jean-Paul Sartre said, "Only the guy who isn't rowing has time to rock the boat."

The President identified three fault-lines which threaten to dissipate the social capital of trust between different communities.

First, the fault line caused by economic disparity between the rich and poor; the Government's commitment to providing social services, creating new jobs and skills upgrading seeks to alleviate the burdens of lower-income Singaporeans, to help secure an economically inclusive society.

Second, the fault-line between citizens, new citizens and non-citizens. MCYS will spearhead community bonding efforts through, for example, the National Integration Council.

Third, the President discerned with acuity a new threat to social harmony. This takes the form of tensions between groups or sectors of society going beyond the classic example of inter-religious

group hostility, as when a preacher insults another faith or cases of insensitive proselytisation. Social tensions can also manifest between "religious groups" and non-religious or "secular" groups.

The President exhorted "all groups to practise tolerance, restraint and mutual respect" so we can peacefully co-exist "in a multi-racial, multi-religious society". This applies to all concerned parties, "not just to religious groups venturing into the secular domain but also to secular groups which want to strongly push their views and change our social norms".

Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." So, when activists aggressively seek to advance their own agenda, this will provoke concern and resistance from other citizens.

People with different visions of what constitute good public values will disagree about rights, and about what is wrong and right. Such disagreement should be welcomed, not feared. It is evidence that citizens do take the common good seriously and care about what our society should and could be.

A key issue for sustainable democracy is whether we can disagree without being disagreeable. Can a citizen make or criticise a view, without resort to vilification or making personal or professional attacks? Such forms of infantile bullying do not advance debate, indicating a naked intolerance of competing views and a degenerative brand of politicking marked by vulgarity, vociferation and threats of violence. This augurs social fragmentation, thwarting democratic debate by intimidating dissenters. This threat to social harmony, where secular groups aggressively push radical agendas is a flash-point which, if not firmly corralled, may wreck the ship. Where emotions run high, as recent events have made us aware of, we need clear terms of

engagement to preserve civil, intelligible discourse within our secular democracy.

The President’s speech discerned a new type of politics which does not involve political parties or partisan politics. Instead, it involves political lobby groups with shared agendas. This may be described as ideological politics, which throws up standard political dichotomies like "conservative/liberal" or "left/right." Like most labels, these are over-simplistic. A Talmudic proverb instructs us to "Examine the contents, not the label of a bottle", which is wise if we are interested in substance over sound-bites, with rigorous argument over aggressive rhetoric. Bald assertions must not be allowed to masquerade as arguments. For example, chanting the mantra of being "inclusive" evades the more basic question of what to include or exclude, and why.

Dante Alighieri in his poem the Divine Comedy, wrote: "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral crisis." Concerned citizens will always want to speak to the moral or ethical basis of law and policy and their views will differ, depending on the religious or non-religious philosophies shaping their moral beliefs.

Intellectual honesty knows there is no neutral ground in public debate over moral issues: anyone who believes in a system of ethics must make moral judgments and discriminate between right and wrong. If you tell someone "Thou shalt not judge", they may retort "but thou art judging me". Or in more contemporary parlance, "Who died and made you king?"

A relativist may argue there are no moral absolutes – it all depends on the person. However, in saying "there are no moral absolutes", the relativist is being inconsistent in making an absolute statement about morality. If morality is subjective, a consistent relativist cannot

defend the correctness of any contingent moral position.

The truth is, anyone speaking for or against a position acts as an advocate. We all come to public debate proposing specific moral views. Only the Government may impose a view by law. Parliament must decide what morality to clothe beneficial legislation with. Where there are diverse views, an overlapping consensus may be possible through patient dialogue. However, consensus may be elusive, if not impossible, on controversial questions of law and profound moral disagreement. This is the reality of politics, and a persistent feature of philosophical pontification and theological discourse.

In this context, the President reminds us of the overriding objective to "live peacefully together" despite our differences. The constitutional liberty to speak and debate cannot flourish without order and prudent self-restraint. Neither religion nor irreligion has the right to break the peace. A commitment to free democratic debate entails protecting speech we disagree with. Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is tolerance applied to dissenting views, which must be reciprocated, to succeed.

A militant model of secularism calls for a dogmatic separation of religion and state. In such jurisdictions, people may object when others with religiously-informed values debate public policy. When French President Sarkozy advocated a "positive secularism" which views religion as an asset, not a danger, he provoked many in a country with a strong anti-clerical tradition dating back to the bloody French revolution, who thought this violated strict French secularism.

In contrast, "religion", which may not include a belief in God or gods, is

generally viewed in Singapore as a constructive social force, although the Government appreciates its destabilising proclivities where abused for political gain.

4.36 pm

In a recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed, as a basic rule of engagement. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates "religion" from "politics". We need to understand what "secularism" entails in Singapore for more specific guidance. Singapore, like many other countries, bucks the "secularisation" thesis arising out of Europe. This postulates that religious belief declines as societies modernise. Clearly, the European experience cannot be universalised. As Singapore modernises, it remains a religious society within a secular state, where 80% of Singaporeans profess a religious faith.

A state’s attitude towards religion turns upon its model of constitutional secularism. "Secularism" is a protean, chameleon-like term: what it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. "Secularism" has been used to describe varied state attitudes towards religion, from support, to antagonism to benevolent neutrality. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision. There are, in fact, many secularisms or degrees of secularity. This complex term needs to be unpacked. Historically, "secularism" originates from the Latin "saeculum", meaning "temporal", worldly affairs, rather than "spiritual" other-worldly matters. The word "secular" is an emblem of intense historical conflict. Atheists like

George Holyoake in 1846 used it to indicate disinterest, rather than opposition, to religion.

Today in some circles, "secularism" connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man. The other prophets of evangelical atheism include Sigmund Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche who famously declared "God is dead" and considered religiosity the "intellectual infancy of humanity." Some still speak with this same hubris, advocating that the "poison of religion" be banned from the public square; this brand of illiberal atheism is peddled in their best-selling books, espousing untutored views that denigrate religion as foolish superstition.

In origins, the principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth to Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: while a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God. Religious liberty thus limits state power. America first experimented constitutionally with dividing sacred from secular authority, rejecting the European conflation of civil and religious power. This idea of "two jurisdictions" was revolutionary in ancient Rome, where emperors as political leaders were worshipped as gods. Early Christians who refused to worship Caesar were thrown to lions in the Circus for committing treason, not blasphemy.

Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed described Singapore secularism as "secularism with a soul". This deft juxtaposing of the material and the metaphysical speaks of the co-operative relation between state and religion in Singapore. The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council as a statutory Government body serving the Muslim community.

