Hansard, 2009-05-29

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) Ms Cham Hui Fong 29 May 29 May Mr Lee Kuan Yew 29 May 29 May Dr Ng Eng Hen 29 May 29 May Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 30 May 01 Jun Mr Lee Yi Shyan 02 Jun 05 Jun 16 Jun 18 Jun Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 08 Jun 19 Jun

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

1. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Finance whether there is a system in place to ensure that Jobs Credit is not given to companies who are already hiring phantom workers.

Sir, a system has been put in place to ensure that Jobs Credit is not given to companies hiring phantom workers. Jobs Credit payments are withheld from employers that are under investigations or are being prosecuted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for alleged hiring of phantom workers. Jobs Credit will only be paid to these employers if they are cleared of such allegations.

In addition, prior to each payout of the Jobs Credit, employers on the CPF Board's database will be screened for unusual contribution adjustments or significant increases in CPF contributions. For such employers, the Government will conduct verifications and, if necessary, will withhold payment to these employers until verifications are completed. We will also conduct selective audit checks. Should any abuse be uncovered, employers could be disqualified from subsequent Jobs Credit payments and face legal prosecution.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to ask, after the first pay-out, whether the Ministry has found possible cases of companies hiring phantom workers.

Sir, indeed there are some companies that are under investigation and as I have mentioned in my reply, if the allegations are proven correct upon verification, the Jobs Credit payment will be withheld.

I would like to ask the Minister how many companies have benefited from the Jobs Credit Scheme. How many workers have benefited from the Jobs Credit Scheme? Could the Minister also give us an assessment as to the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit Scheme in achieving its

objectives? And could the Minister also inform the House if there was a mechanism in place to identify whether there were any phantom companies, even before phantom companies were found? And, finally, could the Minister also inform the House how many SMEs and MNCs have benefited from the Scheme?

Sir, since the introduction of the Jobs Credit Scheme, about a hundred thousand employers, employing some 1.3 million local workers, have received S$920 million from the first of four payments of Jobs Credit in March 2009. This is based on the wages that they paid in October to December 2008. As to the split by SMEs and MNCs, I do not have that information with me. With regard to Mdm Halimah's question about whether there are ways to discover the phantom workers, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) as I understand is working very hard to detect some of these companies. The point I want to put across is that as soon as we have any indication of such a possibility, the payments will be withheld. This is to prevent abuse.

Mdm Halimah, last question.

Can I ask Minister for an assessment of the effectiveness of the Jobs Credit Scheme in meeting its objectives? I would appreciate a reply to that.

Sir, as the Scheme has only been implemented since January, it is a little early to draw a definitive conclusion on the overall effectiveness. Suffice it to say that the anecdotal feedback from the employers has been rather positive. And many have indicated that the presence of the Jobs Credit Scheme has enabled them to re-assess their manpower requirements and many have actually constructively thought of ways of deploying the staff as well as

sending them for training, whilst benefiting from the Jobs Credit Scheme as well.

2. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will outline the roles and involvement of the Ministry vis-a-vis the Singapore Sports Council, Singapore National Olympic Council and the various national sports associations; and (b) given the public interest on the nomination process of the former national table tennis coach for the Coach of the Year Award and comments made by the relevant bodies and persons, what are the learning points from the Ministry's perspective.

Mr Seah's question focuses on the roles of the Ministry, the Singapore National Olympic Council, the national sports associations and the Singapore Sports Council. And there is also a second part on the nomination process for Coach of the Year award.

Let me first deal with the relative roles of these four agencies. The Ministry sets policies for sports in general. In particular, this means we want to encourage wide participation in sports, we want to enable our elite athletes to win national and international glory. We also want to promote sports business.

The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) then translates these policies and objectives into programmes and funding, which they then provide to the national sports associations. The national sports associations are in charge of the respective sports on a day-to-day basis. So national sports associations train

players, appoint coaches, run competitions and prepare players for international events.

The Singapore National Olympic Council is the umbrella organisation which represents all the national sports associations. The Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) promotes the fundamental values of Olympicism and sports. It is, in particular, tasked with selecting athletes for international events. It is also in charge of deciding on national awards. One such national award is the Coach of the Year award which Mr Seah has referred to. I want to emphasise that the Ministry and the SSC are not involved in the routine operations and programmes of both the SNOC as well as the national sports associations. The SNOC sets the rules and the selection criteria for such awards. The national sports associations would then take these rules and criteria, assess their own stable of coaches and players, decide which ones qualify, and then after considering all relevant factors, nominate them for consideration by the SNOC. The SNOC would then look at all the nominations which have been submitted and make its own determination as to who deserves to be recognised and who does not qualify at that point in time.

It is quite unfortunate this year that the non-nomination of the former national table tennis coach has descended into a rather unseemly public dispute between the coach on one hand and the association on the other. I would say that at this point in time, both parties are still trying to mediate and as mediation is in progress, I would refrain from passing comments or making any judgements. I would, however, urge both parties to aim for a dignified and fair outcome to this matter.

The sporting analogy which I would use is tennis. This is a disputed line call and it is important that we do not become

so distracted or so upset by a disputed line call that we end up losing the match.

I thank the Minister for his answers. I know that within the Ministry sports is identified as a good way of bonding communities together and I fully agree with that. But as we have seen, if not handled properly, it could have the opposite effect. Given that the MCYS does give the SSC and many national sports associations (NSAs) significant levels of funding, I would urge the Ministry or SSC to play a more active role in managing the affairs of some of these sports associations where it feels there is a need to. My second supplementary question concerns conflict-resolution. I recognise and know that disputes and conflicts will arise from time to time. I wonder whether SSC can play a more constructive role under such circumstances. They could come in to mediate if it is obvious that amongst the parties involved, they are unable to find a resolution. I cannot but wonder –

Mr Seah, your question is too long.

I will move on to my third supplementary question. I believe the Minister would have read some of the comments made even in China. I read many of them which passed some comments about Singaporeans and Singapore in general, which I find quite damaging and disturbing. I would like the Minister's view on this.

Sir, I think we all agree that sports does have a role in our national psyche and certainly nothing brings us together as much and as quickly and as emotionally as the sports field. These recurrent disputes – there is a silver lining to them. The fact that people can be bothered, that people are worked up, shows that people are paying interest and

they care. And that reflects that the profile for sports in Singapore has been raised and there is greater interest. So that is not such a bad thing. It would be much worse if nobody even cared about this award, it did not even become an issue and it was irrelevant. So that is the first point.

The second point is that whilst we provide funding to the NSAs, we have, as a matter of discipline, learned not to micro manage, and not to get involved with the details of operation and, in fact, with the details of selection. Because the Ministry and SSC are not in the best position to do so. These are decisions best made on the ground by officials, coaches, players and by the people who constitute the sports fraternity for each relevant sport. So I am very hesitant to say that we should go in and second guess or countermand decisions. What the Ministry and SSC is most concerned with is to make sure that there is good governance. People are elected or selected or appointed to these governing boards and selection committees, that there is due process and that there is a system in which all relevant factors are considered. So long as that is in place, we should not micro-manage and interfere.

On the second point of conflict resolution, we recognise that. In fact, internationally, sports has become a fertile area for litigation as well. My Senior Parliamentary Secretary work very hard to establish a conflict-resolution system in the sports scene in Singapore. For instance, in this particular case, it is the Singapore Mediation Centre which will play a role if need be, if we need to go for formal mediation. So rest assured that we do, in all circumstances, always prefer a mediated outcome rather than a slug fest and only one person walks out of the ring.

On the third point with respect to comments which Mr Seah has read

overseas – I think comments on the new media, both locally and internationally, have to be taken in proper perspective. We should not over react nor should we raise the level of emotions and generate more heat. So I am not inclined to respond to those comments at this point in time. Right now, suffice to say, we would still encourage everyone, "let us arrive at a fair and dignified outcome, and let us learn to move on".

Order. End of Question Time.

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: –

"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.

&nbEr Edwin Khew Teck Fook (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the President for a well-balanced, thoughtful and well-articulated Speech.

He laid out a vision of where Singapore should be headed in the years ahead, after the current recession that we are going through in Singapore. He warned of areas in which we must be mindful and vigilant and gave reasons for us to harbour hope and optimism. More importantly, he urged all Singaporeans to review and adapt for the changing market and environment which we will be faced

with after the world recovers from the current recession and economic crisis.

Sir, I would also like thank the Prime Minister on behalf of all present and past NMPs for announcing on Wednesday that the NMP scheme should be made permanent. This is a testament of the contributions made by all NMPs over the last 20 years in this House and that we have been able to contribute positively and add value to all the debates and have been able to play the role of providing a non-partisan alternative view in Parliament.

Sir, I would like now to focus on the challenges that the President has thrown to all Singaporeans, where he asked:

How can we build new capabilities and anchor value on Singapore for the long term?

How can we deploy our finite resources to maximum effect?

How can we create high value jobs for Singaporeans?

In my reply to the above questions, I would be focusing on the future strategies Singapore should be looking at for the environment, water and energy sectors, and sustainable development. I would, however, like to declare my interest as I chair the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) and manage a waste-to-resource company.

Sir, I have just returned the day before from leading a mission to Germany where 19 SMEs from Singapore participated. The backgrounds of these companies range from new start-ups in the solar industry to electronic/semi-conductor and precision engineering companies that are looking to diversify and find new opportunities in the new and growing sector which they can still use their current expertise to diversify into.

All of us visited Freiburg, the solar centre of the world, to learn about how this city of 220,000 people grew within 10 years to be a global leader in R&D, manufacturing, application and major installations of solar systems to be a model that all cities want to emulate.

Indeed, Singapore was fortunate to attract the former director, Prof. Joachim Luther, of the Fraunhofer Institute in Freiburg to come to Singapore and head our Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS). SERIS is now almost one-year-old and because of Prof. Luther and large sums of money the Singapore Government has committed to fund the Institute and solar research, SERIS has attracted the top brains from all over the world who specialise in the different technologies around solar PV and solar thermal systems. SERIS has also a collaborative MOU with the Fraunhofer Institute and will, within a short period of 12 to 18 months, be fully set up to support the major global solar players who have set up manufacturing, R&D or their global HQs in Singapore like REC, Oerlikon, Conergy, Phoenix Solar, etc. Many more such companies will be attracted to come to Singapore because of SERIS and because their competitors are here.

However, to be a global player in this industry, we need more than SERIS and a dozen or so major players here in Singapore. We need to create and develop a large number of solar and support companies which can provide the whole value chain of support, from cutting of wafers, production of solar cells and manufacturing of solar PV modules, total installation of these modules and the connection of a PV system to the grid or micro-grid. We also need similar skills for the production of solar thermal collectors and all various systems that will use hot water produced by these thermal systems

to run solar air-conditioners, hot water systems, absorption chillers for air-conditioning, solar power systems, etc.

Together with these various applications of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal systems, there are many other technologies that support these systems, for example, grid connection system, local electrifications, power electronics for grid connections, eg, for village power systems, solar buildings (use of building components, building integrated PV, solar thermal conversion systems, etc).

In other words, what I have outlined above shows the complexity and diversity of this emerging industry which requires educated and experienced technicians, chemists, engineers (both electrical/electronic and mechanical) who are all available in Singapore, because of our strength in electronics, semi-conductor and precision engineering.

So, this industry alone answers the three questions posed by our President, and that is, it will, one, build new capabilities; two, employ our finite resources already in the electronic, semi-conductor and precision engineering sectors to maximum effect in the solar sector; and three, create high value jobs for Singaporeans. And because Singapore is in the tropics, we can find our special niche in adapting all the solar technologies for tropical application so that we can differentiate ourselves from all the other solar systems use in temperate climate countries.

All we now need, Sir, is an active market in Singapore where all our technical people and solar companies can gain experience in manufacturing, installation and servicing of all these solar systems. This will open up the global market, worth approximately US$100 billion that is growing at more than 66% per annum for all of Singapore solar

companies. From the experience we gained in talking to the government in Freiburg, the business and the R&D people there, the key to making solar and thermal systems pervasive and successful is to introduce feed-in tariffs (FIT). I know the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is not keen on FIT as they are concerned that this will distort our energy market in Singapore and that it is also tantamount to providing a subsidy.

Can I strongly encourage MTI to look at this FIT model again, as Germany and many countries in Europe, Eastern Europe, South Africa and Asia who have adopted it have proven that it works and it has the following advantages: one, it is simple; two, no government subsidies or grants are needed; three, only a slight increase in electricity prices for all consumers (in Germany, I found out that it works out to three Euros per family, per month, with FIT); four, a strong push on technology development as only the best technologies will be deployed; and, finally, an annual increase in FIT would put a strong focus on cost reduction.

Once FIT is in place, this will attract many of our SMEs to embark or switch to this emerging industry which has a high growth potential in Asia and the rest of world. With carbon credits attached to this technology, system installation will attract many investors, including private home-owners, as the returns would be much better than the current 10 to 12 years projected. This will develop Singapore into a truly green, eco-friendly and energy-efficient city, one that will reduce very quickly our carbon footprint and, therefore, demonstrate our strong support, both Government and citizens, for climate change mitigation. It will also help Singapore diversify its energy source. I think the positive returns to the industry and the positive spin-offs for Singapore versus the perceived risks on FIT will be worth considering. I will be happy to

provide MTI with reports on FIT undertaken in many countries to prove its viability.

