Hansard, 2009-08-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2009) To (2009) Mrs Josephine Teo 23 Jul 26 Jul 31 Jul 02 Aug 18 Aug 21 Aug 07 Sep 13 Sep 23 Sep 27 Sep 26 Oct 31 Oct Er Lee Bee Wah 23 Jul 25 Jul 30 Jul 01 Aug Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 24 Jul 24 Jul Mr Chan Soo Sen 28 Jul 01 Aug 03 Aug 07 Aug 13 Aug 19 Aug Mr Michael Palmer 31 Jul 02 Aug Mr Lim Swee Say 01 Aug 02 Aug Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 02 Aug 07 Aug Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 03 Aug 06 Aug 19 Aug 21 Aug Mr Baey Yam Keng 03 Aug 07 Aug Mr Lim Biow Chuan 03 Aug 07 Aug Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim 03 Aug 06 Aug Mr Sin Boon Ann 03 Aug 06 Aug Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 03 Aug 07 Aug Mr Hawazi Daipi 04 Aug 07 Aug 11 Aug 15 Aug Column: 925Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 04 Aug 07 Aug 10 Aug 11 Aug Dr Lee Boon Yang 10 Aug 13 Aug 19 Aug 19 Aug Dr Ng Eng Hen 11 Aug 14 Aug Mr Charles Chong 12 Aug 14 Aug Mr Lim Hng Kiang 12 Aug 15 Aug Mr Wee Siew Kim 12 Aug 14 Aug 17 Aug 21 Aug 26 Aug 28 Aug Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 12 Aug 14 Aug 19 Aug 19 Aug Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed 12 Aug 15 Aug 18 Aug 21 Aug RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 17 Aug 20 Aug Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 18 Aug 26 Aug Mr Seng Han Thong 18 Aug 19 Aug Dr Fatimah Lateef 19 Aug 22 Aug Mr Ang Mong Seng 21 Aug 26 Aug Mr Inderjit Singh 23 Aug 25 Aug Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 26 Aug 30 Aug Prof. S Jayakumar 05 Sep 13 Sep 18 Sep 25 Sep 28 Sep 03 Oct Mr Teo Chee Hean 07 Sep 10 Sep Mr Seah Kian Peng 08 Sep 12 Sep 14 Sep 19 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan 14 Sep 19 Sep Mr Lee Yi Shyan 19 Sep 25 Sep

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

12th August,2009 (1) Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether he will explain the reasons why the CEO-designate of Temasek Holdings resigned after such a short stint at the company despite assurances that he had been assessed to share the values of Temasek Holdings; and (b) whether Mr Goodyear was given a 'golden handshake' or paid any bonus or gratuity when Temasek Holdings agreed to his resignation.

2. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Finance (a) what are the remuneration provisions that govern Mr Goodyear’s discontinuation of service as the CEO-designate of Temasek Holdings; and (b) whether there is a deadline for the search of a new CEO.

3. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance (a) what strategic differences emerged between Temasek Holdings CEO-designate Mr Charles Goodyear and the Temasek Board which led to the decision not to proceed with his appointment as CEO and when did these first surface; and (b) whether the Government is concerned about leadership

renewal at Temasek Holdings in view of this development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos. 1 to 3 together?

Yes.

Temasek’s Board has issued a carefully considered statement on the mutual decision that the Board and Mr Charles Goodyear have taken to terminate the leadership transition process at Temasek. It would not be appropriate for the Government to add to the statement, bearing in mind that the Government had no role in the decision of the Board and Mr Goodyear not to continue with the CEO transition. Temasek informed the Government of the decision before it was announced, but the Government was not involved in any way in the decision.

This does not mean that the Government is a disinterested observer of Temasek’s leadership succession. As shareholder of Temasek, the Government has a clear interest in Temasek continuing to have strong leadership, so that it can deliver good returns over the long term. However, the Government does not directly manage the process of CEO succession. To do so would be to make the appointment of the CEO a political decision, which it must never be. The decision must remain the responsibility of the Board of Temasek, which oversees the process of leadership succession and decides based on the merits and suitability of any CEO candidate.

Temasek’s Board and current CEO Ms Ho Ching had set about the process of CEO succession review since 2005 not because there was an urgent need to find a new CEO, but because a disciplined system of regular succession planning for its CEO and senior management is essential for Temasek’s future as a

professional organisation. It was through this process that Temasek had found Mr Goodyear to be a suitable CEO successor and made the offer for him to join Temasek. While it is obviously unfortunate that the Board and Mr Goodyear decided that the leadership transition should be terminated, Temasek intends to keep up its processes for CEO succession review and planning as part of Board discipline.

Temasek’s leadership remains strong, at both the CEO and Board level. They have enabled Temasek to sustain its generally superior overall investment performance over the years, including over the last cycle in global markets that began in 2003. The Board will continue to review succession options, and the Government is confident that it will make its decision to appoint a successor CEO in the best interest of Temasek when a suitable candidate is available and ready. Thus, with regard to Mr Seah Kian Peng’s question, Temasek has no deadline for the search for a CEO successor.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Seah Kian Peng also asked if a severance bonus or “golden handshake” was offered to Mr Goodyear. Temasek had no contractual obligation to make any compensation to Mr Goodyear on separation. It was an amicable separation, based on mutual agreement.

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. In my last Parliamentary Question (PQ) a couple of months back, I asked the Minister why pick a foreigner as a CEO for Temasek Holdings, considering that Temasek Holdings is a strategic asset and a Fifth Schedule company under the Constitution. And the Minister had assured this House that the CEO shares Temasek's values, and he is aligned with the long-term orientation of Temasek. May I just ask the Minister how does this impact the Government's evaluation of

Temasek's future recommendation, regarding the assessment of the next CEO, considering that they had assured the Minister that Mr Goodyear shares Temasek's values and is aligned with the long-term orientation? Next question is, does the Government not think that a Singaporean CEO would be in a better position to share Temasek's values and be more aligned with Temasek's long-term orientation?

I think Mr Lim Biow Chuan was referring to the question he had asked in March this year, which my colleague Mrs Lim Hwee Hua had answered. The question of whether the CEO of Temasek should be a Singaporean is not a trivial one. It is one which the Cabinet considered very carefully and debated on before arriving at a decision. I would say that, ideally, we should have a Singaporean as a CEO – that is the ideal. Everything else being equal, when you look at two candidates who are equally suitable for the job, I think we should prefer to have a Singaporean.

But Temasek is not a typical company. It is a very large company and a rather complex one, as has happened over time. It is now engaged in many regions, geographically, and in many sectors. It is much broader in its sectoral reach than it used to be. It is not just a steward of Singapore's TLCs (Temasek-linked Companies). So it has really been transformed very substantially over the years. So we really want someone as CEO, and we want enough people on the Board, with direct experience of managing global operations – ideally not just the operations of an investment company but someone having operating experience.

Quite frankly, the field at any point in time is always narrow – among Singaporeans, as well as among

foreigners. Even among foreigners, to find someone who is willing to come to Singapore and work for a Singapore Government-related organisation is not easy. So I would prefer, and the Government's position is that it would prefer, not to restrict Temasek in its choice of CEO. The ideal is not always possible.

What is critical is that the Board remains in the control of Singaporeans – the Chairman has to be Singaporean; Deputy Chairman, a Singaporean; majority of the Board, Singaporean. But we should allow for a few foreigners and indeed, we currently have at least one foreigner on the Board. Let the Board decide on who the best candidate is for CEO. The Board knows our preferences but it knows also that the Government wants to ensure that Temasek gets the best person for the job each time it looks for a potential CEO successor. And we are not just talking about the current situation of the search for a CEO successor but also the situation well down the road. This is about managing a complex, large investment organisation – large in terms of its portfolio – in the best interests of Temasek and Singapore. We should not restrict their choices. To restrict their choices would also be sending a signal – not just to Singaporeans but more importantly to the countries which Temasek invests in – that there is an element of political decision-making in the way Temasek is run. We do not want to send that signal.

So it is a fair question and we had considered it very carefully within Government when the issue of Mr Goodyear came up earlier in the year. That was the only issue we considered because the Government did not know Mr Goodyear. We were not responsible for nominating him. We had to consider whether we were comfortable with Temasek appointing a foreigner. We decided we should not restrict Temasek

from appointing a foreigner. If the Board's assessment was that Mr Goodyear was suitable and ready, we were willing to put his name to the President for concurrence. But the key issue on which Cabinet deliberated was whether we should allow for a foreigner and it was not a trivial issue.

Sir, my first supplementary question is a follow up on Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question on the Government's position on Mr Goodyear. He was identified in 2007 and I understand that the Government found he shared Temasek's values and was committed to building long-term sustainable value. Why has the issue of strategic difference suddenly emerged and resulted in his departure? Was this an error of judgement made by the Board when they interviewed him? My second supplementary question is, does the Minister not agree that the appointment of the CEO of Temasek is a matter of public interest? By saying that it is not appropriate for the Government to add further to the statement by Temasek nor be involved in the Temasek decision, it leaves the Singaporean public in the dark. Would the Government consider asking Temasek or the CEO of Temasek to reveal more information on the issue? Is it good to leave Singaporeans in the dark and let them continue to speculate on what happened?