In 1989, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo observed the Government was "secular but it is certainly not atheistic". This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism. A "thick" secularism constitutes a substantive ideology which, like any other religion, speaks to first order questions of life and death and how human action ought to be guided.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of god, is a comprehensive anti-theistic worldview. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of god, without empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether god exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic. It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: "it is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact." Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion. As Hamlet said to Horatio: "there are more things in heaven and earth, ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Secular democracies like Singapore should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations. What is the situation in Singapore? Deputy Prime Minister Wong in a recent media

interview emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping 'religion' and 'politics' separate was a key rule of political engagement. What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to all and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated as in the Hebrew state under Mosaic law or Ottoman empire where mosque and state were united. Theocracies are anti-democratic and oppressively homogenising, especially in plural societies like ours. While anti-theocratic, Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong welcomed the public service of individuals inspired by their religious convictions; they also "set" society’s "moral tone". He affirmed that religious individuals had the same right as other citizens to "express their views on issues in the public space" guided by their beliefs. Religion is thus separated from politics, but religion is not separated from public life and culture. Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. This is democratic and cherishes viewpoint diversity. While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised. Thus, Singapore secularism is "agnostic" and "thin". The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise "accommodative secularism" described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one’s choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate; when this House debated the casino project, I noted many MPs prefaced their speeches by confessing

their specific faiths! Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a 'framework' which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions; it celebrates free conscience, consonant with classic liberalism which accepts intellectual variety as integral to a free society.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in Communist states. Secularism is a faith-based system; like any religion, it has its moderates and its zealots. Like religious fundamentalisms, there can also be secular fundamentalisms.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious in attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment or to distract citizens from the merits of an argument by discounting a speaker whose values are shaped by a religious rather than a secular faith. This is a strategy of avoidance, not engagement. One of my colleagues, a family law expert asked in exasperation: "When can a person simply speak up as a whole person made up of all the values that convict him and not be accused of mixing religion with politics?"

All views should be heard and subject to public critique, as the price of admission to the arena of public discourse. This is what it means to take differences seriously. The best argument will most persuade. As John Milton wrote: Let Truth and Falsehood grapple: who ever knew Truth put to the worst, in a free and open encounter?

Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the 'culture wars' in the US and provokes

those it seeks to exclude. It will not promote unity in diversity. Importing this type of kulturkampf or culture wars into Singapore would go against the President’s Call for tolerance, restraint and mutual respect, which are reciprocal civic virtues. Should this eventuate, das ist nicht gut. The President’s call for restraint is timely. The call for toleration must be framed against the bigger question: what should we tolerate? We should be intolerant of racism and anti-religious bigotry which will impair racial and religious harmony and the rule of law.

When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However, the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which, to borrow a canine metaphor, rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running-dog. The Singapore press is expected to promote nation-building, help forge consensus and facilitate consultative democracy. Journalists are entitled, like all citizens, to have their own opinions; however, they do a disservice if they report contentious issues in a one-sided fashion. This misinforms rather than informs. The principle must always be to hear both sides, canvass all perspectives.

The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the AWARE controversy, which was disquieting enough for the President to reference, was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased; it largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations. Emails I received described how many perceived such reporting as being "slanted", "personal and spiteful", "too smug", "self-righteous" and "irresponsible". Some

spoke of their new lists of "fair" and "unfair" journalists.

The proper limits of religious activism is certainly a valid issue that arose, but there were other issues, such as whether a religious group was involved, as opposed to individuals with a religious faith. Another interesting enquiry would be whether it was really a debate about values rather than religious overstepping. Any attention given to this issue was strangely subdued.

It was hard to shake the impression that certain journalists were playing the "I don’t like your views so I will play the religionists are imposing their values' card". This was very disappointing. When is a reporter reporting, and when playing an advocate? We do not want to arrive at the place where, as Mark Twain put it: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

TODAY published an insightful online letter on 5th May which fairly commented that the biased reporting not only distorted the issue but may have lent fuel to fire in inciting hatred and ill-will against a religious minority. The author wondered whether the "highly inappropriate" linking of personalities to their "personal religious beliefs" exacerbated "the tension that led to death threats and call for boycott". He called for the censure of "such lines of reporting that incite religious intolerance, by speculating one’s motive based on personal faith". Irresponsible reporting can threaten social harmony and undermine social cohesion. How is journalistic autonomy, integrity and accountability to be secured?

Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate and most effective representation of differing viewpoints, and

not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true, accurate and sound, in the spirit of participatory democracy.

This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the AWARE saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.

This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from the Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.

Sir, the President mentioned the need to update the political system which is "not set in stone" and securing good leadership. Aside from the guidelines Senior Minister Goh articulated, I hope that promoting electoral competition and enhancing democratic legitimacy will also receive attention in strengthening the political system.

Regarding Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), I suggest capping the numerical size of a GRC team, perhaps to the original three members, to secure the constitutional rationale of ensuring minority legislative representation, while heightening prospects for a competitive system. GRCs can link up informally to ensure economies of scale or a critical mass to run Town Councils and CDCs, which are strictly beyond the constitutional design for GRCs. In addition, as there is no specific quota for the total number of minority MPs the GRC scheme should yield, increasing the GRC team size and decreasing the number of GRCs might lead to a decline in number of minority MPs. There should be a clear rule

stipulating a minimum floor of minority MPs to ensure their adequate representation.

In relation to issues of fairness and viewpoint diversity, diversity can be encouraged without undermining a strong, effective government by increasing the number of single member constituencies (SMCs).

In 1988, when GRCs were first introduced, there were 42 SMCs. Today, the law only requires eight SMCs. If a strong government is considered to be one in control of, say, two-thirds of the House, this would be 56 seats. Having more SMCs will enhance the prospect of having more diverse viewpoints, a closer voter-MP link and satisfy issues of democratic legitimacy. Who knows, it may reintroduce the viability of the independent parliamentary candidate which appears to have gone the way of the dinosaur since 1988. The number of SMCs could easily be doubled or tripled without affecting the strength of the political party which wins all or most of the GRCs.

To enhance political pluralism, the Government may wish to increase the number of NCMPs from the current three to the permitted maximum of six, and to give them full voting rights to reflect the constitutional importance of oppositional politics.

Madam, in our evolving political system, the President urged that Singapore "cannot just be a collection of different communities"; we must share common values; politics must focus on the common good and not be merely a contest between the narrow agendas of interest groups.

Henrik Ibsen said, "A community is like a ship; everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm." I am confident the

post-65 generation will step up to the plate and fill the leadership ranks in politics and social life.

Madam, former Czech President Vaclav Havel said the only genuine and worthy politics was "a matter of serving those around us: serving the community and serving those who come after us". He said the deepest roots of politics were moral, as it was "a responsibility expressed through action, to and for the whole".

I hope this ideal of service will continue to guide our Government leaders, as they lead this nation through foul storm and fair weather.

Madam, I support this motion.

4.52 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President.

I am regularly asked by people I meet what we are doing on ageing issues. In end-March, MCYS released a report summarising the work done to prepare our population for ageing. Titled "Adding Life to Years", the report also contains practical information and personal stories for the public. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani Mehta asked about our public education efforts. We have published this report, and it is available on MCYS’ website. It has also been circulated to Members. In June, the Chinese, Malay and Tamil versions of the report will be released and distributed. With this report, MCYS will work with the Council for Third Age to consult community leaders and the public on ageing issues over the next two months.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have not intended to touch on work-related issues or employment of the elderly. But listening to Dr Lim Wee Kiak, I thought I

should just briefly mention that discrimination is a perception. If we cut the CPF contributions or wages of those who are older, it is not necessarily discrimination. To have a good understanding of why we do it, I would encourage Dr Lim Wee Kiak to engage the tripartite partners – the NTUC, the employers, and Ministry of Manpower – on the rationale for this. And there are very good reasons for it, arising from the seniority-based wage system. We do not want the seniority-based wage system to discriminate against senior workers in Singapore, to their detriment. That is the reason why we have this. So, let us not look at the present provisions of wage cuts and CPF cuts for seniors as discriminating against seniors, which is in favour of seniors.

With respect to the question of age limit, for example, of taxi drivers, which is of 73 years old, well, I think we will progress. Dr Lim probably knows that three years ago, we raised the retirement age of taxi drivers from 70 to 73. So, this was three years ago. I suppose the cry for further extension of permission for taxi drivers to work beyond 73 would one day result in success.