Sir, I would now like to focus on another emerging industry I would strongly recommend Singapore to focus on. I am referring to the waste-to-resource industry which has a market globally that is currently about US$350 billion per year, and it is slightly larger than the waste water treatment industry. However, this waste-to-resource market is growing at a rate that is greater than water and waste water. When economy develops, the priority of needs is water first, then energy, then waste water, and then solid waste. Many developing and emerging economies are now at the stage of looking at their waste water needs because of the scarcity of water resources, as waste water contaminates rivers that are sources of drinking water. At the same time, they are looking at their solid waste problems as for many years, many countries (including China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc) have been dumping, at low cost, their waste into dumps, which they call landfills. Because these landfills are not sanitary, ie, they do not have linings and gas extractions, these dumps are becoming full and are generating toxic leachates which are contaminating the ground water or well water and also surface water. Organics like food wastes are also being dumped with all the garbage or municipal solid waste into these landfills. Methane gas is emitted which is explosive and also a major greenhouse gas that is 21 times more destructive than CO2. These will all create major problems.

With landfills getting full in major urban cities all over Asia, leachate and methane gas problems and the difficulty of finding other landfill sites – citizens have been known to demonstrate as no one wants to have a landfill near their homes – all governments are seriously concerned about the problems caused by

growing volumes of solid waste generated in their growing urban cities, because of the high costs of constructing sanitary landfills and incineration plants which still generate waste ash and are forced to look at waste-to-resource recovery or the three "Rs" – reduce, recycle and reuse. With the high cost of fuel oil previously and for the foreseeable future, raw materials will cost more. Therefore, waste-to-resource technology or reclamation technology will be an emerging technology of high demand. Where reclamation of plastics, metals, paper, glass, bio-compost and even energy becomes technologies that will be much needed, finding application in all cities in the world where the population is growing rapidly and landfills are quickly running out of capacity.

Domains which will be important for R&D focus includes bio-processes for energy recovery from organic residues, chemical process for the recovery of metals and the rapid remediation of landfills on contaminated sites (through combination of physical, chemical and biological techniques) for more beneficial use. Also R&D in the waste management and recovery sector requires a high level of inter-disciplinary activity, eg, mechanical engineering for sorting, electrical and electronics engineering in energy efficiency, chemistry for recovery of materials, bio-chemists and microbiologist for bio-energy recovery and remediation, economists for life cycle analysis and lawyers and all the above for Environment Impact Assessments. I would, therefore, recommend that the Government set up a solid waste research centre or institute to provide a platform, free of boundaries, for multi- and trans-disciplinary R&D to happen.

Next to water and clean energy, waste can be the third leg where Singapore provides total and integrated waste management and waste-to-resource

solutions and technology. This, again, will provide good, high value jobs requested by the President, and in an industry which will promote a holistic sustainable development package for any urban city, together with waste water and clean energy.

To grow and activate this emerging solid waste industry and to attract the major players to Singapore and to encourage investment into resource recovery plants, waste-to-energy, and waste-to-biofuel plants, the Singapore Government will need to: one, introduce a source segregation and recycling law; two, increase the current incineration tipping fee – current fees are just too low to encourage industries to innovate and invest in resource recovery plants; and finally, treat the waste industry as a "profit centre", instead of as a "cost centre". Thus, the Government should not think that increasing the waste management fee and collection costs as a burden to the economy and the public.

Instead, this will allow the industry to innovate and for Singaporeans to recognise the need to protect our environment and internalise the costs of having to do so, as we see in the developed nations where recycling is a way of life. Until Singaporeans take ownership of protecting our environment and take bold leadership in doing so, we will unlikely be a model sustainable eco-city that we want to be.

Sir, the last point that I would like to cover is sustainable development. President Nathan stressed in his speech that to stay ahead as an Asian city with a high quality of life, we have to be a sustainable city. "Sustainability" means Singapore and Singaporeans must strive not only to be economically successful but to be environmentally and socially responsible. The business of water, clean energy and waste will bring us two out of the three of the qualities that will bring us sustainability and it is therefore a

desirable industry for us to be involved in. However, to be a truly sustainable city and a community, we have to consider the conservation of our natural heritage, ie, our nature reserves, mangroves and coral reefs and to ensure no Singaporeans are socially disadvantaged. To do this, we need the people of Singapore to be a cohesive society, to do their part to protect the environment, our limited natural resources for future generations and to be a gracious society where we help and carry along the weakest in our community so that we are moving as one, ie, no one is left behind.

Singapore needs to be more than just clean and garden green. Singapore needs to be environmentally green. This means Singaporeans taking ownership of the environment and public areas, it means knowing the source from where our goods and consumables come from and how these will impact our environment and our city. And it means knowing and understanding the effects of our consumption or behavioural patterns and how these contribute to our environmental impact and our carbon footprint.

There appears to exist in Singapore a gap between environmental awareness and action. We need to close the gap and realise that we need to act as a cohesive community to be a sustainable city with the Government so that foreign talents and their families will come and settle and contribute to our economic growth and that investors and environmental technology companies will want to come and establish their HQs here, as Singapore reflects and projects the image of their sustainable business. And, most importantly, all these will create good and high-value jobs for Singaporeans. We need therefore to be environmentally active, socially cohesive, and we will succeed economically with good Government and policies put in place.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Opening Address to Parliament, the President spoke about building our future Singapore in an uncertain world. The Prime Minister followed up on Wednesday to outline five key economic strategies to position Singapore for the future. Sir, I would like to discuss these strategies and add my own views.

Let me first survey the competitive landscape which will set the stage for my points. Most analysts believe that economic power will shift from the west to Asia and, more specifically, to China and India. Some analysts went further to declare this era as the "Asian Century".

In the aftermath of the current financial and economic crisis, the US economic model has lost some of its cache. This economic model which is underpinned by light regulations and heavy credit is no longer upheld as the pre-eminent way to prosperity. However, lest we get too carried way with the "Asian Century", the US and western economies cannot be ignored because I believe they will continue to account for a large share of the world's creative and high technology industries.

Trade flows and globalisation may also be temporarily hampered by protectionism, but it will not just grind to a halt. These concepts are founded on sound economic principles. Every country is better off to focus on what it does best. Enterprises which resist trade or globalisation or are prevented from them will lose competitiveness over time.

Against this background, our strategies will have a good chance of success if we also leverage on our strengths. Singapore's strengths are well-known. Our island state is safe, secure and stable. We have an excellent

infrastructure. Our leaders are committed, competent and capable. We are governed by rule of law and offers intellectual property protection. Our people are honest and hardworking. We have a sizeable reserve which allows us to keep our tax rates competitive. Our diversity and use of English keep us plugged into the world. We are at the crossroads between India and China, and as the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, taken as a whole, the Singapore 'system' is hard to beat.

We have, through the years, gotten our basics right. While many countries are still grappling with political stability, corruption and deficits, Singapore is starting from a very sound base and we have every chance to pull ahead. The route to economic reforms, however, would not be an easy one and it will test the cohesiveness of Singapore as a people. The Prime Minister has outlined five economic strategies to position Singapore for long-term growth. I believe these strategies are relevant to the times and draw on our strengths.

Let me attempt to extract the essence of these strategies and frame them into one statement. The statement goes as follows: – "To enhance Singapore's economic ecosystem, including productivity and innovation capacity so as to capture new markets and grow a diversified economy." Only the words "markets are new", the rest of this statement boils down to good old-fashioned productivity and innovation. Let me elaborate why I believe that productivity and innovation remain key to our future success.

We have seen in the current economic crisis that the only means – unless you receive an inheritance – to achieve a higher quality of life, is through innovation or productivity growth. Why do I say

that? If one wants to buy a bigger house, a faster car or a more exotic holiday, one has to produce goods or services that are of a higher quality or at a lower cost, or better still, both. That is the only sustainable way that wages can grow. Wage growth must be supported by productivity growth. The Americans found out that debt-financed consumption cannot last. US automakers now face bankruptcy because they failed to match their foreign competitors in productivity. They were also beset by demands for ever higher wages and benefits from its unions, and I fear that many in this industry will soon lose their jobs.

Productivity and innovation underscore the Prime Minister's outline of what Singapore's economic strategies ought to be. The first strategy that the Prime Minister spoke about is seizing growth opportunities. This requires a landscape scan. Where are the new addressable markets which we can have a fair chance of success? To answer this question, we need to ask, "How can we evolve our economic ecosystem, including productivity and innovation capacity that are relevant to these new industries, these niches and these new markets?"

The Prime Minister's second and third strategies are strengthening corporate capabilities and growing human and knowledge capital. These are key success factors to improving productivity and innovation, both at the corporate and worker level. To build capabilities often require the application of technology and intellectual property. Training is also critical. In this regard, the SPUR programme is an excellent one. Without doubt, putting managers and workers to training is not easy. I commend the WDA, the NTUC and e2i for persevering in this programme. This will become even more critical in the New World Order where demand and growth are expected to remain low for some more years to come. Companies will be forced to restructure

and I fear that retrenchments in Singapore will rise.

The Jobs Credit Scheme has worked well to allow employers and employees time to think through what needs to be done. It was a useful 'painkiller', given the speed, the breadth and the depth of economic tsunami. However, if the prognosis is that this recession is expected to last longer, then we cannot continue to prescribe painkillers alone, we need real medicine, however bitter, however painful they may be.

Unlike the human body, economies do not have natural immunity and inherent defence systems. They must be actively managed and restructured or they fail. The Jobs Credit Scheme masks the symptoms of an economy in need of change. It retards the re-allocation of human capital. The consequences of such government intervention, if prolonged, acts as friction against the re-allocation of human capital. This will impede productivity improvements in the long run.

Just like the stock market which allows financial capital to flow freely from companies with poor earning prospects to those with good earning prospects, the job market should be free for human capital to flow. A continuation of the Jobs Credit Scheme will increase the rigidity of human capital flow to the detriment of productivity which is, in the end, the real medicine.

The Prime Minister's fourth strategy is creating high value jobs for Singaporeans and I agree with him. Without higher value jobs, as I said before, our wages will remain low and our quality of life will stagnate or regress. I hope Singapore can soon showcase how our investments in R&D can translate to industrial applications and therefore yield higher value jobs.

The Prime Minister's fifth strategy is maximising resources. This is also a productivity measure. How do we harness and optimise our limited resources to maximise value for Singapore? Singapore economy has grown in the past few years by way of a larger workforce. In fact, more foreign workers reduced the urgency and motivation for our industries to upgrade and to improve productivity.

Labour expansion is, therefore, in my view, the easier solution to grow an economy but it does not create higher value jobs for Singaporeans. As the Prime Minister pointed out, we have reached the social limit with one million foreign workers in Singapore, and I am a host MP to many of them at Pioneer Division. We will still need them but we cannot push this lever much further. We must therefore seek other growth levers.

If our economy is likened to a car, we cannot rely on just higher engine capacity alone to increase the power output. We must think of better fuel injection systems, perhaps a turbo charger, higher pressure combustion chamber or higher revs per minute and so forth. The F1 car, for example, has only an engine capacity of 2,400 cc. This is similar to a family sedan, like the Toyota Camry. But it revs at 18,000 revs per minute and produces an awesome 700 horsepower, that is exhilarating!

Sir, when we have insufficient resources, like top human capital, we can attract them to Singapore since Singapore is a highly liveable city. Japan, with its cultural and language barriers, will find this strategy very challenging. So this is Singapore's competitive advantage and we will do well to work it.

The current crisis is a great opportunity to re-double our efforts to attract top talents to Singapore. Major dislocations are taking place around the world as this crisis deepens. Top talents,

whose companies and governments may become hard pressed to fund their enterprises, will look to relocate to other countries. Now is the time. And I am not taking about thousands of foreign talents competing with Singaporeans for jobs but, let us say, a few hundred per year of the very top from all different fields. They will add dynamism to Singapore and we will do well to welcome them. They would help create jobs

instead of destroying jobs or competing for jobs, with a net plus for Singapore. To do this well, let us re-consider dual citizenship or other forms of pull factors to bring these talent to our shores.

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, the future landscape will be more uncertain. Singapore's success is more assured if we take a long-term view. Often, the expedient and path of least resistance would suppress the symptoms but they will not provide the cure. Instead, we need to do whatever is necessary, however difficult, to help Singapore emerge from this crisis stronger.

Sir, I support the Prime Minister's proposal to form the Economic Strategies Committee, and I am confident Singapore will once again triumph over these challenges.

Sir, I also support the motion to thank the President.

2.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, a short two or three years ago, our economy hummed along with all pistons firing. But the recent and still unfolding financial market turmoil and global economic situation have negated some of the elbow room advantages we had in certain areas vital to our economy. The education, medical, biotech, bioscience, logistics, air and shipping

hubs, IT, financial centre strategies had been affected in some way or another.

In my speech during the Budget debate in February, I spoke of the drastic changes in the market value of the world's five largest banks by market capitalisation. I remarked, "What a difference a year makes," when those banks lost a whopping US$630 billion in value over a 12-month period from January 2007 to 2008. Well, Sir, it is barely four months since and what a difference a quarter makes. The early part of the quarter was marked by more job losses, more negative numbers reported for corporations and anaemic economic numbers for the developed economies. The engines of the global economy seemed to be grinding to a halt. Demand was sucked out of the trade winds, businesses were drifting into the doldrums, deal flows ebbed for many institutions.

Now, we are hearing of "green shoots among brown weeds" and the topic in many hallways and water-coolers are about the economy going on the mend. But most will agree that the jury is still out and it is still early to let our guard down. In closed quarter conversations, notwithstanding what my hon. colleague, Mr Sam Tan, had described of packed restaurants and malls, many are quietly grappling with the reality that this could be a long drawn and difficult time for the Singapore economy. The band seems to be taking a longer intermission and there is little else we can do.