I think Mr Low Thia Khiang has rightly pointed out that at the point when Mr Goodyear was selected, he was assessed not just on the basis of his career track record but also on the basis of interviews of the Board members with Mr Goodyear and cross-checking with other sources – Chairmen or board members of previous companies he had worked with. The assessment was reached that he also shared the basic values of Temasek. I have no reason to doubt that even after this recent episode, the Board remains

unchanged in its views that he shared the basic values of Temasek – building long-term sustainable value, not just going for a quick turn of profit; commitment to maintaining a globally-diversified portfolio; commitment to the basic geographical stance of Temasek.

Points of disagreement between management and the Board, or even amongst management, are not just about basic values. There are many possible points of disagreement – some can be serious, some can be minor. I think it is fortunate that Temasek had, together with Mr Goodyear, provided for this transition period. It was a good idea to have a transition period for both sides to work into the relationship and find out more about each other's thinking, think through future possible strategies and make sure they were aligned. It is unfortunate that it did not work out but it is fortunate that they both realised this early, during the transition period. I think we should look forward now.

On the second half of the Member's question – I know where the Member is coming from. It is a matter of public interest who the CEO of Temasek is, just like other prominent public positions in Singapore. But we have to find the right dispensation between Government and Temasek; Parliament and Temasek. Our approach has been to go for ample disclosure of investment performance, investment strategies and the distribution of the investment portfolio. And frankly, if you look at the Temasek annual Review and compare it with many comparable institutions, it has far more disclosure, as an objective matter. In fact, it has insisted on having far more disclosure. For instance, on investment returns – not all Members would have had the opportunity to go through the Temasek Review – it reveals annual returns and the value of the whole portfolio on a one-year, two-year, three-year, five-year, 10-year, 30-year basis, both by market value as well

as shareholder funds, plus full income statements, balance sheets – all fully audited. So it goes for full disclosure. In fact, it is more than most comparable organisations.

Internal governance is a matter for the Board to oversee. The key task of the Government is to make sure we are comfortable with the people on the Board, so that they can be entrusted with the responsibility of running the organisation well. Once the Government starts intruding, with the best of intentions; once for that matter Parliament starts intruding with the best of intentions as well as just out of interest in what goes on in Temasek, then we are, over time, changing the character of the relationship between Government and Temasek. It is a relationship that clearly designates Temasek as independent of Government in its operations, including its internal governance procedures. The rest of the world must understand that. Temasek is accountable to the Government, like GIC for that matter, to deliver good, sustainable returns. That is what we hold them accountable for. That is what we have extensive dialogue with them on, not just once a year but through the course of the year. That is what the President looks at very carefully. But we want it to be clear that this is an independently-managed organisation, independent of Government interference. I am not keen to change that dispensation, that balance, because it may tip against the interests of Temasek and against our interests, ultimately, as stakeholders. Keep it as an independent organisation, hold it accountable and up to scrutiny on its performance, particularly over appropriate periods of time. As you know, we have had a healthy debate in Parliament not just on long-term periods, but even short-term periods – which is understandable given the nature of the global crisis we went through in the last couple of years.

So I would rather keep to that dispensation. It is not untransparent, it is more transparent than most on matters that really concern us ultimately – investment performance, being accountable for long-term sustainable returns.

I just want to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. In the spirit of greater disclosure, I would assume that with Mr Goodyear's departure there would be some changes in the search criteria for the next CEO. I would like to suggest to make public, both from the Government's perspective and Temasek's perspective, these new search criteria or the prerequisites for the next CEO of Temasek. My second supplementary question relates to the Minister's comments that there is no timeline for this search. I would like to suggest that surely the search for a CEO is an important one. And timeline is necessary because targets drive action. So I would suggest that this be reviewed.

Sir, the Member's first question, in essence, is very similar to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question. I would prefer that internal governance matters continue to be overseen by the Board. The Board will, I am sure, reflect on this recent episode to see whether improvements could be made. And I trust that it will make refinements, where possible. But, on the face of it, this was not a situation of a faulty selection process. This was a situation which both parties realised would not work out well only after working together in the transition process. And sometimes, quite frankly, this happens. It is never desirable but it is not rare in the private sector for CEOs not to work out, typically after being on the job. It is not rare, never desirable, always unfortunate, and always something which boards should try to learn lessons from.

On the Member's second question, basically, if I can put it squarely, there were no push factors for the current CEO to want to step down. There was no push factor in terms of the way the organisation was being run, no push factor in terms of the performance of Temasek over relevant periods of time compared to the markets or compared to comparable organisations. Temasek has, on objective reckoning, done rather well since 2003, exceeding most comparable organisations. So it was not a push factor. It was part of a Board discipline that they imposed on themselves, which the Government supports – go for regular succession planning for all your key management posts, not just the CEO but other senior management posts. And if someone whom you find suitable is available, which is not often, take that very seriously. It is a discipline that they impose on themselves and which they intend to continue. How quickly they find a CEO successor will depend on whether the right person is available.

): Sir, this issue of succession planning, and then the reversal, has created a bit of a dent in the reputation of Temasek and indirectly the reputation of Singapore, because they link the Government to whatever decisions Temasek makes. While the Minister does not want Temasek to share the search criteria with everyone but, as a shareholder, will the Minister require the Board to clarify the process with him, so that we do not make another embarrassing decision in the future?

My second question is the "golden handshake". While Temasek did not have a contractual obligation, was there a goodwill payment? I think people want to know whether a payment was made.

Sir, on the second question, there was not.

On the first question of whether it is a dent in the reputation, it is a dent in the reputation. It is a very visible dent in the fender; no damage to body parts, no damage to the axle, no damage to the engine.

Sir, on my first supplementary question, the Minister's answer was that the Government should not intrude into Temasek's affairs. I am simply asking for information on Temasek. What is the strategic difference? When did it emerge? I am not asking the Government to intrude into Temasek's affairs.

My second supplementary question arises from the concern of Mr Goodyear. All Singaporeans know next to nothing about Temasek. We now have a foreigner who has actually gone deep enough into that company with probably inside information or even state secrets. How does the Government ensure that Mr Goodyear will not divulge such information? And how does the Government ensure that he will be bound by the Official Secrets Act? We all know that the Official Secrets Act is hard to enforce on someone outside Singapore.

Sir, on his first question, let me repeat what I said earlier. The Board, together with Mr Goodyear, issued a carefully crafted statement. Both sides agreed on the statement, and I really do not think it is advisable for the Government to comment further on the matter to add grist to the mill. There is a reason why they crafted the statement as they did – words were carefully chosen.

People do want to know. There is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. But that is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest, that you want to disclose information. And this applies to private sector organisations

as well. It applies to publicly listed companies. Sometimes they disclose the reasons, sometimes they do not. It depends on the circumstances of departure. Is it mutual? Is it amicable? Is there an understanding between the parties as to what should be kept private and what should be made public? I think it is fairly clear what I am saying in this regard. It will not be advisable, and it is not in the interests of Temasek or Mr Goodyear, for us to have to comment further on it. It serves no strategic purpose. I understand the interest but it serves no strategic purpose.

On his second question, we discussed it earlier as well in Parliament. I cannot remember when it was. I think Ms Sylvia Lim had raised the question. Anyone who is a CEO, or for that matter senior management of Temasek, has access to proprietary information. Sometimes people leave. There is clearly a code of conduct on the part of departing management as to what they should keep private. There is not much Official Secrets Act information in Temasek, as distinct from proprietary information. The main thing that we are very guarded about is the size of our reserves – not Temasek's assets because that is fully published, with many slices of that data as well being published. But the size of GIC-managed assets is not published, and that would not have been accessible to Mr Goodyear or to other senior management in Temasek. So there is not much information that is critical to Government that is within the Temasek fold. But there is proprietary information. Had Mr Goodyear stayed on for a few years, he would have had the same proprietary information as other senior management. And that is always the risk you take with people coming and going, be they Singaporeans or foreigners. That does not fall under the Official Secrets Act. That is proprietary company

information. That is the risk you take with any candidate.

4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he will give an update on the outcome of his Ministry’s review into the unsafe manner in which foreign workers are transported in the back of lorries; (b) why is there a delay in the completion of the review which was supposed to be completed by end of 2008; and (c) in the interim, what measures have been taken to mitigate the dangers posed to foreign workers travelling in this manner.

Sir, since the early years of Singapore’s development, owners and hirers of goods vehicles have been allowed to use their vehicles to transport their workers. This has helped companies control business costs and be operationally flexible.

However, LTA has also been mindful of the safety of workers that are so transported and has put in place a set of rules under the Road Traffic Act to enhance their safety. These rules require the workers to be safely seated at a height of not more than 3.2 metres from the ground and that the vehicle must not travel faster than 60 kilometres per hour. A label must also be displayed on the lorry to indicate the maximum number of workers that can be transported, based on a minimum space requirement per person. If goods are also transported at the same time, they must be properly secured and the number of persons carried reduced accordingly.