My intention this afternoon is to talk about ageing-in-place. Our priority is to help Singaporeans age in place. It means helping them to live in the homes they have grown old in. To do so, three aspects are important. First, our physical environment, in and outside the home, must be safe and accessible even for those who have some mobility issues. Second, services and amenities must be available to cater to the range of needs of the elderly. I refer in particular to long-term care services. Thirdly, the community should include and support the elderly so that they remain active physically and socially. There is more to do in all these aspects, although we have made very good progress in the last few years.

Let me give a few examples on the physical environment. All new HDB projects initiated from 2006 will incorporate universal design features and elder-friendly fittings. By 2011, all HDB precincts will be barrier-free, and about 40% of the precincts are already barrier-free. By 2014, lifts of all eligible HDB blocks will be upgraded to stop at every floor. We are also developing a green environment that encourages people to be physically active. By 2010, all pedestrian walkways, access to MRT stations, taxi and bus shelters, and public roads will be barrier-free. Buses are progressively fitted to take those who are wheelchair-bound, a programme to be completed by 2020. Can it be done earlier, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked? I think we should encourage the public transport companies to do so. We have not yet achieved a barrier-free environment, but we are making good progress. Old private commercial buildings are encouraged to retrofit, but it may not be cost-effective for some of them to do so.

A few months go, visiting experts from the US told me that we should take advantage of our increasingly senior-friendly public housing to develop services that help seniors age in place. These services are available, but we must develop them as our population ages. People prefer to continue living where they have been. Assoc. Prof. Kalyani asks about our plans to enable ageing-in-place. Apart from the physical infrastructure, we also need to develop the software.

Developing our long-term care system will need to consider the following issues: firstly, we need to ensure that the system is financially sustainable. From the demand side, Singaporeans must save enough or purchase enough insurance to finance their care needs. In the US, it is estimated that 70% of people turning 65 will require some form of long-term care in their remaining lifetime. The exact figure will differ for Singapore, but we

need to set aside enough funds for our care needs.

Dr Lam Pin Min is right that rising health care cost is a major concern. We are studying how to develop a long-term care financing system that will parallel the "3Ms" framework for medical care, with the "3Es": we are considering a savings component either under Medisave or "Eldersave". The existing “Eldershield” will also be improved over time. An “Elderfund", in the form of Medifund Silver, is currently also in place for more targeted assistance of needy elderly and we will grow it when the budget position allows.

From the supply side, services must be cost-effective, appropriate and scalable. To do so, it requires us to look at who are the providers, how they are funded, whether they have a supply of qualified workers. Today, home-based services – meals, housekeeping, nursing, medical – are delivered by fairly small VWOs focused more on the low-income. We may need larger players for economies of scope and scale. Singaporeans must be willing and able to afford such services – it is not always the case today, making it difficult for providers to operate profitably. It is encouraging that there are private sector players who are nonetheless, despite the constraints, already present in a nascent market.

Secondly, services should be packaged around the needs of the person and the family. Overseas experience suggests that a more integrated delivery of services to the person can result in better patient satisfaction, less caregiver stress and cost savings. In the US, care coordinators are engaged by insurance companies to assess and advise on the most appropriate care arrangements for the senior and his family. Very often, the family is able to take care of the seniors

at home if suitable support from professional services is organised to help them. In Singapore, we need to move from a service-centric to a person-centric delivery of care. Some providers are doing this. Touch Home Care provides a suite of services for their clients, ranging from home medical, home nursing, home help services, rehabilitation, caregiver training and even home modification. The Agency of Integrated Care under the Ministry of Health is also coordinating services for adult and elderly patients from the hospitals across various care settings.

Thirdly, services should be home- and community-based as far as possible, although institutions like nursing homes have their place for those who need more care. Our high population density and urban setting work in our favour. It is easier to deliver services cost-effectively. More day care centres will be set up over the next five years. Again, Dr Lim Wee Kiak wants them to be set up earlier. But it is a question of demand, whether people want the services and are prepared to pay for these services. So we cannot simply just expand the number of such centres because they are not cheap to operate and we cannot certainly set them up well ahead of the demand.

Governments, especially in Europe, are moving away from institutions to care at home. It is what the seniors prefer. It is also more cost effective. They have also tried to integrate housing and services so that seniors who do not require nursing homes can live in serviced housing together with other seniors. Some examples are in the UK, the Abbeyfield Society, a non-profit organisation, has set up "group homes" that provides care with housing. Residents live as independently as possible, often with about eight to 10 persons in a house, overseen by a house-keeper or manager. Only a few of the residents in Abbeyfield Society homes ultimately need to move on to a nursing home. In the Netherlands, there are

"Apartments for Life" which tailor services to the needs and decisions of the elderly. These apartments are co-located with nursing home units, and amenities such as the clinic, grocery store, activity rooms, restaurant and café. It is designed to be integrated with the local community. We will need to study if such models can be adapted to the Singapore context. In the meanwhile, HDB's studio apartments are very popular and I think maybe that is the direction we should go and expand beyond the studio apartments. I am sure that, over the next couple of years, some practical projects would surface.

Next, I turn to supporting family caregivers. Families in Singapore and elsewhere remain the first line of support and care for the elderly. But as our families decline in size and more women join the workforce, it is important that we provide enough support to these caregivers, a point mentioned by Dr Lam Pin Min. Caregiver training is an under-recognised but important service. Those who have undergone such training are usually better able to cope with their care responsibilities or seek the appropriate help. Grants of $200 per year are available for a family member to obtain training. And I expect, again, over next year or so that we will see more of these initiatives being implemented. We should train our foreign domestic helpers to care for seniors and better support the family. Some can even learn basic nursing skills, such as the dressing of wounds. It is estimated that foreign domestic helpers account for 30% of the care to the elderly at home. We should provide more tailored and structured courses for them. We also need to help our caregivers cope with seniors with dementia. In the West, dementia has been described as an epidemic. It is a leading cause of burden of disease and affects not just the quality of life of the senior, but also that of the caregiver. Within a decade, 45,000 seniors in Singapore are projected to have

dementia, double the number today. Family caregivers need more support to understand and manage dementia, and other mental illnesses affecting the elderly.

The final aspect relates to whether our community is one which encourages seniors to be active and watches out for them. As a society, we should work towards an inclusive and age-friendly community, where our seniors are not excluded from community life. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked for concessions. The same calls had been made during the Committee of Supply debate this year and last year. I had said that concessions made sense, if they make business sense. So we should encourage companies to be creative so that whatever concessions we give to seniors make business sense for them. I have no doubt that some companies are looking at this and that before too long, there will be companies announcing such concessions for seniors. Whether that includes the kind for public transport, that is a different matter.

Tapping on community infrastructure, we have been piloting the Wellness Programme in 12 constituencies for more than a year. In each site, 1,000 residents aged 50 and above will undergo health screening, taught how to manage their conditions and be physically active and more socially engaged. We have seen encouraging results since the pilot was started over a year ago and have learnt useful lessons. We plan to roll out the programme to other constituencies after the pilot. A key objective of the Wellness Programme is to place seniors in interest groups, where they can establish friendships and support each other in leading healthy lives. A recent OECD paper observed that group settings work better in sustaining behavioural change. One of the main tasks of the full-time Wellness coordinator is to facilitate and develop such interest groups. Complementing the Wellness Programme, the People's

Association (PA) is working with the CDCs and Health Promotion Board to launch a national briskwalking programme later this year. Briskwalking is an easy-to-do exercise with proven health benefits in a social setting. We hope that this initiative will encourage three-quarter of Singaporeans who are not exercising regularly to do so.