But, Sir, the speeches delivered in this House in the last few days gave me a sense of renewed hope and enthusiastic anticipation. Even Mr Low has given the Government a good report in agreeing with the quick, nimble and just response the Government had taken in tackling the crisis. There were novel and refreshing ideas from many Members. Indeed, there is much to do and there are identified

gaps in the traffic so that they can pull ahead with. We can gain back some of the elbow room that we might have given up or that were stalled due to market forces that affected many of the strategies of the growth and bread and butter engine hubs that I have mentioned earlier.

Sir, the crisis has illustrated vividly the vulnerabilities of our open economy to global events. Having said that, Sir, in our short history as a nation, we have indeed come very far. A success story that has brought Singapore fame and Singaporeans glory and admiration from people and governments from across the world. Being efficient, transparent, honest and dependable is what others say of our Government and of our officials. This is testimony to the Singapore Brand we have earned for ourselves.

The air travellers' darling, SIA, is a benchmark for quality service not only for airlines but for many other industries. Our PSA, is contributing to our state coffers by managing ports in many locations. CapitaLand, is bringing the Raffles City Brand to China and the Middle East. We have enjoyed many years of success in what we set out to do. We have also learnt from the mistakes we have made. In this process, we have in the international arena secured the Singapore Brand.

The Singapore Brand and the confidence in our Government and officials has given motor sports fans all over the world the very first Formula One (F1) Night Race. How we handled SARS and how our continually evolving education system that other countries are looking to model after adds to our brand. Or, perhaps, because of our brand, we can make headway in these areas others find difficult to replicate or even to do.

Sir, although we are a small island state, a little red dot of 700 square

kilometers we have been able to punch above our weight. Global crisis or not, we have the resolve to continually think of, put forth and execute strategies not only for our continued survival but to flourish as a nation. The Prime Minister's announcement of the formation of the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) shows that resolve and that capability.

Singapore is playing in the big league. If I may draw an analogy like that of the English Premier League. In the English Premier League, whether a team stays on the top of the league goes beyond the £50 million associated with television rights that teams earn. Once out of the top league, English football teams struggle to attract and retain good players. It is vital, therefore, to attract good players and groom young players. We are no different in Singapore. We cannot afford to fall out of the top league. For Leeds United fans, they will tell you that one year of mismanagement and they are condemned in the lower leagues for years on end.

To keep us in the big league, we have never shied away from exploring new avenues or new strategies, we have been early adopters and created test beds for ourselves in many areas. The response of the Government in forming the ESC to get us going is just the thing to do. We need to see around corners faster than before, we need to be even keener and earlier in adopting of new concepts and ideas. We need to be able to be better in learning on the fly.

Just like what "telemetry" does in Formula One teams. The drivers are able to communicate and send data from the car to the pit, and vice versa, to adjust the car's handling and responses as the race progresses. This is important as fuel loads, road and tire conditions constantly change. In many cases, each race is planned with the next race in mind. This

is what we have to do. I look forward to the ESC's work and recommendations.

Sir, while we continue to build and draw from the advantages of the Singapore Brand, we must guard the branding from being blemished. Sir, the education system and the generous facilities offered in our schools have given us the envious position where parents in the region and even beyond send their children to. Our reputation has attracted 97,000 foreign students from 120 countries to study here in institutions run by private enterprises. Sir, an estimate of an average spending of $20,000 per student from the 97,000 students will give us $2 billion business. Not a small contribution at all to our economy.

Only up until recently, did we try to ensure the quality of private education enterprises here. I call on the Government to pay special attention and assistance to these businesses. Perhaps, the Government can have a regulatory body hold accountable through guidelines and annual audits on the practices of such institutions, much like what MAS does with licensed banks. These incidents where foreign students lose their hard-earned money will taint our reputation in markets where it matters most. Most of these students who had left for home had been utterly disappointed and the word of mouth will naturally sully our Singapore Brand and hurt the education hub strategy. The other is the healthcare hub where feedback from foreign patients have begun to surface on the costs and the value of our services compared to other emerging medical centres in the region.

Sir, the economic challenges facing us are indeed serious. We have faced some daunting ones in the past and as sure as this crisis will pass, another will surely come our way.

A look around us have

shown success stories in developing new infrastructures along with such strategies. The Esplanade, the Asian Civilisations Museum, the Singapore Flyer, the F1 Street Circuit, the upcoming Integrated Resorts, our transport system are all results of our various strategies tackling arts development, tourism, job creation and a standard of living for all.

But, Sir, our success is not measured by these things. Ultimately, it is the people, the grace, the humility, the civility, the "live and let live" attitude and the magnanimity of our people that will define who we are and how successful we see ourselves. Are we gracious, how do we react when we receive grace, are we arrogant, are we intolerant, are we narrow minded, do we have small hearts? Let us include the goodness in our people in the Singapore Brand.

Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

2.25 pm

Sir, I rise to support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

The President has highlighted the need to strengthen Singapore's social cohesion. And, here, I would like to focus on helping low-income Singaporeans and their families. One of the social divide that we have to manage, which the Prime Minister also mentioned in his May Day Rally speech recently, is our income gap which has widened over the years. This social issue is not unique to Singapore. In every society, there will always be a low-income group. But what is important is to ensure that this group is not neglected nor left behind, and that they have the opportunities to benefit from the economic progress and achieve a better life. While helping them, however, we

must continue to emphasise and encourage the values of hard work, personal responsibility, the virtues of family network, self-reliance and self-improvement.

I am pleased to see that the Government has done much to help the low-income Singaporeans, by incentivising work through Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and helping them support their families, own their own homes and educate their children. Measures such as HDB additional housing grants, service and conservancy rebates, rental rebates, GST Credits and senior citizens’ bonus have also helped to ease the burden of this group, especially in coping with higher cost of living and the current economic downturn.

Nevertheless, I believe that more can still be done to help the low-income group in increasing their opportunities for upward mobility and in assisting those who are more vulnerable to unemployment and to dropping out of the various safety nets, support and assistance in place.

It is important therefore to help them find work, keep work and up-skill their work. Work remains the key means which can enable the low-income group to take care of their families and achieve self-sufficiency. Therefore, we have to continue to help and encourage low-income Singaporeans to find work if they are unemployed, and stay employed if they are already working, and up-skill themselves for better job opportunities and prospects. In this regard, the Jobs Credit Scheme and the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) have helped to encourage employers to retain jobs for Singaporeans and upgrade their skills in this downturn. I would also like to urge employers not to take advantage of these low-income workers, especially in this downturn, or give them a raw deal, and to comply with the employment laws by contributing to their CPF and providing

them with statutory employment benefits such as annual leave, sick leave and rest days. Employers must not take the easy option by employing foreign workers first if they can find suitable local workers. They must also employ based on merit, and not practise any form of discrimination based on gender, age, language, race or religion. For this year, employers would benefit from Jobs Credit Scheme if they employ locals with CPF contribution. Employers should also be encouraged to help these workers up-skill and redesign the work so that these workers have the opportunity to increase their earning capacity.

By contributing to CPF, low-income workers will benefit from receiving WIS payments. I welcome the WIS Special Payment introduced earlier this year to further supplement the pay of the low-wage workers and to encourage them to stay employed in the downturn. An employee aged 60 earning, say, $800 per month this year who receives CPF contributions from his employer, would receive a total of $2,720 in WIS and WIS Special Payment, of which almost half will be in cash, while the rest goes to the CPF for his retirement, housing and medical needs. This is a substantial sum.

The self-employed and informal workers can also qualify for Workfare. A self-employed aged 60 earning $800

per month this year only needs to contribute $271 into his Medisave account or less than $1 a day to receive Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and WIS Special Payment amounting to $1,814, of which $454 is in cash. The total Workfare he gets is more than what he would have to contribute in Medisave. I would, thus, like to encourage low wage workers to stay employed and the self-employed to contribute to their Medisave, so as to benefit from WIS and WIS Special Payment. I suggest the Government study the costs and benefits of WIS Special Payment closely and consider extending it

for at least a few more years, if it is proven to be useful in encouraging low wage workers, including casual workers, to remain employed.

Let me now turn to focus on education and children's education. Children are the hope for the future. However, low-income families are often saddled with multiple challenges, which may make it more difficult for their children to complete their education. MCYS and MOE have done a lot in helping needy children to remain in school and learn employable skills. I hope that these efforts will continue and that more assistance can be given to parents of low-income households to be more involved in their children's education and in motivating the children to maximise their potential for a better future.

Sir, next, I would like to suggest that the Government closely monitor and look further and deeper into the housing needs of the more vulnerable low-income families, so that the truly needy will not be left without proper and stable shelter. With this basic need taken care of, they will be better able to seek and keep employment. Their children will also have a stable environment to focus on their studies.

Currently, the options for homeless families include living with relatives or friends, staying at temporary homes and applying for Housing Development Board (HDB) rental flats. But for a family with several children, it can be difficult to impose on relatives and friends, especially for the longer term and if space is limited. Temporary shelter run by Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs) can only be a temporary solution and may not be able to cater to the needs of children.

As for HDB rental flats, the queue is long. HDB has also recently tightened eligibility rules for rental flats to

differentiate between deserving cases from those who have alternative housing options. I agree that this would encourage families to be more self-reliant in finding their own solutions first and only turn to HDB rental flats as a last resort, so as to not deprive others who are more in need. However, I am concerned that those who have tried their best to look for alternative housing but failed, or they could not make the alternative housing work out for them for good reasons, these families may be left behind and may be left out in the cold, without having even HDB rental flats as their last resort. I would, therefore, like to ask the Government to ensure that adequate checks and assessment are in place in processing applications for rental flats, so that those families with genuine needs will be helped in getting a place to live in.

Sir, I am pleased that Minister for MCYS has announced additional measures to support Family Service Centres (FSCs) to help vulnerable families by providing more resources to them and looking into professionalising the social work sector. Besides Government support and assistance, community support and the work of social workers are critical in identifying at-risk low-income families and in helping them cope with their difficulties. I would like to see FSCs build up more capabilities and resources, so that they can be more accessible and provide a wider range of services to needy families. More support and recognition can also be given to the social workers as they, too, face pressures in their work, perhaps, through adopting work-life strategies to help them achieve a better balance in their work and life. This would also help to reduce staff turnover in the social work sector.

Sir, let me conclude by speaking in Malay.

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

we must pay attention to the low-income and less-educated families, and find ways to help them, especially during the economic recession. For the Government, and for those who wants to be helped out of their problems, there are no short cuts or short term solutions. For the Government, what we need is to continue helping them overcome their problems from several angles – employment, housing and children’s education – as much as possible, in a comprehensive and consistent manner. This needs coordination among the "Many Helping Hands" including support from the Government, society and families. This effort will help low-income families improve their chances of climbing the ladder of progress, and at least achieve self-sufficiency for a brighter future for their children and themselves.

However, the low-income and less-educated families, just like everyone else, must want to build up their capabilities, have the will and effort to solve their own problems, and possess the desire to succeed. In Singapore, everyone has the chance to succeed. Many Singaporeans, who generally had a hard life when our country began self-governance 50 years ago, now have achieved a comfortable life, due to hard work and because they took advantage of self-improvement opportunities provided by the Government. You also have the opportunity to improve yourselves and escape the vicious cycle of problems, by using the Government’s many assistance schemes. In fact, there are now many charity organisations that help the needy. Take actions to help yourselves – which include supporting your children’s education and monitoring the company they keep, finding a job as well as increasing your effort and abilities to enhance your employability; looking after your health by not smoking or at least by controlling your weight; and do not have too many children for those who cannot afford it.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon’s Friday prayer sermon emphasised the need for employment and the fact that working is a religious obligation. This demonstrates that in Islam itself, the emphasis on work and being self-sufficient is a much admired practice and action. I believe that this teaching must be practiced and propagated, and I hope that the low-income group, with all the assistance rendered by the Government and self-help bodies, will also help themselves out of their own problems.

*Cols. 785-786

Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this motion of thanks to the President.

As the second last speaker, after more than 50 have spoken before me, I was really in a state of depression, just like the economy. But I am delighted that the Prime Minister's road map for Singaporeans to brace ourselves for the "Brave New World" offers another perspective to this five days of debate. And I will touch on some of these perspectives.

Sir, the PAP Government has brought Singapore from a developing economy to a first-world economy. And, into the future, Singapore will be a gateway for the West to enter the East. Our small island-state, coupled with a lack of resources and surrounded by giant neighbours, makes us very vulnerable. But in the last 50 years, this Government has carried its people through many crises. From social and racial unrest in the early 1960s, to political struggle with the Barisan Sosialis, to economic transformation. Externally, in recent times, Singapore has not been spared of global headwinds, pandemic diseases and regional tensions with our neighbours. This vulnerability has been tempered by our people's courage and discipline. The road ahead is challenging. We see nations

going the same path as we had. What had worked for us, are working for them. The competition is on an even keel and is for real.

What will give us the edge will be the "oomph" factor in our human capabilities. What is this "oomph" factor? It resides in a people with capabilities and the mindset to keep on moving and improving the status quo; a people who have the fire in their bellies to stay ahead and the penchant to seek out opportunities; a people who will make circumstances and not be made by circumstances.