Last year, a Workgroup co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority and the

Ministry of Manpower was set up to see how we can further enhance the safety of workers being transported on lorries. The Workgroup engaged various stakeholders in different industries and found that the issue was a complex one. The use of lorries for the transportation of workers across different industries is pervasive and the impact of introducing any new measures will have to be thoroughly considered, including what the alternative modes of transport there are. I am pleased to inform the House that the Workgroup has completed its review, and the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Workgroup. Let me now touch on the key findings and recommendations of the Workgroup.

The Workgroup has assessed that the current safety measures and enforcement efforts have generally been effective in keeping the injury rates of workers transported at the back of lorries low and comparable to that of other types of vehicles such as motorcycles, buses and so on. Specifically, the evidence from the accident figures does not suggest that a drastic change to the policy is warranted. In the past several years, the annual average fatality and injury rates are about six times lower than the corresponding rates for all vehicles over the same period.

Nevertheless, the Workgroup has recommended several measures to further enhance the safety of workers when they are being transported on lorries. Some can be implemented almost immediately, while others will require more time for businesses to adjust. Some of the immediate measures include lowering the maximum height of seated workers to further reduce the risk of falling off, and increasing the penalties on drivers and owners for non-compliance with any of the safety rules. LTA will also step up the enforcement regime with immediate effect. The public can also help in this by calling LTA’s hotline to report any instances of non-compliance spotted on the road.

By January 2010, new lorries must be fitted with canopies and higher side railings if they are to carry passengers on the deck. Existing lorries are given three years to comply with this requirement, if they are to continue to be used to transport workers. In addition, the minimum deck space required per seated worker will be doubled to 0.744 square metres (8 square feet) in three years’ time. This will reduce the number of workers that can be transported on lorries as compared to what is stipulated today, and will lower the number of casualties if an accident does occur. The lead time will allow businesses to phase in their operational changes and also make decisions on their existing assets.

The Workgroup recognises that ensuring safety is the joint responsibility of the Government, employers, drivers, workers and other road users. Government agencies, such as LTA, MOM, Traffic Police and the various associations, will continue in their outreach programmes to educate employers and workers on their responsibilities and showcase safety best practices. Details of the recommendations and measures to be implemented will be released shortly.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have a number of supplementary questions to ask.

My first question is that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the safety and enforcement measures currently in force are effective. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of an accident that occurred on 2nd August this year reported in the Straits Times which talks about a lorry carrying foreign workers which crashed and 16 people were hurt. That was barely two weeks ago.

Second, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the existence of laws to prosecute those who jeopardise the life and safety of workers by carrying them on the back of lorries. How many convictions of such employers have there been in order to ensure the safety of these workers?

Third, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why does it take three years to introduce these measures? Can it not be a much shorter period? Because we are talking about the lives and limbs of people who come and work in our country. I do not see many Singaporeans being carried in this way; in fact, hardly any. If Singaporeans are carried in this way, they would probably not want to work for the company. So, why do we need three years? What are the interim measures the Ministry has in mind to prevent the occurrence of the accident which happened only two weeks ago?

Sir, I would like to assure the Member that safety is paramount. That is our main consideration, and that of the Workgroup. And that is the objective of the measures that they are recommending.

It is a very complex issue. We have to address not only safety concerns but also the concerns of the business sector and other stakeholders, and find a point of balance, given how these measures might potentially impact the different stakeholders.

Nevertheless, they have come up with both immediate measures and measures for the medium term, after three years, eg, the canopies, the side railings, as well as not to expose the workers above the height that will increase the risk of them falling off. We are enhancing the enforcement measures as well. So, with all these measures coming in, we hope

that we can continue to enhance the safety of the workers, and we will continue to monitor the situation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question. Thank you for highlighting some of the recommendations from the Workgroup to the House. I would like to check if the Workgroup has explored looking into the qualifications of drivers who drive these workers.

Many a time, the public has complained that these drivers are very reckless and they drive at very fast speeds. Are there special considerations as to what kind of training these drivers have to go through before they are allowed to drive these vehicles that transport the workers?

There were considerations by the Workgroup regarding drivers' behaviour, in terms of how they drive and the safety measures that they have to adopt.

In the course of the Workgroup's review, they found that some companies actually took their own initiative to make sure that the drivers are more aware of such safety measures, eg, one of the companies, Poh Tiong Choon Logistics, has a driver safety incentive scheme. They reward and incentivise the drivers who practise safety measures.

I believe the Ministry of Manpower did consider the drivers' training in licensing them and the Workgroup has also considered some of these factors. We will continue to educate employers on some of these best practices.

I would like the Ministry to refine the policy's implementation target of three years. I agree with Mdm Halimah that three years is too long. I mean, safety is paramount. Can it be refined? The canopy

requirement, I agree, is a little more complex. But putting railings on three sides of the truck is a very simple job. So why do you need three years to do that? Can the Ministry look into the measures and the timeframe?

Well, we have to consider the different businesses, especially the medium and small enterprises because the cost factor is also a concern for them. We have to know in the medium term what they can do and what they cannot. So, the Workgroup has actually received feedback from all these different stakeholders and come up with a timeline they are comfortable with in terms of implementing these measures. But, of course, safety is of utmost importance and the Workgroup has also considered other different measures.

The decision and the recommendation that were put forward finally had taken into consideration the statistics over the years. So, in terms of implementation, we will implement the short-term measures immediately starting from 1st September; and then medium-term measures such as canopies and side-railings. All these are due to stakeholders' feedback and they were part of the Workgroup. They have given us these inputs on what they are able and comfortable enough to implement.

We will do our best from the Ministry's perspective to see what are the measures that we can expedite as soon as possible. And we agree that safety is paramount. Cost should be considered but should not be the main factor that will compromise safety. This is something we assure Members that we will try our very best to do.

5. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is done to regulate the

illegal modification of motorcycles which has resulted in excessive noise emission from the exhaust when driven; (b) which is the agency that regulates the import of such noise emitting exhaust, enforces against errant modifications/excessive noise, and attends to complaints on such issues; (c) which is the highest age group of offenders caught with illegally modified motorcycles; and (d) how many errant suppliers and motorcyclists have been caught and penalised in the past two years.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires all vehicles, including motorcycles, to be sent for periodic inspections at authorised inspection centres to ensure that they are roadworthy, and that there have not been any illegal modifications made. Motorcycles that fail the inspection would be required to make good the fault.

Besides the mandated inspection regime for motorcycles to deter and detect illegal modifications, LTA also conducts regular checks on the road as well as carry out blitzes island-wide to enforce such offences. Those found to have modified their exhaust systems without approval will face fines of up to $500, and be charged in court if they are repeat offenders. In addition, LTA acts on the complaints it receives against motorcycles with excessive noise emission due to modified or defective exhaust systems by notifying the owners to send their motorcycles for inspections.

Over the last two years, there have been 670 cases of motorcycles being caught for illegal modification of the exhaust system.

Supplementary question, Minister. Most of these complaints of excessive noise are usually

raised by residents who complain that these noises occur in the middle of the night. And I guess at that point in time, the Ministry officials will not be on patrol to check on these. I am wondering whether or not there will be a regime that will be carried out by the Ministry to make sure that, other than the day checks, something could be done at night, especially in the dead of night. The other thing is whether the Ministry would consider raising the penalty because I think $500 for illegal modifications is perhaps too low in today's context.

With regard to the first question on whether or not it is possible to do checks in the early hours of the morning, it is not possible to do patrols over the whole of Singapore. But if there are certain problem areas and residents are complaining, please let us know and then we can look into them.

As for the penalties, we think they are still effective today. But if we get more feedback that they are ineffective, we can review them.

I would like the Minister to know that actually we have given quite a lot of feedback to LTA. Very often, especially when I visit Orchid Condominium, at Yishun Avenue 1, without fail, at every visit, I get complaints about noise generated by the motorcyclists. This is feedback to the Minister.

6. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Finance (a) how Government departments ensure that there will be quality in delivery before awarding a contract to the lowest bidder; (b) whether the evaluation by the Tenders Committee includes an evaluation of the ability of the

contractor/vendor to perform; (c) over the last three years, how many Government projects were delayed as a result of winning bidders’ inability to perform after submitting their lowest bids; and (d) whether Government agencies are penalised when a tender is not awarded to the lowest bidder.

7. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government supports the practice of best sourcing as opposed to cheap sourcing in its public tenders; and (b) whether the latest Auditor-General's Report which states that the Ministry of Education could have saved on its school cleaning contracts if it had considered contractors who were priced below the market norm, is sending the wrong signal.

Sir, the Government procurement regime is premised on the principles of open and fair competition, transparency and Value-for-Money (VFM). When Government agencies call for tender to procure goods and services, they would stipulate their evaluation criteria upfront. These would include not only price alone, but also other criteria that would enable the agencies to assess the vendors’ ability to deliver, such as their track records for comparable contracts and their financial health, as well as criteria relating to the quality of goods and services required.