PA is also promoting qigong and taichi. Three-quarters of Singaporeans are not exercising regularly. Recently, we had a fitness test conducted for the committee members of the Wellness Programme in the pilot sites. About 120 persons participated. These are community leaders who are by nature active. Half of them were not fit. I understand that a similar exercise was conducted for people who have been engaged in briskwalking. Seventy-five percent are not fit. So it shows that there is a lot more for us to do. You cannot just simply only encourage exercise and briskwalking, qigong and taichi, but we must also enable them to measure what they have achieved so that they will have targets to improve upon.

As mentioned by the Minister for Health, we will do more to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce chronic diseases among seniors. The Integrated Screening Programme and the Chronic Disease Management Programme are preventive programmes brought into the community through family physicians and nurse educators. We will also promote health in the schools, workplaces and the community. It will take time and persistence to change our national health and wellness culture. But it is critical if we are to ensure that the current and future generations of seniors are healthy and independent for as long as possible and, therefore, being able to live where they are and age-in-place.

The Ministerial Committee on Ageing will continue to pursue a whole-of-Government response to ageing issues, along the four strategic thrusts: firstly, enhance employability and financial security; secondly, enable ageing-in-place; thirdly, provide holistic and affordable healthcare and eldercare; and fourthly, promote active ageing.

Madam, I support the motion.

5.11 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to thank the President for his Speech.

Madam, I am indeed happy to hear of the Government's vision to build a first-class home in Singapore where all citizens have full opportunities to achieve their aspirations. The Government's plans to rejuvenate the housing estates through the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) as well as the improvement in the transport infrastructure facilities and the construction of sports and leisure facilities all over Singapore. These will make Singapore the envy of most Third World countries. However, it is not enough to have the First World infrastructure and environment. As the President had said in his Address last week, for Singaporeans to be able to identify and call this place "Home", we need the standards of social behaviour to be raised so that Singapore can become a more pleasant society to live in.

Two and a half years ago, at the Opening of Parliament in November 2006, I spoke on the need to inculcate basic character values amongst Singaporeans. I urge the Government to promote values like kindness, consideration for others, being grateful and humility. I expressed my concern about the lack of social

graces in our society. Two and a half years have gone by, but graciousness amongst Singaporeans seems to be an elusive target which is moving further and further away. During an upturn, the country concentrates on economic growth; during a downturn, the country concentrates on trying to recover from the recession. But regardless of whether Singapore is doing well economically, we should try our best to make Singapore a more pleasant society to live in. If you have lost your job or are working a lower paying job, the fact that your fellow citizens are well mannered, courteous and considerate for your feelings, these will make life more pleasant.

Our Singapore vehicle drivers are known to be impatient and inconsiderate. They are known not to give way to vehicles that wish to overtake. At the junction of Braddell Road and Upper Serangoon Road, you can always see vehicles refusing to queue and then trying to force its way into the path of other vehicles in order to make a left turn. We also have vehicle owners who park illegally all over the place without consideration for other road users. Within the HDB estates, we have residents who place their personal items all over the common area without thinking about the inconvenience to other users of the passageway. We also have residents who continue to drip dirty water from mops onto their neighbour's laundry. Just a few days ago, the Public Transport Council had to launch a graciousness campaign to encourage members to give up their seats to the elderly and to make way for alighting passengers. And just today, in the Straits Times, we read of customers taking trolleys and abandoning them as and where it is convenient to them.

Why do Singaporeans behave in such a manner? Are we proud of our lack of civil behaviour? Is this Singapore which we want to call home?

Recently, it was reported that several members who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of AWARE were trying to out shout the Chairperson because she had turned off the microphone. A reader then wrote about the "raucous behaviour like jeering and booing by members in support of the Old Guard and their attempts to disrupt affairs and

tick off those speakers whom they do not agree with". It was reported that the President of the AWARE could not even make her opening speech and she was booed right from the start. And of course, this resulted in the now infamous "shut up and sit down" remark.

Madam, I cannot be a member of AWARE nor am I an associate member. It is not for me to judge which side is right. The only point which I wish to make is that if the reports are accurate, then civility and gracious behaviour during the AWARE EGM was clearly missing. Whilst I accept that emotions were highly charged and many people wished to have their views heard, I would submit that this cannot be the level of behaviour which we should promote as acceptable. This is not what civil discourse is about.

Madam, if you read about the AWARE saga on the Internet, the vitriol used by the parties against each other is even worst. There is a huge amount of negativity and personal attacks against each other. I simply cannot understand why there is so much hatred and lack of respect for one another in the exchanges over the Internet. Some of these writers in the Internet have nothing good to say about everything. They are full of cynicism and criticise everything that is said or announced.

As fellow Singaporeans, can we not be more civil, more accommodating and caring for each other, regardless of our views on religion or race, and, for that matter, regardless of our views on sexual

orientation? Can we not accept that there are some things that we cannot agree upon and then agree that we will disagree on such issues? All these would be possible if Singaporeans have learned to be more gracious to each other.

Madam, if we are serious about wanting to promote a more civil society, we have to do more than have a courtesy campaign every year. We must drive home the message that graciousness must start from home and that every parent has an important role to play if they want Singapore to be a more pleasant place to live in. We must remind each parent that their role in moulding their children's character is even more important than the school teacher's and we have to emphasise to the parents that their children's behaviour and character is their business; they cannot sub-contract it to their domestic help or rely solely on the teachers. Parents have to accept that they reap what they sow. If they do not spend enough time with their children and inculcate the right values in their children, then they would have to take the consequences of having their children grow up without the right values in the future.

Madam, I also call on the Ministry of Education (MOE) to review the way that character values are taught in school. I know that MOE has said on its website that "The foundation of a person is his values. From these spring his outlook on life and his goals in life. Together with the home, our schools have to work carefully and painstakingly to shape the morals of our children."

But as a starting point, MOE should ask itself: are we happy with the values of the young Singaporeans who have gone through the school system? Do they bear the positive traits that we want to see in the future generation of Singaporeans? Are the scholars that we

produce – the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) students, the top-tier students in the Integrated Programme (IP) schools, our university and polytechnic graduates – humble, considerate, kind, grateful, compassionate and willing to help others? Do they appreciate all that Singapore has done for them and the many opportunities that they have been given compared to other third-world countries? Or are they obsessed with being self-centred – the "me and me only" philosophy? Are we satisfied with the behaviour that we see in cyberspace, in Internet exchanges at REACH and other popular websites? Can we do more to inculcate the right values in schools because, much as we wish that parents can do more, the reality is that dual-income families' parents may not have enough time with their children.

Madam, I urge MOE to consider teaching basic character values throughout the entire school curriculum from primary school all the way to secondary school, to junior college (JC), polytechnic and university. Make sure that every teacher in school knows that teaching of character values cannot be sacrificed just to ensure that the teachers can finish the syllabus for English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics or Science. Make sure that every teacher from primary school, secondary school to JC, ITE and polytechnic know that they have a role to play in ensuring that their students learn gracious behaviour. We should make character education an integral part of the education system, and not just another non-examinable subject. We must evaluate our school principals and administrators, not only on how many students they can produce with outstanding academic results, but we must evaluate them on how well they mould their students.

Madam Deputy Speaker, on the issue of compassion, may I urge the Government to lead by example. Of late, I have

come across several cases where residents staying in HDB rental flats were asked to vacate because they were in arrears of rental. They were asked to vacate their 2-room rental flat and downsize to a 1-room rental flat. I have also come across cases where residents were asked to find another occupier to share their rental flat, failing which they were asked to vacate their flat. Likewise, many HDB tenants were asked to pay an increase in rental, simply because their family income has increased. The HDB rental was increased without any regard as to whether how many family members the tenant had to support and whether there are any members in need of costly medical care in the family.