Old Guard Singaporeans led by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, were masters of their destinies in the 1960s. Despite being ousted by Malaysia, with many predicting our premature demise, the sheer determination of the Old Guards transformed the economy and our social and political complexion, paving the way for success in the next 45 years. It took a great bold leader in then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to do that. Today, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is similarly taking a turn in the path that will lead us to a new plane. We are at Camp David and the terrain up Mount Everest is rugged and challenging. Whether we can make it up there to enjoy the beautiful scenery will depend on how prepared and ready we are in making this climb.

The change announced by the Prime Minister will result in Parliament having at least 18 Members of Parliament (MPs) who are not from the ruling party. This step signifies the maturing of an electorate that has come of age. It signifies the openness of the incumbent Government in accommodating the pent-up desires of Singaporeans for more activism, especially in politics. I applaud the Prime Minister's embrace of an inclusive society to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including

opposition and non-government views. But whether this increase in the number of opposition MPs and NMPs in Parliament will necessarily mean a more robust political outcome for all Singaporeans will be determined by the calibre of these incumbents. PAP MPs, Opposition MPs and NMPs will be tested on their ability to debate, offer constructive feedback and propose alternative solutions, rather than go on the way of selfish, pork-barrel politics.

Unlike the NMPs and NCMPs, the PAP and opposition MPs have another significant responsibility to their wards, to deliver the mandate that they have promised their voters. I am reminded that as an elected MP, we carry that responsibility to walk our talk when we are in your ward. Therefore, are we having too many NMPs and NCMPs with this change? The Prime Minister has said the increase in the number of NMPs will accommodate representation from the people sector, including grassroots leaders. To my mind, the inclusion of the people sector, including grassroots leaders will balance the group of NMPs representing diverse societal interests.

As for the NCMPs, my concern is this: what if our well-known slipper-clad opposition candidate is amongst the last of the NCMP candidates and by default, he gets into this August Chamber? What if there is an opposition candidate representing a sectoral group with interests non-aligned to the nation? We can say, "Well, that's the voters' choice". I could agree with that argument, but I still keep my reservations that, in this August Chamber, only kind men and women of integrity and sincerity should be admitted. And this calls for a discerning electorate.

Sir, the fact that the same PAP Government that brought about self-governance to Singapore is still in power, demonstrates that PAP has a formula and

tradition that we can be proud of. This discipline and tradition practised by men and women in white will continue to reside in the younger second generation of the PAP leaders.

Sir, I believe that the change in the political system will provide the breeding ground to nurture the PAP MPs to be a stock of its own, that no other political parties could easily clone. Others may speak the same language and wear the same attire, but they do not have the same DNA of the PAP leaders simply because the parentage and heritage are different.

Sir, for sure, the PAP Government will be faced with challenges in the coming years. For it to remain as a strong and credible Government, it will have to continue to evolve to connect with a younger, more outspoken and demanding generation of voters. But at the same time, the Government must not be seen to neglect its pioneers and mature citizens. Social cohesion is about that strong linkage of the old and the young, and this can only happen if they are threaded together with the same string.

A credible and strong Government will really depend on the leadership's ability to stay connected and engage its citizens, including the opposition and alternative interest groups. In that, we need leaders of different age groups, gender and experience to reach out to the wider community. Where we are strong in our intellectual capabilities, we need not do more. But we need to do more on the soft side. We need more leaders with emotional quotient, adversary quotient and lastly, opportunity quotient that the Prime Minister spoke about. By opportunity quotient, I refer to the ability to seize the opportunities around us and in the process, embrace new developments, willing to move out of the comfort zone and try new things.

We need to have "a complement for that perfect whole that we are seeking". We do not need to augment more of what we already have. Doing more of the same does not equate to excellence, rather, we want to be able to synergise, complement and evolve a balanced social eco-system.

The Prime Minister’s move in changing the political system is evidence of a balanced approach to the politics ahead of us. Sir, I have asked myself: What are my hopes and aspirations for Singapore in the years ahead? As a second generation politician, I yearn for a Singapore where its people, whoever they are and wherever they may be, know in their hearts that Myheart@Home Singapore. How did it happen to me? How could we instil that love for Singapore in our people? How do we evolve the global city that will attract foreign talents and overseas Singaporeans?

Sir, last weekend, I was with about 60 youths and young professionals at a forum addressing President’s three key questions on tackling capabilities, anchoring new opportunities and values, and dealing with constraints.

I spoke to a young doctor from a Government hospital. He was a Taiwanese but, after 16 years in Singapore, has now become a Singapore citizen. He was sharing his views about rootedness. At work, the caregivers of the patients are foreigners who work long, graveyard hours. They relish the chance for a job but they are not quite sure if Singapore is the place they would want to sink their roots. When I asked: "Why not?", the doctor elaborated. Many of them feel that they are treated like "foreign talents". They do not feel that they belong. Perhaps we should drop the terminology "foreign" and refer to them as potential Singaporeans. It bothered me the whole weekend and I was wondering too why they should feel "foreign".

Perhaps it is the way they have been bunched together in their job assignment with no Singaporeans in their midst as their peers. So if we wish to integrate and socialise them as one of us, the work culture in the hospitals may need to be modified. We may need to place Singaporeans amongst these potential Singaporeans, so that together they work as a group of service staff of this hospital in Singapore and not as a separate group of foreign talents doing their job in this hospital in Singapore. This young doctor further shared that indeed many of his Singaporean peers feel resentful of foreign talents, as they see these foreign talents as creaming off the best from us and then leaving us. He feels that this perception must be addressed as Singaporeans truly feel that they are being treated less well by the Government.

Sir, our forefathers came to eke a living and stayed on because they found comfort and a sense of purpose. How can that be re-lived amongst the foreigners in Singapore? I hope that there will be individual and collective efforts made to understand and get along with each other.

Next, economic resilience. Sir, will changing our political system enhance our resolve to remain as one united people, knowing full well that going forward, the economic challenges staring at us are from outside Singapore and not within our boundaries?

I laud the Prime Minister’s growth strategies for the new Singapore which will focus on levelling up our human capabilities, growing new industries and making new friends to sustain our survivability.

Sir, to be able to translate these strategies into actionable programmes, I

would advocate a focus on the following three items:

One, review the national movement initiated by MOM in the last three years to level up our human capabilities.

Two, in supporting the WSQ framework, Jobs Credit Scheme and SPUR must not be viewed as “ah kong money”, to be used without discretion as they are readily available. Instead, beneficiaries must take this opportunity to set standards to level up the training system through judicious tracking of training outcomes and injecting professionalism into the training industry.

Three, this is an opportune time to reflect on the tumultuous journey our country has taken so far and assess what we need to do to maintain vigilance and focus on going forward – revamping our economy, upgrading our workforce, improving our public health, national security and social cohesion as well as strengthening our bilateral ties.

Sir, I commend WDA's recent initiative to embrace fresh graduates into the job market, and direct them into this learn-as-you-work scheme. By the SPUR-JOB scheme, WDA has given a very positive signal to our fresh graduates seeking jobs that they will be given the head start in job-readiness by attending the WSQ competency training and by taking on internships.

This is an opportune time for the HR fraternity to play a part in honing the people management skills of fresh graduates and PMETs and encourage them to enrol in the HR WSQ and People Management Competency training.

Sir, one of the most scrutinised help measures unveiled in the 2009 Budget must be the Jobs Credit Scheme. And so it should be, as the funds earmarked for the scheme are huge: $4.5 billion, roughly

a quarter of the $20.5 billion Resilience Package or about what it cost to build the first phase of our MRT in 1987!

I would be the first to admit that the Jobs Credit Scheme is not perfect but if we wait for the Scheme to be refined to perfection, nothing might be done until the situation deteriorates so much that it will need even more money to stabilise or, worse still, may be too late to stabilise at all. Of course, no one knows how many jobs that the Jobs Credit Scheme will save. What could be stated with confidence is that without Jobs Credit Scheme, more jobs will be lost.

It is also unclear whether the cost of saving each job can be measured directly with the amount of money pumped in to save that job. Will it, as some economist has put it, cost taxpayers $90,000 per job, if 50,000 jobs are "saved", with the cost per salvage progressively lower if more jobs are deemed to have been saved as a result of the exercise? Such a yardstick is both narrow and inappropriate because every job saved would have delivered a multiplier effect, both monetary and social to Singapore’s economy, several times the amount the Government spent. Conversely, every job lost for want of the 12% support in wages might be more costly on the economy and society than the amount saved.

The critics of the Jobs Credit Scheme are right when they pinpoint that the money goes to companies which are doing well and those which are not. Is it not better then to target companies in need, since the job grant to them will be a life-line whereas to those thriving and well, it is money for jam? My view is this: As the grant will be paid to employers on a quarterly basis, retrospectively for workers on their payroll during that quarter, it means companies must have enough cashflow to support their payroll in the interim.

Realistically speaking, therefore, the grant will not make much difference to employers who had fared poorly even in good times and, like fallen leaves, are likely to be blown away by today’s credit tsunami. For those who thrived in the good times and are encountering temporary difficulties now, the Scheme will be of greater help. However, there may be room for the Government to help find ways to ease cashflow problems for this group of employers, so that Jobs Credit Scheme can function as intended, that is, save jobs. And for those who continue to thrive despite the storm, Jobs Credit Scheme is an encouragement to do even better, going forward. Hopefully, such companies will not simply use the whole windfall to lower their wage bill but will pass on some, or all, of the grant to their employees, as a bonus to their regular pay. This way, their workers will have more spare cash to spend than prior to the crisis.

Retrenchments are grim matters for HR practitioners to handle and grimmer still for those losing their livelihoods. But we should not allow bad news to be swallowed without question. Just as the good news in the Jobs Credit Scheme has been dissected relentlessly, so too should unemployment figures, particularly when they are forecasts and not facts.

Sir, it was reported that SMEs are still hesitant to embrace SPUR. Among their concerns: Whether the scheme itself is a sustainable strategy should the downturn drag on. The boss of a laundry operations catering to the hotel industry commented to me recently, "I can send my workers for training with a subsidy from SPUR but we cannot keep sending workers for training. What will they do after training and there is no recovery in sight? I will have to stop training and put staff on unpaid leave." The concern raised is not invalid but they are perceptions and paradigms that must be righted. This is where we have to appeal to employers to

look beyond the short-term applications of the scheme and appreciate the long- term beneficial effects of SPUR in levelling up Singapore’s human capabilities. Training at this time is about enhancing the self-reliance of our people, a fundamental value expounded by Minister Mentor Lee in the early days, which is applicable to the current investment initiative in training of our human capital.

Sir, the success story of Singapore is about its human resources. We have no natural endowments and in the last 50 years, it is our human resources that have helped propel us to where we are. MOM has been relentless in its efforts to build up our human capabilities and, in the last three years, has mounted a national movement to develop the workforce skills qualifications for industries across the board. The national WSQ framework for the different industries has now been established and the next wave of change that must happen in order that our human capabilities move up the value chain is to reach out to as many as possible for the WSQ Competency training.

Sir, SPUR and absentee payroll are meant to support the investment to level up the competencies of our human resources for better employability, in current jobs or for new jobs.

So employers, as a whole, should band together to help themselves enhance the human resources that we have in Singapore by looking at SPUR from this long-term perspective. A well-trained potential candidate circulating in the market place will benefit all. We have to take a holistic approach and not a silo outlook in such instances when the challenge for Singapore for its long-term survival is a competent workforce.

As a nation, in levelling up the human capabilities of Singapore, PMETs and

fresh graduates would do well to stay ahead of the pack by acquiring the core, critical HR and people management skills.

Sir, regional ties are also important to this small island state. We can also "anchor value in Singapore" by further developing our Malaysian and ASEAN business links. We should not only look at far-flung markets and the G8 countries for growth. Just next door in Johor is the Iskandar Malaysia development, which has already secured US$11 billion of its US$13 billion Foreign Direct Investment target for the phase ending next year. I am glad to see that Singapore is the third largest investor. But I am sure we can also do more. At this point, I would like to say that I am encouraged by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s flexible and objective-centered approach towards our relationship. I agree that we should seriously study how to improve motor traffic and trade flow between our countries. We should consider all alternatives – an eastern bridge link, expanding the causeway, maybe even have regular ferry services that can transport vehicles to different parts of Johor!

Sir, in conclusion, my simple wish is that as we evolve as a society, we approach the complex challenges ahead with flexibility, fairness and compassion.

Sir, I support the motion to thank the President.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and "bao buey". It is my honour to do so, even though all that could have been said, would have been said, are probably said. But that gave me time for reflection.

And, indeed, Sir, every country goes through phases of reflection. Often, a real

crisis gives the golden opportunity to do so. While intense efforts are focused on tackling the current crisis, I am heartened to hear Prime Minister Lee's speech on Wednesday, where he made it clear that he will use this period of imported economic tsunami to reflect, ask hard questions and re-strategise.

Singapore has come a long way. Back in the 1990s, when I was hitch-hiking across the European continents, conversations on the road inevitably entail an education on Singapore. Some thought we are a part of China or even Thailand, some asked if I am a disciple of Bruce Lee. The only period in my year long travel, where people talked about Singapore as if they knew us, was in Paris, during the period of the Michael Fay incident. So, in fact, I heard about Michael Fay from the French, and you can imagine how difficult the conversations were.

Fast forward to May 2009, in preparation for this speech, I surveyed a group of 30 young global leaders from all over the world, aged 25-42. My question to them was, what comes to mind first, when you hear the word 'Singapore'. This time, everyone had an answer. Amongst the most interesting answers were 'Lee Kuan Yew' and 'structured prosperity'.