As regards the reasons why some winning bidders are unable to fulfil their contracts on time, there are many. However, there is no empirical evidence linking delays to vendors who had submitted the lowest bids. In any case, Government agencies would take any tardiness into account when assessing the track records of bidders. I would therefore like to assure the House that Government agencies do not award tenders based on price considerations alone. In fact, Sir,

about one in three Government tenders were not awarded to the lowest bidders.

A similar approach is taken in the Best Sourcing Initiative which was launched in 2004. Under this initiative, Government agencies would identify non-strategic functions and market-test them to see if they could be performed by external parties in a more cost-effective manner. Since 2004, 292 functions have been outsourced after market-testing, with contracts amounting to around $1.9 billion. Let me assure the House that Government agencies do not “cheap-source”. Even when agencies assess that certain functions can be more cost-effectively done by external parties, they would need to ensure that the vendors so selected are able to deliver quality services.

In this context, my Ministry agrees that vendors whose bids are marginally below market norms should not be rejected outright; instead Ministries should evaluate vendors holistically, taking into account other factors including their track records and quality requirements.

That said, the Government strives to set a good example on responsible best sourcing or outsourcing. To this end, MOF has worked with MOM and union representatives in 2008 to issue the Tripartite Advisory on Responsible Outsourcing Activities to guide employers on good practices in this area. We will continue to monitor developments in the industry to incorporate best practices into our Best Sourcing initiative.

I think my question of whether Government agencies are penalised when a tender is not awarded to the lowest bidder, is not answered.

Sir, the answer is "no".

The Minister mentioned that there is a tripartite advisory that is disseminated to the vendors. My question is: how does the Ministry ensure that the vendors actually comply with that, particularly on the law that protects the workers and also the law on payment of CPF to the workers?

Sir, indeed Mdm Halimah is correct. It will be the track record when assessing the suitability of the bidders. It will be points as what she has raised, including whether they have been paying the CPF on time, because this will result in poor work performance and will ultimately affect the ability of the workers, and therefore the contractors, to deliver on time. If there is a bad track record, that would come under strong scrutiny at the point of assessment for other contracts.

8. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider allowing children of European-Asian marriages to be classified as Eurasians for the purposes of registration into Primary One and, if so, whether he will confirm that the race of such children will be recorded as “Eurasian” and not “Others”.

The current practice is that a child’s race generally follows that of the father. If the father is a Eurasian, the child’s race will be recorded as "Eurasian". Where one parent is European and the other is Asian, the child’s race by default will be recorded following the race of the father. However, in such a case, the race of the child can also be recorded as "Eurasian" if both parents so desire.

While the Ministry of Education is not the authority for the registration of citizens, our schools can facilitate such requests for change of race. This can happen at key points including when such information is being verified for school admission formalities. For example, parents are asked to verify their child’s personal particulars, including race, prior to starting Primary One, or when students enter our school system mid-stream. Both parents need to indicate consent and show the necessary supporting documentation. The schools will then update the records accordingly and also convey the changes to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).

On the second point raised by Mr de Souza, I want to clarify that “Others” is not a race classification. The term “Others” is used by the Department of Statistics and other agencies in the presentation of statistical data by race, usually to denote all other races apart from Chinese, Malay and Indian.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for graciously allowing the initiative in the suggestion to come into force. I do have a follow-up question, Mr Speaker. Would MOE liaise with MHA when the student having entered into Primary One comes to the vesting age for his IC because it is at that point that the race is recorded officially in an official document? And if he has called himself a Singaporean Eurasian for nine years before that, would MOE liaise with ICA so that he will continue to identify himself as a Singaporean Eurasian?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said in my reply, certainly when the student and his or her parents make their preferences known to MOE during the admission process, or rather the key times during their school education, that will be

recorded by MOE and also conveyed to ICA. And I will assume that at the age of 15 when the time comes for the IC to be recorded with the race identification, MOE will also similarly have the records but I would say that the parents of the students equally have an obligation. Having conveyed their preferences clearly to the Ministry, and the Ministry is of course in liaison with ICA and MHA, I think there is an equal obligation on the part of the parents and the students to ensure that their preferences are actually reflected.

Can I just ask a supplementary question of the Senior Minister of State: firstly, when it comes to the age of 15 and the MOE liaises with the ICA, that will be the obligation on the parents, but will there will be a sort of an opt-in or opt-out system in terms of the race? So, if they have opted in at Primary One for Eurasian, will there be a need for them to proactively again opt at the point of registration for the IC? And, secondly, if we are looking nine years down the road, how will we implement this process of registration when they turn 15?

Essentially, the liaison between MOE and MHA occurs at the point of information being communicated to MOE. I would say, at the age of 15, that is a critical point and, in fact, ICA is the body which actually records the identity by race. So, I think it is quite incumbent upon parents and families as well to ensure that whilst they have communicated their preferences to MOE and MOE will in turn communicate that, and this will be reflected in both the Ministries' records, it is quite important that the parents and the students reflect their preferences once again at that point. Because it is possible that from the time of Primary One to the time when the child is of age 15, there may be a change of opinion, as this is by mutual consent of both parents, and therefore it is quite

important that the parents communicate that point clearly at that point as well. I just want to make the point that it is not about opt in or opt out, it is more about ensuring a very important part of the IC reflects accurately the preferences of the parents and the child.

9. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education if he will provide an update on the Quality Assurance Frameworks for private schools and special schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education will be introducing at this sitting a new Private Education Bill. As part of the new regulatory regime envisaged under this Bill, a voluntary quality assurance scheme for private education institutions called EduTrust will be introduced. The EduTrust Certification Scheme will complement the enhanced set of mandatory requirements stipulated under new registration framework.

A public consultation on the new registration framework and EduTrust Scheme was carried out between March and May 2009. And respondents of the public consultation were generally supportive of the move towards tighter regulation of the private education institutions (PEIs) and they welcomed EduTrust as a framework to uplift standards in the industry. The Pro-tem Council for Private Education (CPE) has carefully studied the feedback received and changes were made to the enhanced registration regime and EduTrust requirements in response. More details will be provided when the Bill is moved in Parliament for Second Reading.

The Pro-tem CPE Secretariat also recently completed a trial assessment of the draft Quality Assurance framework for EduTrust with 17 PEIs of varying profiles. This exercise was done to gather more empirical data for calibrating the EduTrust assessment mechanism and processes and to iron out any possible kinks in the system. With the insights and data obtained from the trial, the assessment criteria are currently being fine-tuned and the document detailing the finalised EduTrust requirements will be made available to interested PEIs by the end of this quarter.

Let me now provide an update on the development of the quality assurance framework for Special Education (SPED) schools. Since 2005, SPED schools have been conducting self-appraisal using an evaluation tool called AXIS (Aspiration towards eXcellence In Special education) which was developed by a team of SPED school principals and MOE officers.

A workgroup, comprising SPED school principals and officers from MOE and NCSS, was formed in August 2007 to develop a quality assurance framework for SPED schools. Based on their study of local and overseas systems, and inputs from members of the SPED School Management Committees, principals and school staff, they have drafted a framework and a quality assurance instrument. Field testing of the draft quality assurance instrument was conducted in April this year and this quality assurance instrument is currently being refined taking into consideration feedback from this field test.

By the end of 2009, SPED school principals would be trained on the use of the draft quality assurance instrument which schools would use and it should be done on a pilot basis to replace AXIS. By the end of 2010, the quality assurance instrument will be rolled out to the SPED schools which are funded by MOE and the

National Council for Social Services. For the private full-time special education schools, they will come under the scope of the Private Education Act and they may apply for EduTrust certification to meet their quality assurance needs.

When it is ready, the quality assurance framework and instrument will enable SPED schools to embark on a systematic school improvement process that will be based on a four-year cycle, comprising three years of annual self-evaluation exercises, followed by an external review on the fourth year.

Thank you, Senior Minister of State, for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, on private education schools, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State for his comment on a Forum letter of 22nd July 2009 that "credible private schools are not MOE's job and MOE in registering private schools is merely playing the Registrar of Companies' role". Indeed, if MOE feels that it is just the Registrar of Companies, then why dilute the precious equity of the MOE brand name? Why not just divorce MOE totally from private schools so that they cannot be known to market using the "MOE-registered" claim. And if MOE is not merely a registrar, then, may I ask the Senior Minister of State why the quality assurance framework is voluntary and what steps can MOE take to make sure it can ringfence its positive brand equity and remove any potential misunderstanding that MOE is running it and responsible for its quality?

Second supplementary question: on quality assurance framework for special schools, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, if the quality assurance framework has been piloted since 2005, what is the outcome of all these pilot programmes? In fact, what is the impact

on quality since all these quality assurance frameworks have been piloted? Would MOE consider expediting some of these frameworks so that there is more consistency in quality among all the different charity special schools and also to ensure that school principals and educators can report to and be accountable for one integrated framework and not have to report to so many agencies, sometimes up to four – MOE, NCSS, School Board and VW Board?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will endeavour to answer the questions. On private education schools, I think we have already crossed that Rubicon. This notion of MOE being a mere registrar, I think, was more accurately reflective of, perhaps, the previous regime, not one that is being contemplated under the new Private Education Bill. There are many factors for this, and I do not propose to go into them at length now – because we will have the Second reading where we can thoroughly debate this – other than to make the point that it is an industry that has grown quite explosively in the last five to 10 years, and it is one that merits greater attention, principally and primarily because of the point that the Member herself has made, which is that we need to ensure that the brand equity of Singapore and the Ministry, in turn, is not diluted. Having said that, the question that the Member has asked is, why is the quality assurance framework – I think by this she meant the intended EduTrust process - voluntary?