Madam, the Government spends millions of dollars on the upgrading programmes like HIP, NRP and LUP. Many households benefit from these upgrading programmes. Yet, when it comes to dealing with the poorer segment of our society, we take quite a tough approach with these tenants. The constant threat is that HDB will take away their homes if they cannot pay their rental or that if they cannot find another person to be a co-occupier, they must vacate their homes and downgrade to a smaller flat or that we will squeeze these tenants to pay the increase in rental.

Madam, may I urge MND to review the way we engage the economically disadvantaged residents living in rental flats. We have failed to come across as being compassionate and mindful of their difficulties and their struggles. I personally find it difficult to explain how the Government spent millions on upgrading the homes and environment of 4-room and 5-room HDB flats and yet refused to allow the rental flat residents some indulgence. Temasek reportedly lost billions of dollars in investments and yet we tell our rental flat residents that we need them to pay more in terms of rental

because they have worked hard to improve their lives and earn more than $800 per month.

Can we not afford these people a greater sense of compassion from the Government? Can we not give our residents more encouragement when they try to improve their lives to earn a higher income? Instead, we seemingly penalise them for earning more by increasing their rental so quickly. May I urge HDB to send the right signal to these Singaporean HDB tenants that we care for each and every one of them and that we will do our best to ensure that all Singaporeans will be able to move forward as the country progresses. Together, we can make Singapore a better place to live in.

Madam, I support the motion.

5.23 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion.

Amidst clamouring headlines like the collapse of financial institutions, charity fraud, global warming as well as wars against terrorism, many claim to be disillusioned with globalisation. Its greatness used to be defined by wealth creation and increasing trade, but now globalisation has become the byword of immoral financial manipulation, greed, reckless lending and spread of pathogens.

However, spending too much time to debate about the pros and cons of globalisation will trap us in the moral minefield, which distracts us from watching out for the silver lining. To say no to globalisation is suicidal to Singapore as we have a small and open economy, which largely hails sustenance from our export. Besides, globalisation is the pathway for development, undeniable by any country. It is an inevitably natural

process as time and space shrinks due to rapid development of technology.

Madam, despite being severely impacted by the financial crisis, I think Singaporeans are faring better than our counterparts. This is attributable to our sound education system, healthcare system, financial regulation and insightful prudence approach. We can be relatively sure that with such foundation as well as the recent initiatives announced in the Resilience Package, it is just a matter of time that Singapore will leave behind the shadow of recession. We will be strengthened and become more prepared for global whirlpools in the future.

But having said that, we cannot afford to be complacent. Hence, we should look forward and prepare ourselves for the next 10 to 20 years to come. Madam, I am outlining five challenges for Singapore, three of which are products of globalisation, and the other two, I would call them our local products.

First, Singapore will face the challenge of countering more sophisticated and powerful terrorism activities. Second, we need to prevent and protect our people from diseases outbreak, exaggerated by more air traveling. Third, it is of tremendous importance to stay relevant in the new economic order, in which countries like China and India outpace our twin engines of manufacturing and service. Fourth, with an ageing population, we face a challenge of preserving a cohesive society whereby the older generation is able to connect to and be relevant to the younger generation. Last but not least, Singapore will need to retain our identity and the Singaporean traits, while actively participating in international forums and activities.

Madam, modern terrorism activities leverage on the Internet, which is hardly

confined by physical boundaries. Terrorism networks have the capability to work on plans and recruit members over the Internet. It is indeed imaginable for such terrorist organisations to recruit potential members on social networks such as Facebook, which can attract an unprecedented number of followers. Many countries rely on Internet policing and filtering mechanisms to prevent nascent machinations that destroy peace. But, to think that these measures are adequate is simple-minded and naive because man-made technology can be outsmarted by people who created them.

Madam, the destruction of dynamite may seem enormous in Alfred Nobel's time but is now surpassed by modern ballistic missiles, intelligent nuclear bombs and many emerging chemical weapons, the destruction of which is debilitating to any country. Though many believe that in today's world, a big-scale World War III cannot happen due to mutual dependence, many recent terrorism acts in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan prove that purportedly small-scale military exchanges are enough to destabilise governments and set the people on panic mode. In the contemporary light of rapid evolution of technology as well as swelling trouble spots on the global map, Singapore must therefore be equipped with relevant technology and, most importantly, remain alert in today's war on terrorism.

Madam, globalisation devotees now have to think twice when raving about the greatness of globalisation as the current influenza A (H1N1) snatches the limelight from economic indicator, which used to define globalisation's significance. As globalisation forces blur geographical boundaries, business transcends countries and people travel more often, diseases can easily spread, with evidence being the short period of time taken for the H1N1 virus to make itself present in many countries. As Singapore thrives herself on

tourism activity, closing door to business as well as tourists is a must-not.

Hence, a preventive system, such as the current disease management system is essential. Different modes of alarm with respective easy-to-understand to-do-list actions should be made known to the public, so that they have a comprehensive understanding of how to protect themselves and their family members. Madam, on the same note, I also want to emphasise on improving our population's immunity against any form of contagious diseases. This can be achieved by incorporating healthy activities and sports into our daily life routines.

Promotion of healthy lifestyle should start on the infrastructure front. We need to have in place quality health infrastructure, such as sports complex and facilities which are accessible and affordable. Cognisant of our hot and humid weather, we need to have more indoor sports facilities. We should allocate more resources to equip our community organisations such as Residents' Committee centres, neighbourhood committee centres, community clubs, and schools with sports facilities. There is also room for more health promotion talks and workshops to encourage healthy lifestyles.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, while encouraging healthy lifestyle, there is a need to look after the special needs of our senior citizens. Some elderly face the challenge of getting from their place to the sports complex and CCs. The solution to which is to bring the infrastructure and activities nearer to the elderly residents. I propose to set up more healthy-lifestyle interest groups at the RCs, NCs, CCs and schools to reach out and encourage the elderly to participate in sporting activities such as brisk walking, taiji, qigong, aerobics and other community sports. At the same time, we must train more volunteers and healthy lifestyle instructors to organise

such healthy lifestyle activities in our heartlands.

To ensure the long-term success of such endeavour, we must adopt a systematic approach to measure the health and well-being of our senior citizens on a regular basis. Madam, although community health screening has been ongoing for many years, it has had limited outreach and many elderly are still not screened because of cost issue. Therefore, I would urge the Government to "best source" and subsidise health screening for elderly at all General Practitioners clinics and hospitals. The next step will be to maintain a national database of health and well-being of our ageing population so that appropriate health intervention strategies and policies can be implemented to prevent diseases and enhance the health of our elderly.

Having a small and open economy forces us to work harder in the age of globalisation whereby footloose production is a norm. Today, our exporting industries face fierce competition from emerging countries like China, Brazil and Vietnam. And thus the persistent economic challenge is to survive and thrive in the world’s new economic order, which signifies the rise of such hungry powers. It is a fundamental and essential issue because it reflects our unchangeable point of weakness: being dependent on external demand.