In retrospect, Singapore owes its being to leaders like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his team of capable and committed comrades operating under the banner of the People's Action Party, to structure the prosperity of Singapore from Third World to First World. Up until the 1970s, my kampong at Mata Ikan had four households with 30 people sharing a jamban. The average Singapore household now has four people sharing at least two bathrooms – that is the progress. Singapore was born out of accident, with no valuables underground, and chaos above ground. We relied on clean hands,

competent minds, compassionate hearts and clear heads with determined visionary leadership to transform ourselves into an economic miracle.

The question is, can what brought us here continue to bring us to where we want to go to? Furthermore, have we, as individual citizens, as a community, as a nation, thought seriously about our collective future? Perhaps adding onto the Economic Strategies Committee, I propose that we could also convene a Aspirations Strategies Committee to canvass the views, hopes and aspirations of our people – both old and young, abled and disabled, across gender and ethnic groups, in a many-brains, diverse souls approach. After all, Singapore must strive to be our collective dream home.

Sir, the Prime Minister outlined questions for us to ponder as we move forward. I would like to add two more :

First, going forward, what are the global principles by which we govern ourselves or measure our success by? The world was on a rat race – individuals compare pay packages and net worth, companies compare PE ratios and market value, while countries compare GDP and size of reserves, and the list goes on. I am not saying that these are not important. In fact, they are. But these cannot be the only benchmarks by which we measure ourselves. When ashes to ashes and dust to dust, we will unlikely be comparing pay cheques. Chances are, we will hope to have our loved ones with us, and know that we mean something to someone, and have led a life without regrets.

Meaning something to someone is important, for that is humanity. For what profits a man, if he wins all but loses his soul? Up until the recent economic meltdown caused by the fond embrace of the invisible hands, coupled with short-sighted irrational exuberance and greed, Milton Friedman’s

advocacy of business-for-pure-profits-equals-social-prosperity argument reigns. We now know that the short sightedness of the free market approach has caused an abdication of social responsibility and sacrificed collective social progress for individual gains.

But is this the result of a system failure? As Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic, philanthropist and a bestselling author, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "The current crisis was not caused by sub-prime mortgages, not caused by credit default swaps, or failed economic policies. The root cause is failed leadership." From business schools that taught students profit maximisation for shareholders rather than for society, to Wall Street that espouses 'greed is good', to economies that espouses growth at all costs, we are all guilty of accepting or advocating a narrow culture of success, which is measured only in terms of transactional dollar value. Growing income gaps, rapid rise in urban depression cases, short-termisms, are all results of a transactional value system. Hence, we all have a part to play and let us not waste a crisis. Let us leverage on it to fundamentally change this culture of narrow self-interest, to a broad culture of sustainable social progress. For my part, on a pro bono basis, I have formed a team with the World Economic Forum and two Professors from the Harvard Business School to craft what is temporarily called a 'Davos Oath for Business Leaders'. This will be accompanied by a set of measurement tools to set the ethics and ethos of business leaders. In the process, I have also incorporated the thinking of our pioneer leaders from Singapore – which is economic growth for social progress not as an after thought; but as a key motivation for doing business. When launched, investing in communities and upholding integrity will become the new business benchmarks. This may sound like

a very long shot but, fortunately, in our beta test with top business leaders, MBAs and media, have been positive. I hope that when it is ready to be launched, Singapore leaders can also embrace it.

And this brings me to my second question: what do we need to do to stay relevant to our people, and to the rest of the world?

Minister Mentor Lee, Senior Minister Goh, Prime Minister Lee, all our Cabinet Ministers, in fact, have constantly reminded us of the need to stay relevant. This should be edged into our modus operandi. The story of Iceland is a good reminder of small states that could be amongst the richest and most educated population in the world, but once it loses its relevance, then no one comes to its rescue when the hurricanes of change swirl. We need to keep abreast of the winds of change, and constantly ask ourselves, what is our relevance to our neighbours, our relevance to the world? Only then, will our neighbours and global allies have reason to help us in times of difficulties.

So, what would be our best bets in staying relevant? The answer, is three – people, people, people. Why? Because human beings are survivors of the evolving eco-systems over hundreds of years, and, in fact, we are the result of winning sperms and eggs. Our survival instincts can be sharply enhanced by investing heavily in the health, education and opportunities of our people. Hence, the investments under Minister for Health, Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in promoting the 3Ms and healthy lifestyle are crucial. In the area of education and lifelong learning, the SPUR program may appear to be like a recession tool. But I actually see it as a very clever strategy to up-skill and entire nation when the opportunity cost is at its lowest so that we can stay ahead of the game. Health and education has to be complemented by access to

opportunities to fulfil potentials and passion. This is perhaps one reason for convening the Economic Strategies Committee, but it alone is insufficient. In a networked world where individuals have amplified voices and abilities, we need to earnestly empower our citizens in building people-to-people bridges across the globe. The more friends we have, the further and deeper our reach. And the clue here is to leverage on existing organisations and individuals, instead of building from scratch. Empower and collaborate, not just compete.

Similarly, on the political scene, we need to stay relevant to our people. The Prime Minister announced a series of constitutional changes to the Parliament. And, indeed, as time changes, needs change. And fortunately, our political system is soft-coded. So, instead of throwing away everything that has been built, new client specifications can be added on, goals redefined, process refined and constraints tweaked so that the system yields better results that is apt for the changing time. The proposed changes will add more diverse views. However, if the Parliament debates becomes reduced to a contest of words, without real responsibilities, then we may discover, to our cost, the problem of barking dogs. As witnessed in many countries, parliamentarians play to the gallery, bills get laggard, investors lose confidence, citizens lose jobs and hopes in a once-upon-a-time prosperous land, culminating in a complete breakdown in the social contract. So, I say let us get real. We are a small country. If we do not get our acts together, then we are no good for anyone, local or overseas. We will lose our relevance to our citizens, we will lose our relevance to the world. Singaporeans travelling overseas will need visas and be queried for hours at checkpoints. As hon. Member Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee said, we will have no voice even if we shout. Then, survival becomes a big question.

Yesterday, NCMP Ms Sylvia Lim said she is against the changes, yet she advocates letting the people judge what makes a better system. So I wonder if she would agree to let the people judge if these changes are good. But, of course, I hope that Ms Lim would agree that judging is always retrospective. The stakes in this case are the livelihood of Singaporeans and survivability of Singapore. There are enough examples right in our neighbourhood to show what political instability can do to social progress in bigger nations; so let alone a small nation like Singapore. A reminder here: there is no easy 'reset' button.

So, let us not belittle the achievements of our past and current leaders, or the contributions that the PAP party has made in structuring Singapore’s prosperity. I remember vividly the tear-jerker video of a young Minister Mentor Lee shedding tears when Singapore was booted out of Malaysia or Malaya then. I also remember a video with the Minister Mentor, fist clenched, determined voice addressing an audience, promising a metropolitan in 10 years while looking at deteriorated kampongs. We built this nation on great leadership. Generations after generations, the PAP has made the search for committed leadership its top priority, for it understands that only with leaders who are agile and clean, leaders who are compassionate yet clear headed, can Singapore continue to thrive. With changing times and the impending parliamentary constitutional changes, I hope that whoever enters this Parliament, enters to build on the sacrifices of our forefathers, and endeavour to make Singapore the land of opportunity and the best home for our residents – based on the principles in our Pledge, which is: regardless of race, language or religion, to build peace, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Sir, I think this time round, Prime Minister Lee has shown the mark of great

leaders, by not stopping at just reflection. He does not want to waste a good crisis. He wants this to be the point of inflection. I urge all citizens and organisations to give him your utmost support, in making the next chapter; the best chapter for Singapore. Sir, if it is to be, it is up to me.

Mr Speaker Sir, I thank you and I support the motion.

3.12 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank MPs who have spoken on manpower issues during this debate.

Over the next few years, MOM will focus on three key priority areas. Firstly, we aim to develop a globally competitive workforce. In this downtown, we will help companies cut costs to save jobs, train workers to retain their jobs or move into new jobs, create employment opportunities and help the unemployed find jobs. We will also leverage on the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) to build up the capabilities of our workforce. We will focus on raising productivity and encouraging our enterprises to innovate as highlighted by Mr Cedric Foo. We will promote progressive HR practices to develop local talent and attract foreign talent.

Secondly, we will enhance the income security and life-long employability of Singaporeans. We will implement CPF LIFE from September 2009 and enact re-employment legislation by 2012. We will review the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme in 2010, taking into consideration the suggestions raised by Members of this House and other feedback.

Thirdly, we will develop globally leading workplaces through improving

safety and health, building progressive workplaces and promoting good employment practices.

Mr Speaker, during the debate, many Members have spoken on the more immediate concerns on the current economic downtown as well as on the longer term challenges and strategies in developing our workforce. Let me touch on these two issues in greater detail.

Sir, this is the most challenging economic downturn we have encountered but we are facing this recession from a position of strength. We have been building up our continuing education and training (CET) infrastructure over the last few years. I agree with Mdm Halimah Yacob that it is important to have a comprehensive training blueprint for our workers and that is why we have launched the CET masterplan last year. Under this plan, we will invest significant resources to build up a CET system that will help employers enhance the quality and productivity of their workers. Help workers acquire industry relevance skills and seize opportunities in new growth areas. This has also allowed us to quickly roll out numerous programmes such as SPUR and the Professional Skills Programme (PSP). Together with our tripartite partners, we have revised the guidelines to help employers and workers on managing excess manpower during this downturn.

I thank Mdm Halimah, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Ms Cham Hui Fong and Mr Christopher de Souza for their support for SPUR programme and the various measures we have put in place.

Indeed, the response to SPUR has been very encouraging. As at end of April 2009, that is, within five months of launching SPUR, about 94,000 workers have been committed to training under SPUR.

SPUR and the Resilience Package have had a positive impact in helping

companies reduce retrenchments, keeping our unemployment rate low. Despite our GDP declining by 10.1% (year-on-year) in the first quarter of 2009, our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 3.2% remains lower than in many other countries, including the US, Germany, Australia and Hong Kong, which are facing higher unemployment rates of between 5.2% and 8.5%. The chart on the screen will show Members a comparison of the various countries. Our strategies are sound and our tripartite efforts have been effective in saving jobs. Nevertheless, we must not be complacent. There are still 3.2% of workers unemployed. For those who lose their jobs, the unemployment rate is 100%. We are not out of the woods yet.

We will continue to help those who need help and we will also closely monitor the effectiveness of our various programmes and make refinements where necessary. We have already introduced several enhancements to SPUR. Mdm Ho Geok Choo will be glad to know that, recently, we increased the Absentee Payroll capped under SPUR to better support training for Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs), a group that several Members have expressed their concerns about. We also introduced the Professional Skills Training Programme under traineeship scheme for companies to build new capabilities in growth sectors as well as SPUR-JOBS, a scheme to encourage recruitment and retention of local workers.

Even in this downturn, there are still new jobs being created. We can expect at least 45,000 jobs to be created during these two years, including many for PMETs. Many sectors are still enjoying good employment growth. The creative industries sector, for example, is a bright spot in the PMET job market. Companies, such as Koei, plan to double the size of their operations and add 60 new staff

over the next two years. Ubisoft, is looking to expand its headcount from 70 to 300. Other sectors that are hiring include social services and childcare which will have some 1,000 new jobs over the next few years. Positions such as social work and teaching professionals are in demand in this industry.

There are presently more than 21,000 job postings immediately available in NTUC's and WDA's job databases. Both Mr Ang Mong Seng and Mr Christopher de Souza highlighted the need for effective job matching. I agree. As Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed has mentioned, our career centres at the Community Development Councils (CDCs) and NTUC's e2i play a critical role in helping people overcome their employment barriers and acquire skills in demand. Career consultants do more than just job matching. They work with job seekers to provide them with labour market information, prepare them for interviews, enhance their job search skills and also refer them to the relevant skills upgrading programmes.

Mr Zainudin Nordin commented that workers and job seekers must adopt the right mindset. I am encouraged to see that job seekers are increasingly flexible and adaptable. Many of them are also taking advantage of the wide range of training available to acquire new skills that will help them to be productive and stay employable, or take on new jobs so that they can continue to work. In the first four months of this year, the career centres at the CDCs and NTUC's e2i have collectively placed about 10,500 job seekers into jobs. Another 500 PMETs have also undergone career and employability workshops organised by the CDCs.

Let me give Members an example. Mdm Koo Hua Yong was retrenched from her job as a production worker. When Mdm Koo first approached the North East CDC for assistance, she was rather

apprehensive about making a transition into a different sector as she had been working in the manufacturing sector for the past 20 years. After being counselled by the career consultant, she was more confident and willing to switch to a job in another sector. She went for training at the Health Management International (HMI) where she received a WSQ Higher Certificate in Community and Social Services in April 2009. Mdm Koo started work as a Healthcare Assistant in early May 2009 and is adjusting well to her new job. I urge job seekers to follow the example of Mdm Koo and be prepared to switch to other new careers.

Mdm Halimah, Ms Cham Hui Fong, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Eunice Olsen and Mr Heng Chee How brought up the challenges faced by older workers in this downturn. Some of them have lost their jobs and are indeed finding it more difficult to get a new job. I agree with Mr Heng, Ms Olsen and Ms Cham that we need to press on in our efforts to encourage employers to recruit and retain older workers even though it is more challenging in a recession. However, the labour market will tighten again once the economy recovers and it is important for employers and companies to realise this and maximise their ability to tap on the contributions of older workers. We must also help older workers up-skill and re-skill in order to seize the job opportunities that are still available even during this downturn. Mdm Winnie Tong, who is 52 years old, is a good example. She worked as a clerk-cum-typist for seven years until November last year when her company closed down. She signed up for a WSQ Higher Certificate in Healthcare Support to be trained as a Clinical Administrative Assistant. Mdm Tong secured a job at Raffles Hospital while undergoing training

and has now started work upon completion of her training.