I want to emphasise that under the new Bill, there is a higher threshold in the first instance even for registration, quite apart from quality assurance. So, how I would draw the analogy for the Member's reference and, again, I think we can go into this in more detail later, is that the private education institutions will have to meet a higher threshold, much higher than what is currently the case, even to get registration in place. And secondly, it is

then up to them, rather like ISO certification and so on, if they wish to aspire, as a signal of quality, to go for a level beyond that and seek EduTrust certification.

On the quality assurance framework for Special Education (SPED) schools, I understand where the Member is coming from. I think her primary concern is to ensure that the standards are as far as possible of a uniform level, so that parents and students can know what to expect. And, indeed, that is the objective of the exercise. The reason why MOE has approached this in a cautious and consultative manner is because of the many stakeholders who are involved in this sector. You have the VWOs, you have the various principals and teachers and the Ministry has an interest and so does the National Council for Social Services. So, the intent has been to develop a robust framework in a consultative manner and the intention is to have it through a series of trials and focus group discussions finalised and implemented by the end of next year. And I think, in the meantime, there is already a salutary effect on the schools which have gone through the process. So, I would say that that is the key thing. The Member made the point about reporting being streamlined, so that the schools do not have to report to multiple agencies, and, indeed, that is the objective. As a result of this new framework, the entire accountability process will be streamlined, with the exception of the financial accountability to NCSS which indeed has to be separate because funds are being raised for the explicit purpose of helping VWOs. Other than that, in general, the accountability will be streamlined, so that both requirements are met through the one process.

10. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether his

Ministry has conducted surveys and forecasts to ascertain the manpower demand in the retail, hospitality, marine, logistics, telecommunications, healthcare and construction sectors which are critical to Singapore as a business hub; (b) whether there are sufficient Singaporeans to take up skilled and unskilled jobs in these sectors based on our current and projected manpower resources; and (c) whether his Ministry will relax foreign labour policies to enable local enterprises to recruit the much needed foreign workers who are prepared to work long and irregular hours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Manpower closely monitors the overall economic outlook and the employment landscape through regular surveys to identify manpower trends and job opportunities in the various sectors. For example, we regularly conduct the Labour Force Survey to monitor the labour market and to review and formulate policies on the workforce and related matters. We also engage companies to gain a better understanding of their business prospects and their needs. We meet up with the various chambers of commerce in a series of dialogues throughout the year, which provide a platform for the tripartite partners to discuss manpower issues and other concerns. In fact, we conducted a briefing for the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry – in which Mr Teo is President – in June this year on the Tripartite Guidelines for Managing Excess Manpower, the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience and the changes to the Employment Act. In addition, MOM works closely with the economic agencies to assess the short-term and long-term manpower demand and skills required by the various industries. MOM will then work with our tripartite partners and relevant agencies to develop the skills in demand through pre-employment training (PET) for our

students as well as through continuing education and training (CET) for our local workers.

We have been successful in getting more locals to take up the good jobs we created. Today, more than half of our local workers are in PMET jobs, compared to just 41% 10 years ago. However, during periods of strong growth such as in 2007 and 2008 when total employment grew by more than 200,000 a year, we will not have enough local workers to take up all the jobs created. We need foreign manpower to augment our local workforce and enable our economy to grow beyond what our indigenous workforce alone can support.

Nevertheless, we need to strike a delicate balance between the needs of businesses and employment opportunities for local workers so that they can benefit from the economic growth. This is achieved through our foreign manpower policies, including the foreign worker quota and levy system.

The labour market is still soft and is likely to remain so for the rest of the year given the cautious outlook. It would be unwise to relax our foreign manpower policies at this moment. I would encourage companies with manpower needs to tap on the pool of locals, including those fresh out of schools. The Workforce Development Agency’s career centres and the National Trades Union Congress’ Employment and Employability Institute will help employers identify suitable candidates and provide the relevant training if necessary.

Sir, the concern for my community is not a matter of relaxing the foreign employment. The concern is there will be a tightening of hiring foreign workers and there are industries and

businesses where they just cannot get local workers to work during the odd hours.

I am not sure what the question is but let me try to respond to the concern. We have not tightened the overall quota system for our foreign worker framework. However, as I mentioned during the COS debate, we are raising the quality requirement for foreign workers who enter Singapore, particularly for the S-Pass as well as for the skilled workers because they enjoy lower levies. We want to ensure that foreign worker quality will continue to improve. This is because over the long term, we must ensure the overall quality of our workforce in Singapore will be raised gradually. For the local workforce, we will provide them with CET training. The Government has invested heavily in training and upgrading for our workers here. But for foreign workers, we want to also improve their quality and one way of doing so is to continue to tighten the requirement in terms of quality – their qualifications, their working experience as well as the types of jobs they are working in. So, over the last few years, we have gradually tightened that requirement. And we will continue to do so to ensure the quality of our workforce will improve over time. Of course, I understand that there will be industries that will be affected. Some of them will find it more difficult to find high quality foreign workers to replace the foreign workers they already have. I think the key, as I have mentioned in my reply, is to work with our agencies, WDA, NTUC and so on. We will find ways to help industries identify suitable workers. If there is training gap or if there is a skills gap, we will provide the necessary training to prepare them better for the job. But, I do also agree that even with all these training and upgrading for our local workers, there will still continue to be a need for foreign workers to supplement our local workforce. As the economy picks up momentum, we will need to

ensure that the labour market remains flexible and responsive to the needs of the economy.

I think we all agree that we need foreign manpower to supplement our local workforce but does the Minister agree that we should get employers to ensure that fairer terms and performance-based reward and remuneration systems be implemented in these sectors that are much more dependent on foreign workers? And also, at the same time, employers should step up efforts to re-design work processes to improve productivity and so pay the workers well in these sectors.

And would the Ministry also consider ensuring that employers are more transparent in the recruitment process when they have to recruit local and foreign workers? I think it is important to ensure that the foreign workers that we bring in have the job and language competencies.

Sir, in general, we agree with the Member's comments. I think it is important for our tripartite partners to work together. NTUC, MOM, WDA will provide the necessary training for local workers. At the same time, we want to work with the employers to ensure that when employers recruit foreign workers, they must ensure that these foreign workers have the necessary skills to perform the work that they are required to do.

It is also important for us to continue to work on productivity improvement so that we will be able to achieve sustainable growth in the long term. For this reason, we have set up a multi-Ministry workgroup focusing on ways to improve productivity, sector by sector. This workgroup is being chaired by my Minister of State, Mr Lee Yi Shyan and they are looking into what measures we can

introduce to help companies and industries upgrade their productivity so that we can achieve long-term sustainable growth that will benefit Singaporeans.

11. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he will give an update on the situation of migrant workers during this downturn; (b) how many migrant workers have filed complaints of no work, unpaid salaries, poor accommodation and poor treatment; (c) how were they assisted; and (d) how many companies are prosecuted for violations of the relevant laws.

In first half of 2009, MOM handled complaints relating to unpaid salaries of about 4,500 foreign workers. This is an increase of about 40% compared to the second half of 2008. The increase can be largely traced to the cases related to nine companies, most of which were detected by MOM’s Task Force set up in January 2009.

Despite the increase, the incidence of violations since January this year is less than 0.5% of the total size of the total size of the foreign workforce. In other words, the vast majority of foreign workers in Singapore are working, and are being treated fairly by their employers.

The Task Force has been monitoring companies for signs of inability to pay foreign worker levy or workers’ salaries. This strategy has allowed MOM to proactively detect potential problems earlier, and prevent salary arrears from snowballing to unmanageable levels.

Enforcement is also being stepped up on other fronts too, so that errant employers do not get away with abusing the foreign worker pass system, and compete unfairly against other law-abiding

companies. For example, enforcement from March to June 2009 led to some 7,100 foreign workers relocating to proper housing. MOM is also cracking down on illegal deployment of foreign workers. From January to June this year, 157 foreign workers were found to have been illegally deployed by their employers. We are also taking action against illegal employment of foreign workers in the Service sector, such as catering and food establishments.

Since January 2009, MOM has prosecuted seven companies in relation to unpaid salaries, 26 employers in relation to phantom worker scams, 28 companies for failing to provide proper accommodation to their workers and six companies for illegal deployment offences. In addition to prosecution action, we will also debar offending employers from hiring foreign workers for a period of time. By the same token, MOM has also taken punitive actions against foreign workers who committed offences. Between January and April 2009, 74 foreign workers were prosecuted for providing false information, including 29 who have made false accusations or statements against their employers and employment agents. There were also four foreigners who were prosecuted for working illegally without a valid Work Pass since the beginning of this year.