Singapore’s economy is highly vulnerable to external instability. As a matter of fact, we are dependent on investment of foreign companies and export revenue. On the investment front, the intense presence of multinational companies effectively means possible withdrawal of funds, retrenchment and divestment during economic downturns. Similarly, during recession, there will be a contraction of demand for exported goods as a result of falling global income. At this point in time, when Singapore is facing possibly the worst recession since Independence, there

are two ways to ensure our survival. One is to keep having new comparative advantages, which lie in the other end of the value spectrum. The second solution is to remain competitive so as to attract and retain business and investment. Speaking about comparative advantages, many countries, Singapore included, which used to thrive on manufacturing are awake to the fact that they cannot rely on the current comparative advantage for good because cheaper business cost elsewhere will divert investment and reduce the country’s revenue. To Singapore, shaping up new comparative advantage has always been to move up the value ladder and to effectively avoid direct competition with the Chinese and Indian counterparts. Our challenge therefore is to find niche export products with few competitors based on the availability of resources and ability.

According to Swiss-based business school, IMD, Singapore has to settle for third position in terms of business competitiveness, trailing after Hong Kong. Competitiveness comprises quantitative factors such as rent, labour cost as well as qualitative factors such as education level, skills and political stability. Many pro-business measures have been installed to make Singapore a more competitive business hub. Current moves such as the SPUR skills upgrading programme, and the proposed fourth university and technology and science-oriented institutes are heading towards the right directions. However, I believe that beside Government’s effort, Singaporeans should take initiatives to constantly improve their skills and be more willing to improve so as remain relevant as comparative advantages are being replaced.

Madam, my next challenge has to do with the ageing population. There are

many issues attached, many of which have been delineated by the Ministry of Health. The one social challenge that I am going to talk about is segregation. Soon enough, many of us here will become senior citizens and it is indeed saddening to be sidelined as the social currents make their ways. One of the causes, unfortunately arising from our public housing allocation, I believe is the fact that elderly parents live alone, away from their children. We need to reshape our housing policies to provide more opportunities for families to live near one another. Singapore should not be defined by a young generation and an old one, but by a collective body comprising a young generation and an older one. There might be different social and economic roles for different age groups, but the right mentality should be that both groups still have relevance in each other’s life. The challenge to our Government, therefore, is to seek more creative ways to bridge this social separation.

Madam, Singapore, though a small country takes pride in being influential in regional and international talks and forums because of our ideas and success that confer us the first-world status. Judging from the number of countries which have come together to solve the current economic crisis, we can expect that there will be more international and regional collaborations and negotiations in the future. Singapore is expected to lead the talks on many of such occasions. However, it is always easier to agree on technical and straightforward issues such as global warming and terrorism than such matters that reflect our nation’s identity and cultural values such as freedom of speech. The Tibet example shows that international watchdogs can and will be commenting and pressuring Singapore on similar matters. However, to our nation, collective good trumps individual interest, any agreement on international arena should reflect our nation’s identity.

Madam, William Blake says "Great things are done when men and mountains meet"; the recent event whereby Singapore women successfully summit Mt. Everest allows us to slightly change the quote to "Great things are done when women and mountains meet". This quote aptly describes a trait of Singapore, a society that openly applauds, embraces and appreciates every Singaporean regardless of race, religion or gender, who rises above adversity, thrives on challenges and maximises his or her potentials when opportunities strike. This feature effectively distinguishes us from many other countries. Madam, I find much meaning in this quote because I truly believe that together, the Singapore Team will scale greater heights. Together, we can and will make Singapore a healthy, wealthy and happy nation.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the motion of thanks to the President's speech. Let me present my speech in two parts. The first part is on meeting this recession’s effects with speed, empathy and courage to make a difference and be different. The second part focuses on building on our strengths.

These are trying times. All of us have heard the comments made by our leaders. They clearly see substantial challenges in our external environment and favourable trading conditions may not return for some time. There is always this strong desire to believe in green shoots taking root. Even so, it is early days. Worldwide demand has yet to recover and the many causes of the current problems have yet to see sustainable solutions. It would be prudent for all of us to assume that whilst the freefall is over, the economy may actually drag along the bottom for some time. Yes, there is always the temptation to talk up the market and, in the process, spawn an upturn through a resurgence of confidence. But we need to be prudent.

Hence, I strongly support what the President had said about steering clear of excesses and continuing to live within our means.

Many companies in Singapore have responded to the crisis by sending workers for training. By taking advantage of the Resilience Budget, business entities ensure that when demand comes back, we have the people and the industrial capacity ready. For companies, economic considerations predominate. They are going to continue to do so only as long as it is good business sense. But for the individuals, it is one of surviving through the recession. Pay cuts or, worse still, job losses are entirely possible, especially if the economy is unlikely to rebound vigorously. Hence, the advice to steer clear of excesses and live within one’s means bears repeating and repeating.

In my interactions with the community, I sense that this has not sunk in for many Singaporeans. Many cling on to a lifestyle that is from a past that is fuelled by a bigger pay packet. They continue to incur debts, living in bigger apartments that they could no longer afford, continuing to incur large utilities and phone bills and are unable to see ways to reduce expenditure. Many hold out for the good times to return soon. Lifestyles must change. Singaporeans caught in financial binds must make the hard adjustments. On the other hand, the Government has to make it easier for them – to facilitate their adjustments.

On the Government’s part, I hope we can meet this recession’s effects with speed, empathy and courage to make a difference and be different. Let me elaborate with a couple of example.

For example, removal of the biggest albatross around some citizens’ necks, their big HDB apartments. Downgrading from their large HDB apartments must be made easier. Yes, some may have made

imprudent and profligate decisions in their past, but let us not continue to dwell on that. Whether it is a third or fourth HDB loan, as long as they, going forward, are prepared to live within their means and take up the commitment of being self-reliant, why not relax some of the policies that were clearly appropriate in former better times but not so now? In many cases, compulsory acquisition and its attendant loss, through the discount to market, deal them a double blow.

Recognising that these are trying times – hope and assurance would go a long way to assuage the pain of many – and housing comes to the top of mind. It is not asking the Government to open the floodgates. Rather I am suggesting the use as a yardstick – whether by relaxing certain rules for some families, it allows them to reset their finances, and create a clear way forward. Almost a Chapter 11 for families.

I am firmly behind the belief that as long as one has a job, many of the problems can be solved in time. It is about having a revenue source and self reliance, earning it through one’s own labour. Today, the challenge is to keep as many in the workforce as possible. I often meet taxi drivers who have their licences suspended as a result of maxing out on their demerit points. Sixteen weeks sitting at home is really quite a deterrent. But this harsh penalty notwithstanding, there are many who are in such plight. Maybe a once-off amnesty for those who are caught on the wrong side in this economic downturn so that they can continue to be self reliant. I can imagine the response that the rules are there for a good purpose. I understand that. But I do believe that if given a second chance, many would appreciate and would endeavour never be in the same tight corner again.

Convincing many, who are able, to do meaningful work is key. For those who are willing, landing a job is usually not so easy. The CDC and other job placement executives understand that there is a group of unemployed Singaporeans who are very hard to place. The plight of many of them would not be amenable to straight forward solutions. Of the 18,000 job openings in the civil service, really how many are there for these people? Can we not have some bright minds thinking through how we can create opportunities for them. Each time I come across such opportunities for the disadvantaged, an example – a part-time sushi roller in a food court, one whom I came across at a floor party yesterday, I am more convinced that there are many who are willing to work as long as the work is meaningful.

Self reliance is key. As an MP, it is often the easy approach to give and give, but it is much, much harder to say "no" and tell a resident to rely on themselves and their families. It would be very much easier if we can find ways to place them in gainful employment and then push the self reliance message. For example, in the Town Council, we are trying hard to create opportunities for the unemployed to do tasks that needed more hands and feet on the ground. We should try to do more collectively.