The Tripartite Partners have been working together to help employers prepare for the introduction of the re-employment legislation in 2012. The Tripartite Advisory on Re-employment of Older Workers will be updated later this year.

Mr Speaker, several Members – Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Er Lee Bee Wah, Dr Muhammad Faisal, Ms Eunice Olsen and Mdm Halimah Yacob – spoke on the need to strike the right balance in our foreign worker policies.

The Prime Minister has explained that foreign talents and workers have helped us grow our economy, by building our infrastructure, bolstering our workforce and filling critical gaps. They form an integral part of our labour market and provide us with an important competitive advantage. The key is balance. This requires careful calibration of our foreign worker policies such that Singaporeans have jobs and our companies continue to have regulated access to foreign workers to remain competitive. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked if we are putting Singaporean's interests first. Indeed, we have always been by adopting a win-win strategy. We have tilted the balance in favour of local workers during this downturn, by improving their employability through SPUR, and enhancing their cost competitiveness through Jobs Credit and WIS.

In this downturn, we expect the number of foreign workers to fall but demand for these workers will grow again when the economy recovers. However, the overall size of our workforce cannot grow indefinitely. There is a natural limit to the size of the local workforce. There are also limits to the size of foreign workforce given the constraints on our infrastructure and critical resources such

as land. We should not become overly dependent on foreign workers. My Ministry will support the new Economic Strategies Committee in looking at how we can strike a balance and maximise the contributions from our workforce, both local and foreign.

We must create good, high-value jobs for Singaporeans, improve their skills and raise their productivity. To do that, we must continue to invest in education to help each of them realise their potential. We must also promote lifelong learning through our CET system, so that they can constantly upgrade themselves, as Miss Penny Low pointed out. This desire to acquire new skills and knowledge must continue beyond the recession. There is a Chinese saying, 学无止境 (xue wu zhi jing). This way, we can building a learning workforce and ensure that the quality of the local workforce will continue to improve over the long term. As we upgrade the quality of our local workforce through our CET framework and SPUR, we are also fine-tuning our foreign manpower regulatory framework to encourage our employers to bring in better quality and better skilled workers. We have announced some changes in this regard during the COS this year. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and make further adjustments, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we manage the recession in the short term, we must not lose sight of our long-term vision of building a globally competitive workforce, enhancing income security and lifelong employability, and building globally leading workplaces.

Tripartism plays an important role in addressing short-term challenges of the downturn as well as in realising this long-term vision. The strong partnership among unions, employers and the Government gives Singapore a unique advantage. We must continue to make conscious efforts

to cultivate and strengthen this partnership. By working together as a team, we can leverage on our strengths to position our economy and workforce for the upturn. This way, the journey through the recession can be a positive and constructive one, and we will emerge stronger and more united.

Sir, can I seek a clarification?

Clarification. Yes.

Just two clarifications. The Minister mentioned about 45,000 new jobs will be created. May I know how many of these 45,000 jobs will go to locals? The second clarification is, what is the success rate of job placements of those who have undergone training like SPUR and other training programmes?

First question about the 45,000 jobs. Many of the jobs in fact are created by the Government institutions. Out of these 45,000, at least 18,000 will be from the Government and part of these 18,000, a majority of them are PMET jobs, good paying jobs, requiring degrees and diplomas. Among the rest of the 45,000, they will continue to be regulated by our foreign worker quota system. So most of these jobs will go to Singaporeans. With regard to your second question on the success rate of the training programme, out of the 94,000 people who have committed to SPUR, 50,000 of them are now undergoing training. Some of them have completed training. Among these 50,000, about three quarters of them are sponsored by companies, so they are still employed. About 12,000 to 13,000 of these 50,000 are self-initiated trainees. Some of them may still be working. Among the CDCs, as I remember, we have placed about 10,000 or so workers over the last three to four months. Those are the rough numbers that will give you a

sense of the placement rate, I do not have the exact numbers with me. Of course, some of the 10,000 that we placed out may not all be from the SPUR programme. Some are still working; some are straight placements and job matching. What is more important I think is to explain that in our placement efforts now, compared to previously, we do it slightly differently. Rather than simply matching the jobs and sending the CVs to employers. We do a lot more by profiling the workers, understanding their strengths and their weaknesses, understanding their interests and also try to match the skill sets that employers need. If there are skill gaps, we will send them for training. Sometimes, the training may not be specific technical skills, but basic employability skills like how to attend an interview, how to groom yourself to look more confident, to be able to write the CV effectively, and so on. So through these many programmes, we help to enhance employability of the workers and, by doing so, we will be able to improve the success rate of our job placement. By and large, the job consultants in our CDCs are better trained, more targeted and focused. Even in our various job fairs, for example, we are focusing more on specifically targeted job fairs, rather than general job fairs where you have large volumes of people going through but may not be very effective. We go for specific job fairs with very targeted jobs

and we bring in selected jobseekers, so that there is a higher chance of matching. These are the many measures that we put in place to enhance the success rate of our job placement efforts.

Mdm Cynthia Phua, clarifications only.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I would just like to ask the Minister whether he could consider some of the local placement

efforts. For example, Paya Lebar division, we have a one-stop service. In the past one year of placement for local jobs, the placement rate is very good at about 20%. So I wonder whether the Minister could consider some local placement funding.

Sir, in fact, we have a community programme together with the self-help groups. In particular, the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) in conjunction with Holland-Bukit Panjang has set up employment services on the ground with the Community Development Council's (CDC) support. This will help to reach out, at the local level, to workers. But we need to be very careful because it is important for us to ensure that the job matching services that we offer are relevant and effective. That is why I went to great lengths to explain just now how we do job-matching. It is not effective to simply match CVs with jobs

I think it is important for us to make sure that we profile the workers and understand their needs. This is professional work. The Workforce Development Agency (WDA) works very closely with CDCs at the local level in conjunction with the self-help groups. We do recognise that there may be a need to reach out more effectively at the local level and in specific areas, we will be happy to work with grassroots leaders, for example, in organising local job fairs, and so on. We will also be working with community organisations like the CDCs to be more effective in reaching out on the ground. So if a Member has any specific needs, I would suggest that they can, perhaps, approach the CDC and discuss with them what would be the best way to reach out to the jobseekers at the ground level and at the community level.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to

Appendix A *.] A nation that strives to achieve must have political, social and economic capital. In the past 50 years, Singapore has worked very hard, gone through many storms and has accumulated considerable capital. We are one of the most competitive nations in the world. We have one of the most united people in the world, and our Government is one of the cleanest and most effective in the world. In a nutshell, Singapore is one of the few countries that has achieved a lot.

Looking forward, there is a saying that the wealth of a family seldom lasts for more than three generations. The three assets that we have accumulated in the past do not necessary last forever. Therefore, from the point of view of the workers and unions, the labour movement welcomes the policy directions outlined by the President for the tripartite partners and the people to pursue. Mr Speaker, to strengthen our economic capital, we have to enhance our competitiveness, train and re-train our people – both young and old, men and women, lowly educated and highly educated.

We must continue to develop our local enterprises – small enterprises and big enterprises, export-oriented or domestic-oriented. And we have to tap others' strengths. All enterprises and all talents, whether they are local or foreign, as long as they are willing to take root here and work together with us, we should accept them. Only by doing so, can we continue to raise our economic performance of all the economic sectors, so that Singapore will have unlimited opportunities for development, and create good and more job opportunities for our people.

Mr Speaker, to strengthen our social assets, all our people, whether young or old, high or low income, locally born or from abroad, must interact and forge shared vision, work in unity and care for each other. Only then can we ensure that

our Unlimited Singapore will also be a United Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are countries that have democratic elections, but do not have political stability. There are those with political stability but do not have elections. As for those that have elections and also enjoy political stability, such countries are very few in number and Singapore is one of them. We should treasure this political capital of ours. To keep strengthening our political capital, we have to evolve our political system and encourage all political parties to put forth the best candidates they have – candidates who are totally committed to serving the people. We also encourage Singaporeans to vote for the best candidates. Only by doing so can they have the best Members of Parliament to serve them in their constituencies; have the best political party to lead our nation and sustain the development of the economy, society and living environment. At the same time, in the Parliament, we can have more heated, sharper and constructive debates of public policies. These three capital – economic, social and political – are essential. I appeal to the people to work together to strengthen our economic competitiveness, social cohesion and political stability. Together, transform a successful Singapore of today into an even more successful Singapore of tomorrow.

(In English ): Mr Speaker, I reflected on the President's speech and the debate over the past five days from the perspective of the labour movement. I asked myself, "what are we trying to achieve and what does this mean to the workers and the people of Singapore?" Three types of capital are critical to the long-term development of Singapore – economic capital, social capital and political capital.

First, economic capital. We have done well as a country and an economy. Since

1992, out of 17 years, our gross domestic product (GDP) grew faster than the global GDP in 14 years. Out of the past 17 years, we achieved full employment in 13 years. More importantly, out of the 17 years, there were 10 years we were able to achieve both – grew faster than the world GDP growth and, at the same time, sustained full employment. We are the only one nation in the world that has been able to achieve that in the past 17 years. This achievement is truly "uniquely Singapore".

Can we do as well in the next 17 years? Frankly speaking, I do not know. But what I do know is that the journey will only get more and more difficult because the global economic network is going to be a very different one. It will be multi-nodal because there are more and more nodes coming up in this global network. This network will be tightly linked. More importantly, it will be fast vibrating and changing very fast.

Nothing happened by chance. We have succeeded in the past because we were very clear with our market positioning. We did our very best to be cheaper than those who are better than us and better than those who are cheaper than us. However, our future success cannot depend on this past strategy. We cannot just be better than those who are cheaper than us. We must also try to be better than those who are better than us today. This will be very tough and I hope that we, in Singapore, do not underestimate the new challenge.

I believe that the only hope of succeeding, for Singapore to become better than those who are better than us today, is to do it the "Singapore Unlimited" way. We have to count on the strengths of all enterprises – whether big or small, whether local, Asian or global enterprises. We have to count on all

talents, whether they are Singaporeans, foreign manpower, Asian talents or global talents. Because this is the only way – by depending on all enterprises and by counting on all talents from all over the world – that we can hope to succeed in becoming better than those who are better. And if we can succeed in becoming better than those who are better than us today, I believe we can create good jobs for everyone in all areas in Singapore.

In global manufacturing, we can create the best jobs in electronics, biomedical. In international services, we can create the best jobs in the world in finance, logistics and infocomm. Even in domestic businesses, we can create the best jobs in the world be it security, landscaping or cleaning. As Singaporeans, we should stop looking at foreign talents and foreign manpower as our competitors. Instead, we should ask ourselves: "If I am an engineer, how can I be the best engineer in the world? If I am a technician, how can I be the best technician in the world?"

Our rank and file workers too – "If I am a cleaner, how can I be as best, if not better than the cleaner in Europe? If I am a gardener, how can I be as best, if not better than the gardener in Japan? If I am a security guard, how can I be better than the one in America? And the same applies to our sales staff, whether in a hotel or the retail outlets, everyone of us can ask ourselves: "How can I make myself the best in the world?", instead of looking at the foreign manpower as competitors.

At the same time, I also urge our employers, "Do not keep looking at our local workers as people who are choosy, not prepared to work long hours and not prepared to work in far locations". Instead, as employers, ask ourselves: "As we urge workers to be the best that they can be, how we, as employers, make sure that jobs can be the best that it can be too? How can we improve the

productivity of every job? How can we professionalise every job? How can we ensure that every job would offer better work life balance?" We cannot expect a Singaporean worker to work six days a week, 12 hours a day, because if he were to take on that kind of job, where and when is he going to lead his family life?

Sir, if everyone of us applies our minds to be better than those who are better than us, work together in a "Singapore Unlimited" way, we can succeed in building a "Singapore Unlimited" that is powered by the Singapore rooted – all enterprises and all talents in an inclusive way.

Second, social capital. We have done well too. Today, in Singapore, we enjoy peace and harmony. We acted in unity whenever there is a crisis, from SARS to global terrorism to recessions. Looking ahead, we must do even better. Besides the issue of local versus foreigner, we also have to find ways to bring closer together, the young Singaporeans and the older Singaporeans, the high income Singaporeans and the low income Singaporeans, the new citizens and the current citizens. We must recognise that, regardless of who they are, every Singaporean has his anxieties and his aspirations. We must help them as best as we can to overcome their anxieties to meet their aspirations.

Two days ago, my colleague, Mr Sam Tan, expressed his concern that maybe we have been overly protective of our people. I take Mr Sam Tan's point, in terms of its broader context, positively.

*Cols. 787-790.