Even as we take action against the errant employers, MOM will help the legitimate workers who are affected. In instances where employers have absconded or are unable to pay salary arrears, MOM arranges for settlement packages with company representatives and facilitates their repatriation. MOM also works closely with the Migrant Workers Centre and other NGOs to reach out to the foreign workers to provide humanitarian assistance such as food and lodging to those who require it. In

appropriate cases, MOM also facilitates the change of employment for the affected workers. Since January, MOM has facilitated more than 400 foreign workers to find new employers here.

We will continue to remain vigilant to new attempts to circumvent the law, and take action accordingly. MOM would also like to urge employers to abide by the rules and to fulfil their responsibilities. This includes ensuring that Work Pass applications are submitted legitimately, giving foreign workers proper work, paying salary on time and providing acceptable accommodation. In this regard, we would also like to reassure and urge foreign workers who face employment-related problems to approach MOM so that we can help them and others who are affected.

I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. The Minister of State mentioned that offending companies will be debarred from bringing in foreign workers. I would like to seek a clarification from him whether it is true that in instances where they have been debarred, there have been instances where such companies have set up a separate legal entity and continue to bring in foreign workers and continue with their irresponsible behaviour. If indeed there is such a situation, what measures have been taken to address it?

Under our legislation, employers who submit false documentation or breach licensing conditions are punishable both by fine and jail. So, in the situation that the Member asked, if the company, having committed offence and having been debarred, goes on to form other companies, we will take them to task according to the legislation and the power that we have. Indeed, MOM, through our Task Force set up earlier this year, has stepped up enforcement paying attention to this kind of companies.

12. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many illegal moneylenders and runners have been arrested and convicted in 2009 and what is the average age of these runners; (b) whether he will consider increasing penalties to deter people from becoming runners; (c) whether there is any link between secret society members and illegal moneylenders/runners; (d) whether there are sufficient small loans licensed moneylenders in the market; (e) what is the status of the study to make borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders illegal; and (f) whether he will consider having an outreach programme to educate our young from becoming runners.

13. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on what measures he will take to reduce the incidents of unlicensed moneylending and loanshark harassment and when borrowing from loan sharks will be made an offence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I address Mdm Cynthia Phua’s and Mr Christopher de Souza’s queries, let me update the House on the loanshark situation and share how we intend to deal with the problem moving forward. Sir, we have started to toughen measures against loansharks since 2005. These included enhancing penalties and introducing presumptions under the Moneylenders Act; confiscating assets of convicted loansharks under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act; cancelling passports and imposing a travel ban under the Passport Act and when justified, detaining

loansharks under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Police also worked with agencies such as the Singapore Post to tighten procedures to limit opportunities for exploitation by loanshark syndicates.

Sir, we have been closely monitoring the effect of these enhanced measures. There was a temporary respite in 2007 when loansharking and harassment cases dropped by some 4.5% after a continual spike of five years, but unfortunately, the upward trend resumed last year, and into this year. From January to June this year, the number of loanshark and harassment reports rose from 4,759 to 9,395 compared to the same period last year. Loansharks are also now bolder in harassing innocent households. Families who have never borrowed from loansharks have had their property damaged and their safety threatened. Harassment tactics have also becoming increasingly dangerous. These include setting on fire items placed in front of victims’ flats, spraying vehicles with loanshark graffiti and locking innocent victims in their flats.

Sir, we recognise that we are in a battle of wits and nerves with determined loanshark syndicates. Let me say that we are equally determined. So pressing on resolutely, we will not let these syndicates terrorise our neighbourhoods. We will do more to target beyond the syndicate frontline, that is, the "Ah Longs " and runners on the ground as they can be easily replaced. Indeed, we recognise loansharking syndicates for what they really are, not benign unlicensed moneylenders, but a highly pernicious form of organised crime.

Advances in communications technology and the ways money can be transferred have led to loanshark syndicates becoming larger, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. Their structure and methods such as a

hierarchical membership, a professional administrative centre and a code of behaviour which require loyalty from members when apprehended are features of organised crime. Top leaders shield themselves, leverage on technology and surround themselves with an impenetrable layer of lieutenants. Borrowers who are over-committed in their borrowing and the young, including out-of-school youths and students, are exploited and recruited as runners. Because they are organised groups, the parts which are compromised can be easily replaced. Moreover, some masterminds control their syndicates from overseas.

Sir, we will study ways to penetrate these layers more effectively and punish the masterminds. We will further enhance the penalties against loansharks and harassers. In addition, we will also punish anyone who knowingly contributes or facilitates a loansharking operation. We will explore ways to disrupt the flow of money and resources and tackle the financiers who provide them. We will introduce laws to punish loansharking activities conducted overseas.

On the ground, Police will be relentless in pursuing runners and harassers. There have been a few prominent successful intelligence-led operations the past two months or so. For example, an operation on 9th July led to 10 persons being arrested who were linked to about 500 debtors and responsible for about 1,000 cases of harassment. So far, this year, Police has already crippled nine syndicates, compared to the grand total of nine crippled the whole of last year. At the divisional level, I think, Members have read in the media, Police have also geared up in this fight against loansharks.

Over and above enhanced enforcement, Police will work more closely with key partners such as ICA and HDB to

track unscrupulous borrowers who do not change their address after selling their flat as well as tenants who shield themselves behind their landlords' address. Police will also work with Town Councils to have the loanshark graffiti removed expeditiously and with grassroots organisations on greater use of CCTVs. On their part, neighbours of homes that are hit can signal their disgust with this abhorrent scourge by banding together to form Neighbourhood Watch Groups (NWGs) to watch out for the runners and harassers. And if they do this, the NPCs will readily render all assistance to help them in this fight against loansharks. Quite a few NWGs have been formed already, but I think more can be done.

Sir, for the time being, we will not criminalise borrowing from loansharks. We will closely monitor the cumulative effect of the enhanced measures, I have mentioned earlier, before we assess once again the need to introduce this drastic measure.

On Mdm Cynthia Phua's queries, in the first half of this year, 417 persons were arrested for unlicensed moneylending and harassment, an increase of 210 persons, or 101%, compared to the same period last year. So there has also been more arrests. Whilst some of the persons arrested had secret society affiliations, to date, none of the loanshark syndicates was found operating under the control of a secret society. Profits have also not been channelled to benefit any secret society.

Mdm Phua raised an important concern when she asked what the average age of the runners was and whether MHA will consider having an outreach programme to educate our young from becoming runners. Youth involvement in loanshark-related crimes is indeed on the rise. Eighty-one youths were arrested for loanshark-related activities in the first half of this year, as

compared to 21 youths arrested over the same period last year. Most were impressionable youths, lured by the temptation to make a quick buck. Many were referred to work for loansharks by their friends. By doing so wittingly or unwittingly, these youths put themselves and their loved ones in danger.

To counter this development, Police has been working with schools to educate youths on the dangers and consequences of getting involved in loansharking activities. To connect with them more effectively, Police is producing a video, captioned "Confessions 2", where an ex-runner will share his experience and regret over his involvement with loansharks. This video and other materials will be uploaded onto Singapore Police Force's (SPF) Facebook account and Youtube. Parents too can play their part to warn and monitor their children against falling prey to loansharks, either as borrowers or runners, as they will pay a heavy price.

Sir, in summary, MHA recognises that loansharking remains a scourge on the ground and will lead collective efforts to tackle it. Let all of us in Singapore declare war against loansharks!

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, out of the 81 youth offenders that were caught, how many of them were in school and how many of them were school dropouts. The other question is, does the penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the vandalism? Like what the Minister has said, throwing petrol bombs, locking up gates, splashing of paint can be frightening to the residents and is vandalism but it does not invoke fear. My last question, I noted that the Police has really engaged the community. Instead of just engaging the NPC or going around and watching, is there a hotline that they could call? Do they have the power to restrain the possible culprit?

Sir, first, of the youths who were caught in the first half of this year, about half of them were in school. The other half were working, not in school, unemployed and some were in NS. So there is a range. But, definitely, we will do more, in terms of outreach and education. On the second part, as I have said, we have enhanced penalties over the years. So in 2005, we enhanced the penalties, and in 2008, last year, we enhanced them further and upcoming, we want to enhance the penalties even more. But, really, for those harassers who cause damage to property or injury to persons, we want to emphasise the caning and indeed for those who damage property or harm persons, the element of a mandatory minimum caning will be imposed because, after all, they are threatening the well-being of others. So I think there is no question about it, these are dangerous acts and we must nip them in the bud. When Police can charge harassers under other more serious sections, eg, mischief by fire – I think there were about 35 instances this year when items had been lit outside flats and indeed like Mdm Phua said under her ward, petrol bombs were thrown – when the facts are proven, Police will also impose a higher charge to send the right signal. So let that be clear.