In the Committee of Supply (COS) responses, it is most heartening to hear that more resources would be made available to Family Service Centres (FSCs). They would be receiving more resources to improve their service delivery and establish themselves as the community focal point. Speed is of the essence. It is timely and I hope that we could accelerate the buildup of capabilities and capacities. It is exactly in these trying times, that professional services that can be brought to bear would make the most impact. In times like these, we would think, and we would hope that

families pull together. Everyone looks after its own – the family and extended family help are the best remedies. But we all know that with stress on multiple fronts, emotions running high and tempers fraying at the edges, instead of families pulling together, many are actually tearing apart. How can the Government help? Close at hand professional help through the FSCs and CDCs would be the most potent weapons we can bring to bear. But they work only if they are not overly constrained and helmed in. The entire fabric of ComCare has placed the immediate delivery of short-term help in the hands of the Grassroots Leaders. Many observations are that this is working well, as Grassroots Leaders know the lay of the land, and when they discharge their duties responsibly, things work. But it is the longer term permanent or semi permanent assistance that is sometimes harder to ascertain their effectiveness. For the clear cut Public Assistance cases, or those who have definite short term gaps that can be plugged, I believe they are well taken care of. But many distress cases are not so easily pigeonholed. One example I just came across. A 75-year old woman, both legs amputated as a result of diabetes, and long surviving on the medical benefits that her retiree police officer husband enjoyed. But once the husband passed on, she and her children were unable to keep up with the medical expenses and care. One daughter gave up work to care for the 75-year old mother full time, resulting in a further drop off in total family income. In such cases, I hope that FSC and CDC executives are charged with the right mandate and authority to push for customised solutions. These executives should push the boundaries so that their efforts are felt on the ground. They should devise the solutions and press home with their superiors the customised solutions. This is what I mean to be different and to make a difference.

I also read with much enthusiasm that more mid-career entrants are encouraged

to join the sector through Professional Conversion Programme under SPUR. Again if we can inject momentum into this process, the results would certainly be very favourably felt in the community. Can I suggest a scheme of employment so that social workers are placed in the community to provide localised day care and activity care for the elderly? At such centres, some could be taught skills, others can find companionship. This is one way to work around the inability of many families who are unable to get their elderly and infirmed into homes or cannot afford the high costs of old age homes. These could be job opportunities for retired staff nurses and older social workers. Having the elderly cared for in close proximity to their homes make the facilities a lot more appealing and accessible. With a judicious sprinkling of grassroots volunteers, I believe that the care would be enhanced as many are known to them as familiar faces in the immediate community. Additionally, I hope that having such facilities prominently visible in the community would, hopefully, tug at heartstrings so that more volunteers and funds are forthcoming from people and businesses in the immediate environment.

Another area where speed is needed is the tightening up of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents so that it is increasingly difficult for children to shirk their responsibilities to support needy parents. The present economic situation has been characterised as the worse Singapore has faced. Difficult times call for novel approaches. In the President’s speech and sitting in the addenda are many examples of how we are breaking new grounds to ensure we emerge stronger in a different world. While the people has to do their part, civil servants too must play their roles. Quality Service Managers must be more vigilant that service is delivered with more empathy. I hope through SPAR is embodied an objective accountability that sets our civil

servants above those of all other countries.

The second topic I want to touch on concerns building on our strengths. Even as we change to confront a different emerging worldscape, we have got to build on our strengths. Today, our businessmen go as far afield as the Middle East and Latin America. We move with ease in India and China – these two large economies liken to the two wings of Jetplane Singapore. This is our strength – our heritage and background allows us to move with ease in these diverse worlds. As a result, we must preserve this heritage of ours. We are different but through our heritage we connect with the 2.5 billion people in India and China. In the following discussion, I refer to Singaporean Chinese and China. But it is analogous for Singaporean Indians going to India.

A Hong Konger friend who has extensive businesses in China go as far to say that Hong Kongers are different from the Chinese in the PRC. It leaves one to believe strongly that Singaporeans are different as well. But being different and yet the same is exactly why we are valuable. If we are exactly the same, there is no reason why the PRC would need us or come to us. But even as we are different, we have a bedrock that is common that we can build on. In earlier years, the Chinese educated businessmen amongst us Singaporeans were there in China making headways and inroads. Today, I suspect the SAP educated Singaporeans are there. They succeed. But we need the next wave of such Singaporeans. Hence, I see the importance of ensuring that our ethnic associations are given the right assistance to carry out their missions.

Today, no matter which way we turn in Asia, we see influences of the "West"

in numerous aspects of our daily life, whether it is clothing, food, books, music, movies, and of course even the way we speak. My question today is thus this – how do we ensure that our children embrace our Chinese roots and culture as the Government and the education system inculcate in them the need to master the Chinese language? Apart from the 'Speak Mandarin' campaign, I know that schools organise Chinese immersion programmes for the primary school students. The immersion programme may be participated by selected students at a local venue such as a boarding school, day camps, or even overseas in China. The duration of the programme ranges from a few days to a month. During the immersion programme, students are encouraged to speak only in the Chinese language. They are taken on field trips to museums and societies where they learn about the Chinese communities in various parts of Asia. They are told stories or folklore of Chinese origin such as xi you ji (西游记)，san guo yan yi (三国演仪). Such efforts are to be applauded. More resources should be invested into initiatives such as these to make them more readily available to more students.

But we need to do more than this. Learning our mother tongue, about our roots, our beliefs, is not a part-time affair. The learning must be integrated into our daily dose of mathematics, science, side by side. When was the last time any of our children attended a wayang show or ge tai (歌台), accompanied the adults to dust the tombstones of our ancestors at qing ming (清明)? Does any of our children call after the adults, in order of seniority, at every meal? How many of our children know who kong zi (孔子) really is and are able to recite at least three of the sage’s teachings on filial piety? The schools can do more to introduce these festivals and teachings to the students. Schools can do their part and one can also appreciate that the curriculum is already bursting at the seams. Hence, parents may have to turn

to other organisations to imbue such cultural awareness and sensitivity. This is where I believe the Clan Associations can play their roles. Once, they were protectors and looked after the welfare of new immigrants to Singapore. Today, they can be the guardians of Singapore’s Chinese heritage. Towards that end, they have established kindergartens and developed outreach programmes to allow the young to better appreciate Chinese language and culture. Their websites provide, amongst others, facts and information about the festivals and authoritative figures of Chinese history. These portals are full of facts for students. The clans can be enlisted to play a role in co-ordinating programmes and providing network between the schools and the students with the associations and schools in China. Their network can be utilised more intensively. There is a confluence of both the cultural identity and the economic realities for Singaporeans.

In conclusion, I believe what would make us different this time round is that in this recession, people who are in trouble look to themselves and their extended families and be self reliant; with the Government moving with speed, empathy and civil servants realising that they have the power to make a difference in many people’s lives by being courageous enough to be different; and we continue to remain steadfast in investing on our infrastructure, people and our social fabric without forgetting the heritage that are our strengths.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

5.56 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the motion to thank the Honourable President.

Many Members of this House have called for a review of our economic and business model and I add my voice to that. I will not repeat the same arguments. Instead, I would like to make specific suggestions on two other issues raised by the President – education and changes to the political system.

First Education. Everyone knows and accepts the importance of education. Singapore’s success is due to and dependent on Singaporeans. Our people are our most valuable resource and the Government must continue to invest in them. We must enable all Singaporeans to be educated and trained to their highest potential. A good education does not guarantee success, but those who do not have it will find it hard going, particularly in this knowledge-based economy.

Our education system has done well. It is not perfect but it has done a good job in raising standards. It recognises that different people have different abilities and tries to help each one realise their potential. New programmes and systems are regularly being introduced to enable our students to step up to the next level. Such changes often cause stress to students, and more to their parents. But such change is inevitable if we want to compete with others around the world.