But as far as employment and employability are concerned, I want to make it very clear that it is never enough, no matter how much we do. I want to say this seriously, because at the NTUC, e2i, WDA, MOM, and many economic agencies, we are working very hard to take care of our Singaporean workers. And we do not believe that we are being

overly protective of our workers. We look at employment and employability slightly differently because we do not look at a worker as a child learning how to ride a bicycle. Because for a child riding a bicycle, like what Mr Sam Tan said, when he falls, he may have a minor injury. But we do not look at the employment and employability of workers in that way. We look at a worker very much like a person riding on a motorbike going down the highway, and this motorbike has to go faster and faster. Because of global competition, he must become more productive and efficient. As the worker goes faster and faster on this motorbike on the highway, two things can happen to him: one, what if the motorbike is taken away from him, he lost his bike; secondly, maybe as he goes faster, and if he is not skilful enough to control the bike, he may lose control of the motorbike. When the worker either loses his bike or loses control of the bike, what will happen to him? I think he is going to suffer quite serious injury when he is going at high speed down the highway. But, more importantly, do not forget, this worker is not on his own riding on the motorbike. Sitting behind him is his wife and children, his entire family. So when the worker loses his job, what happens to his entire family? As the Chinese say, 水深火热 (shui shen huo re ). Hence, our belief is that when the worker becomes a jobless person, to him, unemployment rate is 100%, and it is something that we should not take lightly.

Let me assure the workers of Singapore that the tripartite partners will not spare any effort to cut costs, save jobs and contain retrenchment. At the same time, we will continue to do our very best, as Mr Gan Kim Yong has said earlier, to continue to reskill and up-skill our workers to contain unemployment. The tripartite partners will continue to work very hard to help the matured workers to gain re-employment, as mentioned by Mr Heng Chee How two

days ago. We will continue to do job-matching. Earlier, there was a question asked by Mr Low Thia Khiang. If you come to e2i today, everyday, hundreds of jobseekers come to e2i, and there are about 100 persons working full-time, helping to match them to available jobs. The other day, some Members expressed concern that the older jobseekers are having difficulty finding jobs. I would say that the situation actually is changing. If you come to e2i, every three persons that we manage to match them to jobs, one of them is more than 50 years old, and one of them is between 40-50 years old. In other words, two-thirds of the jobseekers who successfully secured jobs through e2i with tripartite support are more than 40 years old. How many workers are being matched successfully? At e2i alone, at least 1,000 workers a month, and we are still not satisfied. We are still finding ways to enhance the effectiveness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we go through this downturn, as Mr Sam Tan observed, there appears to be no sense of recession in Singapore. Everybody seems to be still cool and calm, and still going around doing their shopping. But we look at this, really, as the strength of tripartism. It is the outcome of the strength of tripartism in cutting costs, saving jobs, helping workers to gain re-employment rather than a weakness of the Singapore system. So we will continue to support and help each other. We will continue to bond the community. We will continue to bridge the people across various income and age groups. Because, at the end of the day, we must stand in unity and pride together as we go through this downturn so that we can continue to strengthen the social capital of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thirdly, political capital. With political stability, we, as a country, have been able to adopt tough but right policies all these years. We are

one of the countries that can think and do. We think of what needs to be done and can deliver on what needs to be done. This is a big plus for Singapore.

Look at some other countries. My first visit to China was in 1985, and my first visit to India was 1990. In my first visit to China, I observed that it was a country trying very hard to catch up with the modern world. This was in 1985. I stayed in a hotel run by a Chinese enterprise. To make an international call, you had to call the operator and the operator would connect you to the phone number in Singapore. The operator would monitor how long your call took. On the day of checking out, all the hotel guests would queue up, waiting for the cashier to tell them, "Last night, you made a call, three minutes, it costs you $X". It came to my turn, so I told the cashier, "Last night, at eight o'clock, I made a call to Singapore. I spoke for about five minutes". The lady checked and said, "No, you did not make any call." I said, "Yes, I did make a call." She said, "No, you did not make any call." Finally, she told me, "Look, if I tell you that you did not make any call, because your room number was not indicated in my book, that means you did not make any call, so please go away." Those were the days in China in 1985. Today, it is a very different China. China today has gone through complete transformation. The hotels are modern, if not even more modern than some of the hotels in Singapore and the rest of the world.

I went to India in 1990 to do manpower recruitment. At that time, I was the General Manager of National Computer Board. We needed to bring in IT professionals. A friend in India was very helpful. He helped us to arrange the interviews and to do recruitment. I asked him, "Why are you so helpful? I am coming here to take your manpower away." He said, "Look, Mr Lim, I tell you very frankly, it is better to have brain

drain, then to have our brain in the drain." And that was the situation in India in 1990. Today, 2009, China and India have progressed by leaps and bounds.

Both countries – China and India – they have progressed at different pace under different political system. In China, there is political stability but there is no general election. In India, there are general elections but they have less political stability. But, here in Singapore, we have elections and yet, at the same time, we have political stability. Through fair elections, one person one vote, we were able to elect, one election after another, a clean, strong and responsible government. In fact, we have the best of both worlds – general election plus a stable government. So this is a big political asset for Singapore, something that we should treasure and value.

Sir, the question is: how do we get better, because the future will be very different from today. I have been a Member of Parliament for 12 years, so this is my 13th year. Over the years, comes every general election, my impression is that voters basically want to have the "best of three worlds": firstly, they want to have the best MP to look after their constituency; secondly, they want to have the best government to take care of the country; and thirdly, they want to have more debate, more avenues, and more alternative voices in the Parliament so that policy formulation can be more robust. So, basically, voters like to have the best of three worlds.

Sir, I believe that the changes announced by the Prime Minister two days ago, in fact, will put us on the path towards the best of three worlds. Because under these proposed changes, if every political party were to put forward its best candidates – people who do not just have the competency but also the commitment and passion to serve Singapore and Singaporeans – and if the

voters vote wisely, and vote for the best candidates possible, then the outcome that we can see in Singapore in future elections will be MPs, in each of the constituencies, who can serve the residents to the best of their abilities; at the same time, a government that will lead the country to the best outcome; and a Parliament that is not only with a multi-racial representation but, more importantly, with more alternative voices as well. So these are the possible outcomes which we look forward to because they will go a long way in further strengthening the political capital in Singapore.

Sir, during one of my dialogues with the union leaders, I asked the union leaders how do they feel and what kind of problems they face. A few of them highlighted that as we go through this downturn, it is not easy to be union leaders. On one hand, some employers may want to cut jobs to save cost; on the other hand, some of the workers may not be prepared to cut cost in order to save jobs. The union leaders are caught in between. So they said it is tough to be union leaders. Then I asked them, "If given a choice today, would you like to continue to be a union leader or would you like to give up?" They said, "No, no matter how tough it is, we are still committed and want to continue to be union leaders." I said, "This is very good. Now that you have decided to be union leaders, if you have a choice of being union leaders anywhere in this world, tell me which country would you choose to be in?" They looked at me, laughed and said, "Secretary-General, of course, Singapore." Why? Why do union leaders choose to continue to be union leaders and choose to continue to be union leaders in Singapore even though it is not easy to be union leaders? The answer is very simple. In the labour movement, our union leaders value the "three capital" of Singapore – economic capital, social capital and political capital. Because these

"three capital" ensure that our economy is competitive and that our society is a caring and cohesive one. But, more importantly, it ensures that tripartism in Singapore is an effective one. We can make a real difference to businesses and the life of the workers. Why? Because as union leaders, yes, our job is tough but, at least in Singapore here, we can work with employers who are socially responsible and a Government that is clean and competent.

Sir, in the last 50 years, it had taken us a lot of effort to create the economic, social and political capital that we have today. Over the next 50 years, we must try to do even better. We must find ways to keep strengthening these "three capital". The Economic Strategies Committee and the changes to the political system will enable us to keep growing our economy to grow our economic capital, keep bonding and bridging our people to grow the social capital and, at the same time, keep evolving our political system to grow the political capital in Singapore. The labour movement will do our part, together with our tripartite partners, to make sure that this "Unlimited Singapore" will be even more united, and this "United Singapore" will be even more unlimited.

With that, I thank you, Sir.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said in my opening speech of this debate that this would be one of the most important debates that this House will embark on. Having heard some 61 eminent speakers over the last five days, including the Prime Minister and several Ministers, I stand convinced of that fact.

I now have the great honour of summing up the speeches which we have heard and bringing this debate to a close. After hearing the many eloquent speeches of my colleagues in this House and, in particular, the very clear and incisive speech of the Prime Minister, I hope I will be able to do justice to them in this closing.

Sir, there has been length, breadth and depth in this debate. Members of this House have spoken frankly and openly on a wide array of issues close to their hearts. They span a wide spectrum and range from international issues to national issues, to local issues and even personal experiences. We have had poetry from Ms Irene Ng and even the transcript of a YouTube video read to us by Ms Indranee Rajah, somehow not quite the same as watching the video. But after taking it all in, I believe that what has been said can be categorised as follows: first, the re-creation of our economy; second, the need for political development; third, social cohesion, resilience and self-reliance; fourth, upgrading our education and promoting openness and transparency; finally, health and our ageing population.

I will deal with each of these areas in turn. The re-creation and restructuring of our economy, amidst the ongoing financial crisis, took centre stage during the debate and, understandably so. The collapse of the world economy, the plummeting demand for our goods and services and the close to double-digit decline in our

GDP have precipitated calls from several Members of this House for the need to re-create our economy and develop our home-grown businesses and companies. Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Inderjit Singh, Dr Amy Khor, Dr Loo Choon Yong, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Gautam Banerjee spoke passionately about how this crisis had shown our vulnerability in a globalised world and the need to develop our own companies and businesses so that one day, they too would become multi-national players in the region and the world.

There was general agreement, even from Mr Low Thia Khiang, that the strategy of attracting multi-national companies to invest in Singapore had worked well for us and we should continue with this strategy. However, there was also a need to build up and support our local companies so that they would become strong economic drivers and provide an additional source of income for Singapore. Dr Amy Khor and Mr Inderjit Singh called for another economic review committee to be set up to map out the strategy to restructure the Singapore economy. Mr Singh asked that this committee includes strong representation from the private sector. Today, we heard Miss Penny Low ask for an Aspirations Strategies Committee.

In response to these calls, the Prime Minister set out the roadmap for our economic transformation over the next 10 years. The Prime Minister explained a five-pronged approach to re-creating the Singapore economy. The five strategies are: finding new ways to seize growth opportunities; strengthening our corporate capabilities and making our companies stronger; develop the capabilities of our people and grow our human and knowledge capital; creating good and high-value jobs for Singaporeans; and deploying our resources to maximum effect. Mr Cedric Foo summed up the

strategies well by describing them as strategies to enhance Singapore's economic eco-system, including productivity and innovation capacity, so as to capture new markets and grow a diversified economy. In order to carry out the strategic review, the Prime Minister has announced the formation of an Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) to be chaired by the Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The ESC will tap the strengths of both the public and the private sectors.

I was heartened by the roadmap for economic transformation laid out by the Prime Minister. It gave me confidence that we have a plan that would ultimately lead to our economy emerging stronger from this crisis. In particular, I was happy to hear the Prime Minister's assurance that going forward, part of the plan will be to help our local companies grow and that more will be done for them. To this end, Minister Lim Hng Kiang's seven charts showing the growth of the various sectors over the last nine years and the division within the sectors, between local companies and foreign companies, were very informative. In particular, it was good to learn that the trends in the share of value added by ownership and size between local and foreign companies, and SMEs and non-SMEs, were almost equally split. What I am sure many in this House would hope to see is that the Government will assist local companies to find ways to increase their share of the market in the growth sectors of chemicals, electronics, biomedical and financial services.

Another issue that arose during the debate on the economy was the issue of protectionism. Mr Gautam Banerjee, Dr Loo Choon Yong and Dr Amy Khor called on the Government to guard against any form of protectionism. I echo that sentiment. We must ensure that we do not succumb to popular pressure and set up any protectionist measures. Our

economy would not be able to absorb a fallout from this. We are essentially a trading nation with a very small local economy. We depend primarily on trade with the rest of the world. Protectionism, whether in the form of "buy Singapore only" or in the form of "hire Singaporeans only", would be detrimental to our economy in the long term. I, therefore, cannot agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's call for the Government to set aside certain jobs for Singaporeans only. To do so would not only smack of protectionism but also create an even greater divide between foreigners and Singaporeans. Mr Low says that the Government should take steps to avoid a "Singaporean versus foreigners" issue turning into an acute political issue, yet his idea of reserving jobs for Singaporeans will do just that.

Another issue which came into focus during the debate on the economy was the management of our reserves by Temasek and GIC. Mr Inderjit Singh, Dr Loo Choon Yong, Mr Sin Boon Ann and Ms Ellen Lee, amongst others, called on the Government to review the original charters given to Temasek and GIC. Dr Loo and Ms Lee proposed that alternative bodies be set up to look at different aspects of investment of our reserves. Dr Loo suggested Temasek 1 and Temasek 2. The Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, responded to these issues in answer to a question filed by Mr Singh. The Minister explained the different strategies and portfolios of Temasek and GIC. He assured us that both Temasek and GIC monitored each investment that they made with our reserves very closely. However, they were ultimately long-term investors and their performance could not be judged based on any one investment, such as the purchase of Merrill Lynch shares that were subsequently converted to Bank of America shares. Their performance had to be judged based on

the performance of the whole portfolio over a period of time. In that respect, both Temasek and GIC had outdone many other well-regarded investors. For example, Temasek had grown its portfolio by some $114 billion between 2003 and 2007. Due to the economic crisis, that had been reduced by $58 billion in 2008. However, the net result was a gain of $56 billion for the period 2003 to 2008.

These revelations by the Minister are certainly reassuring. My only issue is with regard to the matter of openness. I believe that more can be done by Temasek and GIC to explain these issues of public interest clearly so that Singaporeans are made aware of the facts and have their questions answered. As I said in my opening speech, my focus is on the answers to pertinent questions given after the fact which will not have an impact on investment outcome. The comparison of the explanation given by the Minister in this House yesterday and the original statement made by Temasek demonstrates the benefits of an open approach.