For the hotline, when the NPC works with the grassroots leaders, in particular working with the RCs, it is not just a method of getting in touch, there is information imparted, there is also coaching being done as to how to identify people who may be suspicious, networking amongst the neighbours, contact numbers are also given out. If you look at the papers over the last two to three weeks, there have been good arrests arising from these collective efforts on the ground. And, indeed, there was one case I am quite happy to note, in Yishun, where I come from, a person actually alerted the Police when he saw two persons using the ATM machines for 30 minutes, transferring money from one

machine to another machine. That act alerted him to the possibility of them being runners on the ground. He alerted the Police, the Police came and then caught these two persons, looked at what they were doing, traced the records and I think they are being charged as harassers or runners. I think the message I want to send to this House is that we must all work together. The Police will indeed step up and MHA will step up too. I think if everybody sends a very strong signal that we will not tolerate this scourge, the situation will improve.

Mr de Souza, one last question.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I support the slew of measures introduced by him. But there is one common theme in the slew of measures which is they are supply-centric targeted. My question is, why not include in the arsenal a weapon which allows the Government and MHA to tackle the demand side, and this is illustrated through making borrowing from loansharks an offence? It is underscored by many of our home visits to blocks where you have the whole mood of the corridor being low, if you have "owe pay, pay money" spray painted. My second question is, is it drastic – I think the Minister used the adjective, "drastic" for measures to penalise borrowers – to penalise the borrower who has given a false address so as to obviate the harassment to himself and to put the harassment on an innocent party? I do not think there is anything drastic in going after somebody recalcitrant like that. Would the Minister please reply to these two supplementary questions?

You have four minutes left, Prof. Ho.

Sir, I note Mr de Souza's continued sentiments on

this. He has argued before that we should criminalise borrowing. As I said in my speech, at the moment, we will not be doing it. But let me assure him that we will not rule it out. In fact, we talked about it a year-and-a-half ago in COS 2008. We have been monitoring the feedback. We have been studying the pros and cons of doing it. I am sure he will agree there are indeed also cons besides the pros. Pros, it may deter some from borrowing, but cons, given the fact that borrowers come not from one homogenous group, there are also innocent borrowers, borrowers who actually need money who may be affected. Also, the possibility of the danger that when we do it, it may drive some of the problems underground, or indeed even cause harassers to be bolder because when they know that you cannot report, they harass you even more. So we have to balance all this. We are not saying we will not do it. But as the Member has said, there is a slew of measures being introduced, I want to monitor them, see whether we can tackle the problem without having to introduce this step. Indeed, if we do it next year, when community based sentences are introduced already, that may give the courts greater flexibility in penalising borrowers. So let us monitor and wait and see.

14. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the proportion of Singaporeans who have no health insurance coverage and what is done to ease their vulnerability; and (b) with regard to the Integrated Shield plans (i) what is the proportion not covered by this additional insurance, including those who are excluded because of pre-existing health conditions; and (ii) whether this practice of private agencies willing to insure only the healthy will cause a

serious gap in our national healthcare system.

MediShield and the Integrated Shield Plans provide health insurance for Singaporeans to help take care of major illnesses which may lead to large hospital bills. MediShield is designed for patients who choose the subsidised wards, Class B2 and Class C. It now covers 84% of our total population and 93% of all working Singaporeans.

Integrated Shield Plans are provided by private insurers and they are designed for those who prefer Class A wards and the private hospitals. They cover about half of our population.

Singaporeans should subscribe to MediShield at least, and from young. The premiums are affordable and can be paid out of Medisave. The uninsured comprise two main groups: the young below 20 years and non-working spouses. For the young, we have introduced an opt-out scheme for all newborn babies since December 2007. Practically all newborn babies are now covered from birth, 98%. We are working with schools to get the students into MediShield. For example, at the time of Primary One registration, we introduce a similar opt-out scheme. And, again, the parents are very sensible, less than 4% have opted out. So it is 96% coverage. For the adults, we are working with NTUC to get their members to sign up for their spouses. This is work in progress. Overall, we aim to reduce the uninsured percentage to a single digit. And I am quite confident we can do it because the new measures introduced since December 2007 had been effective. For the whole of last year, when we had a full year implementation of these new measures, MediShield membership increased by 200,000 members.

Health insurers do not cover pre-existing conditions as they would have

the unintended effect of some buying insurance only when they are sick. This would be unfair to the existing policy holders.

Instead, the correct response is for Singaporeans to get insured from young, preferably soon after birth, before any health condition develops.

For commercial reasons, private insurers would prefer to only insure the young and healthy, attracting them away from MediShield, and leaving the high-risk members to MediShield. This phenomenon is known as "cherry picking" in the industry. That is why we had to restructure the health insurance industry in 2005, requiring all private Shield insurance plans to be integrated with MediShield. This way, we protect the MediShield risk pool and enable basic health insurance to remain affordable for the lower-income Singaporeans who use the Class B2 and C wards.

3.00pm

Order. End of Question Time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 14, 21-22, 24, 26-28, 30, 34-37, 39-41 and 44-45 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 15-20, 23, 25, 29, 31-33, 38, 42-43 and 46 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 19th August 2009.]

*Cols. 1059-1088.

"to amend the Casino Control Act (Chapter 33A of the 2007 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to establish and incorporate the Council for Private Education, to provide for its functions, duties and powers, to provide for the regulation and accreditation of private education institutions so as to ensure the provision of quality education thereat and for matters connected therewith, and to make a consequential amendment to the Education Act (Chapter 87 of the 1985 Revised Edition)",

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

"to amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 2006 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act (Chapter 140 of 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, “That the Bill now be read a Second time."

The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2009, or the GST Bill in short, comprises five amendments. The first two amendments give legislative effect to the GST initiatives announced in the 2009 Budget Statement, while the other three amendments arose from our ongoing review of the GST system.

The draft GST Bill was released for public consultation in June 2009, and has been revised to incorporate a number of suggestions from businesses and members of the public.

Let me first touch on the provisions in the GST Bill that give legislative effect to the GST changes announced in the 2009 Budget Statement.

Zero-rating of aircrafts used wholly for international travel as well as the sale and lease of aircraft parts forming part of a qualifying aircraft

First, to support the growth of the aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) industry in Singapore, the Government will expand the scope of qualifying aircraft that can enjoy GST zero-rating to include all aircraft, including private aircraft, used wholly for international transportation of goods and passengers. To ease GST compliance costs for the MRO industry, zero-rating is also extended to cover the sale and lease of aircraft parts that form part of a qualifying aircraft. These changes are in line with the zero-rating of international transportation. Clause 2 of the Bill reflects these GST changes.

Suspending GST on goods temporarily removed from Zero-GST or Licensed Warehouses

Second, it was also announced in Budget 2009 that GST will be suspended on goods that are temporarily removed from a Zero-GST or Licensed Warehouse for auctions or exhibitions, provided that the goods, whether sold, but not brought into the domestic market, or unsold during the auctions or exhibitions, are returned to a Zero-GST or Licensed Warehouse subsequently. This is to encourage the growth of the auction and exhibition industry as well as specialised storage facilities in Singapore. This initiative is provided under clause 5 of the Bill.

I shall now deal with the other three tax changes which require amendments to the GST Act. These changes arose from our periodic review of the GST system.

GST registration to be in the name of the trust

The first pertains to the GST registration of a trust. As a trust is not a legal entity, GST registration is currently done in the name of the trustee carrying on the business of the trust. This can inadvertently be confusing as a trustee can act for multiple trusts at any point in time. The GST Act will thus be amended to allow GST registration to be effected in the name of the trust, while the trustee continues to be liable for the GST matters of the trust. This is similar to how the GST Act presently allows partnerships and limited partnerships to be registered in the name of the partnership, while holding their partners liable for the GST matters of the partnerships. This enhancement is provided under clause 3 of the Bill.

Extending the current GST treatment for physical vouchers to new forms of vouchers

The next change concerns the GST treatment of vouchers. Currently, physical vouchers that entitle the holder to redeem goods or services up to a monetary value as stated on the vouchers do not attract GST at the point of sale of these vouchers. Instead, GST is payable only when the vouchers are subsequently redeemed for goods or services.

Vouchers have evolved over time to include electronic, bar-coded or magnetic strip vouchers. We also need to take into account vouchers where the value is stated in non-monetary terms (for example, phone cards with 100 minutes of talk time). The GST Act will be

amended to expand and specify the scope of qualifying vouchers for which GST is due only when the vouchers are redeemed, and not at the point of sale of the vouchers. Clauses 4 and 7 of the Bill provide for this change.

Requiring taxpayers to state precisely their grounds of objection to a decision made by the Comptroller of GST

Finally, the GST Bill includes a provision requiring any person applying for a revision of decisions made by the Comptroller of GST to state explicitly their grounds of objection. This requirement is already provided for in the Income Tax Act and Property Tax Act, and should be extended to the GST Act. This change is provided for under clause 6 of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.06 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that clause 4 of the Bill allows the Minister to make regulations to include vouchers within our GST regime. At present, the sale of vouchers is disregarded, up to its face value, at the point of sale. This is a good move, to prevent leakage of taxes through the savvy use of vouchers by vendors of goods or services.

Also, it is progressive for this provision to include reference to electronic vouchers as well as physical ones. As more transactions are concluded online, it is necessary that we continue to provide for laws that apply to e-commerce as well as conventional commerce.