There are, however, two areas which I believe we can do better. First, we need to encourage further and continuing education. Our primary and secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics are great institutions for learning foundation subjects. But that is clearly not enough today. Even a university education is fast losing its lustre and significance. Students in major economies around the world, like the US, China and Europe, are obtaining second degrees, Masters, doctorates and professional and specialist qualifications. There are now many Americans and Europeans studying in

China because they recognise the shift in power and they are getting ready for it. In short, they are investing heavily for the future, and we must too.

We need to inculcate in Singaporeans the virtues of life-long learning. More and more, we need Singaporeans to understand that education does not stop once we leave school. We must continue learning beyond our diplomas and degrees if we want to enter or develop the highly specialised industries that will help us make the next lap of our development.

I believe many are willing to do so. But one major obstacle is cost. The cost of obtaining degrees and professional qualifications is high. Not all schools and training institutes offer scholarships and bursaries, and even those are in limited numbers. Our limited public university places, and their high standards of admission also mean that many have to turn to private institutions to further their education and these can be very expensive. While some financial institutions offer student loans, their terms can be difficult to meet. They charge fairly high interest rates; they require the borrower to have certain minimum annual incomes or to get a guarantor, and they require the loan to be serviced almost immediately. This can be a big deterrent, especially to those from lower income families. Even if you meet the criteria, the banks may still refuse to extend credit. I have met a fair number of people during my meet-the-people sessions who tell me that they do not go further in their studies because they simply cannot afford it. We must find a way to help them.

I, therefore, urge the Government to step in and offer a comprehensive programme of student loans to encourage and facilitate Singaporeans to improve themselves and acquire new skills. This is a loan, not a hand-out, so no one will

think they are getting an easy ride. The downside risks are low. Some may default, but I am confident that the vast majority is responsible and will meet their obligations. More importantly, this will be a real investment in Singaporeans on which we will receive an immeasurable and meaningful return.

Second, for all the excellent schools and programmes we have, there will be a good number who will not cope and will fall out. I have again in my MPS sessions encountered many who have done poorly in schools and who now face difficulties getting jobs. Some accept that they should have tried harder in schools, but now feel that the die has already been cast for their future. So much of what we are today turn on decisions made when in school, and some are suffering the consequences of the lack of guidance in their youth.

We seek different peaks of excellence from our students. We have also introduced schools like Northlight to help those who do less well academically prepare for the future. However, despite these varied opportunities, there will still be a good number who, for different reasons, will cross into adulthood without the education and skills they need to cope in an increasingly difficult environment. Once they leave our classrooms and institutions, it is very difficult to get them back in.

We must try and help them as well. There is one other institution we could involve to address this issue, and that is the institution of National Service (NS). I am not for a moment suggesting that we compromise our training or do anything to adversely affect our national security. That must be the paramount aim of our NS. However, we have a valuable two-year window, which we should capitalise on to teach and train those with low education and little skills, which they can then use to manage their lives after they leave NS. The enlistees would be older and, hopefully, more sober about the

future they face. The discipline which the army brings means fewer distractions. Appropriate incentives can be given to those who are willing to apply themselves. In this way, we can continue working towards the promise of not leaving anyone behind.

Let me now deal with political reform. The President alluded to possible changes. I would like to offer one suggestion. Ask anyone why Singapore has been successful since Independence, and the list of reasons will run long. Top or near top of that list will be the strong leadership we have had. I believe even the Member of the Opposition acknowledged this in his speech on Monday. There are too many examples around the world of democratic countries crippled by short-term thinking; where leaders are afraid to make necessary but unpopular decisions because they fear losing the next election.

We have always functioned on a different principle. We have never shirked from making unpopular decisions we believe to be in the interests of Singapore, even if it comes at some political cost. In my short time as MP, I have faced many questions from irate residents: why do you raise GST, why do you have COEs or ERP; why so many ERP gantries; why are Government salaries so high; why do we have so many foreigners in Singapore taking away Singaporeans' jobs; why have means testing; why can we not give more welfare; why have GRCs; why raise bus and train fares? Why not let people withdraw their CPF funds when they like?

Critics say that we are able to make these decisions because we have too much power, and that makes us arrogant and not caring of the impact on the man-in-the-street. But that argument does not make sense because it is easier to make popular decisions. It is also far easier to tell people what they want to hear, never mind the consequences. It is much harder work implementing tough policies and

explain it to the electorate on the ground. With one stroke of the pen, this Government can lower GST; can get rid of COEs; can get rid of ERPs; can allow people to withdraw their CPF funds when they like. But at what cost to the country and what cost to future generations of Singaporeans?

It is easy to take the path of least resistance. To stay on the right path takes intelligence, character and guts. In short, strong leadership. But will we continue to attract the best into politics and to run our Ministries? We have a small citizen population, and growing smaller by the generation. It is difficult attracting good people into politics. I think that is a statement we have all heard many a time. But we can ill afford a situation where we do not have the best team possible to lead our country.

While we currently have a solid team leading the Government, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Should we not do something now to address this? I do not think anyone will argue that our system is so perfect that it cannot be improved on. As the Opposition Member also acknowledged on Monday, while we have inherited a parliamentary system from the British, ours has developed and is now different from theirs and others in many ways. We now guarantee minority representation; we have Nominated MPs to bring greater depth to debates in this House and we allow the best losing Opposition Members to sit as Non-constituency MPs. No ruling party, I know of, willingly gives people outside its party a platform in Parliament; but we do it and I think we are better for these changes.

So how can we increase our talent pool? Today, a Minister must be appointed from the ranks of elected MPs. But it is not easy getting good people to run for office. Standing for elections is not everyone's cup of tea; neither is running a

constituency or serving residents on the ground. An MP is judged by what he does for his constituency and how he serves his residents. It may sound sacrilegious in a democracy to say so, but a person who is popular on the ground may not necessarily be the best person to run a Ministry, or vice versa.

So why not give the Prime Minister the option of appointing outstanding individuals from outside the rank of elected MPs to his Cabinet? The pool of talent available to the Prime Minister will increase substantially and we can draw on the experience of many capable Singaporeans. For example, who better to look into improving entrepreneurship in Singapore than a successful businessman and successful entrepreneur, and not many of them have interest in running for elections?

This is not a novel concept. It has been done in Commonwealth countries, such as the UK and Canada, where they have similar parliamentary systems. In the US, reputedly the most advanced democracy in the world, the entire cabinet is appointed by the President; they in fact cannot be elected members of Congress. Other democracies like Germany and Spain have that facility as well. And these are countries far larger and with longer histories than us.

It will also not offend our democratic principles. As the Prime Minister said in the by-elections debate last year, our Parliamentary system has evolved and places more weight on the party instead of the individual. But this does not mean that elections are not important. They are still critical. Parliamentarians must still win the support from the ground and, ultimately, the Prime Minister and the ruling party and his Cabinet team will still be answerable to the electorate at

elections. They will be at risk if they fail to perform or deliver on their promises.

I believe there are merits in introducing some flexibility into our system to increase the talent pool available to us. The critics may cry that this will dilute democracy. But it really does not, and the fact that larger, more established Western democracies have taken this route demonstrates that.

Our political system is not cast in stone, and it is our obligation to keep improving it. And as we have done in the past, I hope we will not shy away from doing what is good for Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, under Standing Order 91(5), may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?

I give my consent.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Mr Palmer, resumption of debate on what day?

Tomorrow, Madam.

So be it.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at Nine

Minutes past Six o'clock pm.