In his Address, the President said that our political system was not set in stone and that Singapore politics must evolve over time as the world and our society change. Several MPs, including Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Siew Kum Hong, Prof. Thio Li-ann, Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Baey Yam Keng, Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Ms Sylvia Lim supported a review of our political system. The main aim of this review was so that there would be more engagement of the population and more diverse views in Parliament. Some Nominated MPs and Opposition MPs called for an abolishment of the GRC system or a reduction in the size of GRCs and the increase in the number of SMCs. Mr Hri Kumar even suggested that in order to allow the Prime Minister to obtain the talent needed in Cabinet, we should consider giving the Prime Minister the power to appoint

outstanding individuals to his Cabinet without having to be elected.

These appeals for a review of our political system did not go unanswered. The Government realises the need to update our political system. As the Prime Minister said in his speech two days ago, the key underlying factor which makes sure that we can have

the right education policies, social policies, foreign policies, security and politics, is, in fact, a good political system. So, three areas of reform have been announced by the Prime Minister.

First, the NCMP scheme will be reviewed so as to ensure that there will be at least nine Opposition MPs in Parliament. Second, NMPs will become entrenched as a permanent part of our political system. Finally, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) will be instructed to reduce the number of six-member GRCs and make the average size of GRC no more than five. The EBRC will also be instructed to increase the number of SMCs to at least 12.

I believe that these changes will bring about more diversity in our political system which I hope will, in turn, lead to a greater representation of the views from the ground and a greater exchange of those views in this House. Increasing the number of NCMPs, reducing the average size of the GRC and increasing the number of SMCs will certainly encourage the Opposition candidates to work harder as there will be more opportunities for them to win a seat in this House. Even Ms Sylvia Lim conceded that, overall, the changes were an improvement to the current system.

Notwithstanding Mr Low Thia Khiang's vehement protestations, I support the view that we cannot do away with the GRC system. As Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said yesterday, minority representation is essential. Like him, I, too, am a minority Member in this House.

The GRC system is necessary to ensure that the minority view is represented. Until a viable alternative to the GRC system is put forward, which Mr Low Thia Khiang has yet to do, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and maintain a system that will ensure a minority representation.

In reviewing our political system, we must guard against making a change just for the sake of change. We must guard against changing the system to gain popularity with a vocal minority. As the Prime Minister said, getting our political system right is what allows us to maintain our growth. If we get it wrong, many other things could go wrong too. We cannot afford this to happen.

Singapore is a country that has a mixture of people of different races and religions. It is also a place that is made up of locals as well as foreigners. We all live together in this shining red dot. The jury is still out as to whether we are a salad bowl or a melting pot. Whatever we are, we must remain united and we must help each other. As I said earlier, from an economic point of view, we cannot afford to exclude foreigners, as they are a fundamental part of our economy. At the social level, we must also unite. Mdm Halimah Yacob, Prof. Thio Li-ann and Er Lee Bee Wah spoke about maintaining social cohesion and keeping a close eye on the balance between foreigners and locals. To this end, the Government should carefully monitor the foreign workers' quotas to ensure that this fine balance is maintained. Mr Lim Biow Chuan called on all Singaporeans to be civil and accommodating. To a large extent, I agree. However, I also call on Singaporeans to be gracious and reach out to our friends from overseas. It takes two hands to clap, we must meet them half-way. We cannot expect them to change completely. After all, part of the reason for attracting foreigners is because

they provide the diversity. Therefore, we, too, must change our mindset and be more accepting.

Aside from being cohesive, we also need to build up our resilience and self-reliance. Mr Sam Tan put it bluntly when he said that, to a certain extent, Singaporeans were molly-coddled. We must build up our own resilience and self-reliance. The Government and the MP should not be the first port-of-call when Singaporeans need help. As Mr Yeo Guat Kwang said, "We must learn to help ourselves and turn to our families for help." Many a time, I will see people at my Meet-the-People session, who would rather seek help from the Government than ask their families for help. I am sure each of you have similar experiences. Those in need of help must learn to change this mindset. Correspondingly, families and friends of those in need of help must also change their mindsets and be the first to lend a helping hand.

That said, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, assured this House that the Government was in the process of reviewing various aspects of our social safety net to ensure that those who are really in need and have nowhere else to turn will receive the assistance that they require. In addition, the Minister for Manpower, Mr Gan Kim Yong, has confirmed his Ministry's commitment to keep unemployment as low as possible through schemes such as SPUR, which received praise from various Members of this House. Minister Lim Swee Say has just followed up to say that never too much can be done to ensure employment and the tripartite partners are committed to this cause. In other words, no one will be left behind.

Finding a balance between economic success and social success was also in

the minds of some MPs. Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Prof. Kalyani Mehta and Ms Denise Phua spoke about finding the balance between economic development and making Singapore one of most liveable cities in the world, and between competitiveness and graciousness. As Mr Seah said, "More is not necessarily better." In my view, there is no reason why we can only achieve one to the exclusion of the other. There is no reason why we cannot be gracious in our success.

One of the underlying themes that cut across the range of issues that were raised during the debate was the need to promote openness and transparency. Calls to promote openness and transparency impacted on issues like Temasek and GIC managing our reserves and our political system. Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mr Baey Yam Keng advocated the need for more facts in the information to be made available to the public so that they could make informed decisions and choices. This will also encourage active citizenry amongst Singaporeans. I was among those who made the same call. In my view, our society has matured and is now reaping the fruits of our world-class education system. In order for Singapore to develop further, we must promote more openness and transparency.

Members also recognise that for Singapore to emerge from this recession stronger and for our economy to hit the ground running, education of our people and up-skilling our workforce was key. Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Gautam Banerjee, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Government to ensure that our people remain highly educated and our workforce skilled so as to maintain our global competitiveness. Our main and only resource is our people. Without an educated and highly skilled

workforce, we have little else to offer the rest of the world.

Given our very low birth rate and the fact that we are not replacing our population fast enough, the issue of our ageing population was one of grave concern to some Members. Dr Lam Pin Min, Prof. Kalyani Mehta, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Wee Siew Kim, Mr Ang Mong Seng, amongst others, spoke about the issues facing our senior citizens and ageing. Top of the agenda was the availability of care and healthcare for our ageing. Some suggestions include a request for the Government to set aside land to build more retirement homes and communities and to bring home care and caregiver services closer to home. Mr Ang Mong Seng and Er Lee Bee Wah also highlighted the difficulty faced by senior citizens in obtaining gainful employment. In response to this issue, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Minister-in-charge-of Ageing Issues, Mr Lim Boon Heng, said that the Government's priority was to allow Singaporeans to age in place, that is, to continue to live in the homes that they are growing old in. In order to do this, the Government would look at three areas, namely, the physical environment in and around the home, the services and amenities to cater to the elderly near the home and support for the elderly to remain physically and socially active within the community. In addition, Minister Gan Kim Yong reiterated his Ministry's call for companies to hire older workers ahead of the introduction of re-employment legislation.

At the end of the day, our senior citizens are the people that have spent their lives building Singapore into the country that it is today. Everything that we have today we owe to them. We cannot let them down in their silver and golden years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the world we live in is changing at an exponential rate. Consider this: in the week that we have sat in this

House, debating this Motion of Thanks to the President, Singapore has had four confirmed cases of H1N1; Korea launched its second nuclear test missile and abandoned the armistice that ended the Korean War; Hong Kong unveiled a HK$16.8 billion economical stimulus package; Asian currencies fell; oil prices soared to a six-month high; and Malaysia has predicted a 4% to 5% contraction in its economy in 2009. And all this in less than one week. As the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Lim Swee Say, put it: the global economy is now a multi-nodal, fast vibrating global network.

As the Prime Minister said, after this crisis is over, the world will not be the same again because the world's economy is undergoing a structural shift. There will be major changes to global markets. There will be major changes to the business climate world-wide. But, at the same time, there will be new opportunities for countries and companies, which are fast off their marks into this new world. We must be ready for that new world. The time to prepare our economy, our political system, our people for that new world is now. We must unite, we must up-skill, we must re-skill, we must restructure, we must re-think. The roadmap laid down by the Prime Minister and his Government is a sound one. It is bold, yet anchored in sound fundamental principles, something that both Mr Masagos Zulkifli and Mr Zainudin Nordin spoke about. Ultimately, however, it is down to every Singaporean to take up that challenge and to trust the Government and its plan. As Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee so succinctly put it: a good government is necessary but not sufficient. The people must come together and put our trust and faith in this good Government, for without that we cannot win the war. I, therefore, call on our people to come together and work with our Government so that we will pull through this crisis and emerge the better for it.

In closing, I would like to thank all my colleagues who have contributed to this debate. I have no doubt that their views will make a difference as we navigate our way through these troubled times. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister and Ministers for their enlightening speeches that had, all times, resonated with confidence in our future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now call on all the Members of this House to join me in thanking the President for his Address. [Applause ].

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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 Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100, appoints the following Members to fill four vacancies in the Committee of Selection:-

Ms Indranee Rajah

Dr Lam Pin Min

Mr Lim Swee Say

Mr Mah Bow Tan.

Mr Speaker, four Members in the Committee of Selection appointed previously by Parliament on 14th November 2006 have vacated their

positions. These four Members are: Mr Iswaran, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Mr Wong Kan Seng and Mr Matthias Yao. This motion, therefore, seeks Parliament's appointment of four other Members to fill the four vacancies arising as moved.

Resolved,

That this Parliament, in pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100, appoints the following Members of to fill four vacancies in the Committee of Selection:

Ms Indranee Rajah

Dr Lam Pin Min

Mr Lim Swee Say

Mr Mah Bow Tan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion to adjourn Parliament, I wish to make a statement regarding Members' privileges and responsibilities when they speak in this House.

Sir, during the debate on Wednesday, 27th May, on the Address of Thanks, one Member made certain criticisms against the press, which he stated were based on an email from a person that he did not know and which contained allegations that he had not verified. I recognise that Members are entitled to be forthright and forceful in their comments in their speeches. The law accords the privilege of freedom of speech upon Members of this House and grants them immunity from civil or criminal proceedings in respect of statements which they make in Parliament. This is so that debate in Parliament can be free and uninhibited and the House can perform its functions without fear or favour. However, I wish to remind Members that such a privilege should be exercised responsibly in the public interest. Members have a duty not to criticise any person or body unless they

are satisfied that these criticisms have a basis. If Members wish to rely on third-person reports or hearsay, they should first take steps to verify the identity of the authors and the accuracy of the statements. Members should not rely on such statements if they have not verified them, not even if they so inform the House. Members are, of course, entitled to express their own views and criticisms of persons or bodies based purely on public facts without relying on the opinions of anyone else. These personal views and criticisms, too, should naturally be well-founded.

I, therefore, call on Members to be mindful of the high standards expected of them when they discharge their responsibility to the House. They should exercise due care and diligence when using unverified third-person remarks, reports or hearsay. Members should refrain from relying on unestablished facts

or repeating unsubstantiated allegations in their speeches. I remind Members that they remain accountable to the House for their statements made in Parliament and that it is their individual and collective responsibility to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House. This is important to keep public trust in our Parliamentary system. Hence, when the Member concerned made a clarification yesterday and apologised for falling short of the high standards demanded by this House, he did the right and gracious thing.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve

Minutes to Five o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he will give an update on the sexuality education programmes being conducted in schools, specifically the processes and review of such programmes; (b) what other school programmes/activities have been outsourced to Voluntary Welfare Organisations and commercial organisations; and (c) what are the measures and guidelines that the Ministry has in place with regard to safety, moral and professional standards.

I have given a comprehensive update on MOE’s sexuality programme which was widely reported to the public on 21st May 2009 and therefore do not intend to repeat those points. I will address the other queries of the Member.

Teachers and principals are accountable for what is taught in schools. Nevertheless, schools do engage external providers and community groups to run or assist in enrichment and co-curricular programmes ranging from outdoor education camps, to specialised programmes in art, music and sports, and to promote volunteerism and facilitate character development. In this way, schools are able to draw from a wider base of expertise and experiences in the holistic development of our students. Parents and community are also involved either through PSG (Parents Support Group) or COMPASS (COMmunity and Parents in Support of Schools). These are positive developments and should not only continue but MOE hopes deepen over time. As the saying goes, it takes "a village to develop a child".

MOE agrees with the Member that we should ensure "safety, moral and professional standards", even as we involve more partners. Guidelines are in place for engaging external agencies, and require schools to examine the vendors’ qualifications, track record, programme and training materials to ensure that the services they provide are aligned to the school programmes. A teacher must also be present with the students during these programmes. For example, schools are allowed to engage external instructors to conduct activities in co-curricular activities (CCA). In engaging such personnel, schools post their requirements in GeBIZ (Government Electronic Business) stating the qualifications and experience needed. Schools would then interview the potential vendor and instructors before deciding on their employment. Where the vendor and instructors are new to the schools, their lessons and activities are observed by the teacher-in-charge or the Head of Department. In addition, specialists from the Co-Curricular Activities Branch also conduct induction workshops for service providers on MOE’s expectations in terms of code of conduct, professionalism and safety standards and practices.

In Jingshan Primary, for instance, the school has engaged an external vendor (Acropolis) to conduct a drama programme for Primary 2 pupils. The programme lasts a term and is run once a week. The teachers sit in the classes to supervise and to learn. At the end of the programme the pupils stage a performance for their parents. The school also has a similar programme (by Literacy Plus) for Primary 3 pupils on oral presentations and the conduct of this programme is similar to the Primary 2 drama programme.