Sir, I seek a clarification from the Minister. If a voucher provides for a percentage discount, how will the amount

of GST be calculated? Similarly, if there is a cap on the value that can be redeemed with the voucher, but the consumer is not obliged to redeem the entire value, how will the amount of GST be calculated? Also, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the amendments are technical in nature and that this Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. And that is good news.

Sir, since July 2007, the GST has been fixed at 7% and the Government has been giving out sweets to overcome the bitter medicine. The Singapore economy shows signs of improvement but it is still tied to the global economy. Another round of protracted economic downturn in Singapore may necessitate a second Stimulus Package to help the lower income, a move which the Minister for Trade and Industry shot down recently. But what I would like to know from the Minister for Finance is, if the economy falters or stagnates again, will the Government consider reducing the GST rate temporarily to 5%, if no Stimulus Package is in sight? On this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue. Let me, first, say I welcome the changes to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Amendment Bill, especially on the issue of aircraft parts. This I see as part of Government's pro-business policy and something to be supported. However, what I would like to ask is why the Government chose not to extend similar benefit to the shipping industry as both industries have always shared similar treatments in the GST legislation.

First, the zero-rating relief for aerospace industry. The changes reflect the fact that Singapore is already a

leading aerospace hub in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in the area of maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircrafts. The GST changes announced for the aerospace industry will help to enhance Singapore's status as an aerospace hub. They are also timely, given the on-going redevelopment of the Seletar Airbase into an aerospace park. Under the current law, aircraft qualifying for the zero-rating relief GST at zero percent, instead of 7%, are limited to those that are not used for recreational or pleasure purposes. With the amendments, the definition of a qualifying aircraft will be changed to include those used for recreation or pleasure as long as they are internationally bound. Hence, qualifying aircraft will include all international bound aircraft regardless of whether they are used for commercial, recreational or pleasure purposes.

The definition of "a ship" under GST legislation is a bit of a mouthful. It is "a ship", including an oil rig which is not designed or adapted for use for recreation or pleasure and excludes any vessel licensed under the Maritime and Port Authority Singapore Act as a passenger harbour craft or pleasure craft". There is no amendment made to the definition of "a ship" under this amendment.

Under the supply of aircraft parts, GST-registered businesses can apply for zero-rating relief when they sell or lease aircraft parts that are exported from Singapore. This requires businesses to maintain the relevant export documents to substantiate that the parts supplied are physically exported. Businesses therefore devote a lot of resources to manage GST-compliance documents in order to be able to charge zero percent GST when supplying aircraft parts for export. Under the amendment proposed, businesses in this sector should find it easier to manage their GST compliance. This is because zero-rating would apply on the sale or lease of qualifying aircraft parts so long as

the parts are certified as airworthy and are designed and built for exclusive use on a qualifying aircraft. The zero-rating relief will apply regardless of the delivery, location of the aircraft parts and the location of customers. In other words, zero percent GST will apply even if the qualifying aircraft parts are sold and delivered locally, leased to a local customer. This eliminates the need for businesses to maintain the relevant export documents that are required currently and hence reduces the GST compliance cost.

Again, there is no similar provision for the supply of parts for ships. This implies that businesses in the shipping industry that are required to maintain relevant export documents, be it purchase orders and delivery orders, to substantiate the parts that are physically exported. Businesses in this sector will therefore continue to devote a lot of time and resources to manage the GST compliance in order to be able to charge zero percent GST when supplying parts for export.

Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am also a partner in the firm, Ernst and Young, and that we had made this point earlier to the Ministry during a public consultation exercise. I am pleased to note that in a release from MOF just last week, it said that this has now been accepted for further study and IRAS will consider if there is a similar scope to extend treatment to ships in subsequent amendments to the Act. We ought to make the law as good as we can and as soon as we can. I urge the Minister to consider including this point under this round of amendments.

Sir, in conclusion, I rise to support the amendments to the Bill and would like the Government to make similar provisions to the shipping industry. This even-handed approach is not only good business practice but, I believe, has good long-term benefits to the overall economic development for Singapore as well.

3:13 pm

Sir, first, let me thank both Members for their support of the Bill. Mdm Ho Geok Choo has asked a question of detail with regard to how a cash voucher might be used or rather how GST would be computed for a cash voucher where the amount redeemed is actually below the cap indicated on the voucher.

Let me attempt to answer her question. As a cash voucher is a qualifying voucher, GST will be charged on the actual consideration received for the voucher, regardless of how much is actually redeemed or used. This is consistent with the use of all cash vouchers at the moment, regardless of whether or not there is a discount.

Mdm Ho also asked, as a matter of policy, if GST could be reduced to 5% if the economic conditions deteriorate further. Sir, this proposal has been discussed and debated actively during the Budget debate. It is based on similar arguments, so I will refer the Member to the Hansard records. But let me just briefly recap the reasons why a reduction in GST is not desirable. Firstly, the GST is really a tax on the end consumer and businesses which can claim this GST paid back on the inputs from the Government. In fact, a temporary cut would result in more administrative cost because they would have to do it twice. This would actually lead to higher compliance costs. Secondly, a GST cut would not be effective in stimulating demand in the Singapore economy, which is quite clearly evident in the case of the UK where they cut their value-added tax and there were no perceivable effects in terms of an increase in consumer spending at all. Finally, and most importantly, the Minister for Finance has explained in his round-up speech that a 2% GST cut would be less effective in helping the lower and middle-

income groups, than the measures that were announced in the Budget 2009 statement, to help households. A better way would be to target household assistance schemes at those who would require this assistance more.

Let me now go on to Mrs Mildred Tan's comments. I would like to thank her for a very well argued suggestion to extend the GST scheme for the aircraft parts to the shipping equivalent. As she has said, this is also feedback that we have received during the recent consultation exercise. As the Member has also informed the House, a review is currently under way. But let me just lay out two complications if this were to be applied to the shipping industry or the equivalent, and these would be issues that we would have to address before we make any legislative amendments.

Sir, the first is the concept of international travel. Unlike air travel where there is minimal if not zero risk of abuse, because all jets would be used for international travel as opposed to internal travel, there is a prevalence of local and dual usage of ships within Singapore waters. So it will be very difficult to identify ships that are used wholly for international travel, but it is not impossible. It is an issue that we would have to address.

The second is that the regime for the use of aircraft parts in terms of regulation and requirements is more stringent and well specified. The certification of such aircraft parts and the linkages to qualifying aircraft are straightforward. However, there does not exist a similar stringent regime for ships. Hence, there will be a challenge for IRAS to identify which are the ones that are ultimately meant for qualifying shipping vessels when that comes through.

Nonetheless, let me once again thank Members for their support of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Lim Hwee Hua].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.19 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill introduces amendments to the Legal Profession Act to implement changes relating to legal education and legal profession training which were announced by the Ministry of Law earlier this year.

The amendments to the Legal Profession Act make two key changes:

First, the introduction of a training contract system to replace the current pupillage system; and

Second, the streamlining of existing overlapping exemption powers currently exercised by the Board of Legal Education and the Minister for Law, in preparation for the establishment of the proposed Institute of Legal Education next year.

Let me elaborate on the rationale for these two key changes:

Training contract system

The current pupillage system will be changed into a Training Contract system. The rationale for this is to get the law practices to be responsible and to provide some structured training to pupils rather than individual pupil masters. In place of six months of pupillage, all graduates will be required to complete a six-month "practice training" which should take the form of a Training Contract with a Singapore law practice after completing Part B of the new Bar Examinations. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill make the necessary amendments to take into account the new Training Contract requirements.

To give law practices time to adjust to the new changes, the Training Contract system will be phased in incrementally in consultation with key stakeholders, such as the Board of Legal Education, the Law Society and practitioners. Details of the new requirements relating to Training Contracts will be set out in subsidiary legislation to be enacted after the Bill enters into force.

Streamlining of exemption functions

Next year, we will set up the Institute of Legal Education (ILE), which will come under the governance of the Singapore Academy of Law and serve as an umbrella institution to co-ordinate, administer and have oversight of the various initiatives relating to legal education. In addition to broader functions, such as overseeing Continuing Legal Education for lawyers, the ILE will also assume functions and powers currently held by the Board of Legal Education. A separate Bill will be tabled next year to implement this.

In preparation for the ILE to focus on the content of legal education, the present multiple exemption functions exercised by both the Board of Legal Education and the Minister for Law concerning the various

admission requirements will be streamlined into a single exemption power exercised by the Minister for Law. The relevant amendments are set out in clauses 5 and 9 of the Bill.

This streamlining of exemption functions will simplify the exemption application process for those seeking to be admitted to the Singapore Bar. The amendments in the Bill, together with amendments to the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules, which are made in tandem with this move to streamline the process, will significantly simplify applications for exemptions and waivers from the requirements for admission to the Singapore Bar.

The streamlining will therefore make it procedurally easier for lawyers to return to practise in Singapore. In particular, the following categories of lawyers will find it easier to come back:

Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who satisfy our Qualified Persons criteria, who are qualified in a common law jurisdiction and have at least two years’ experience as legal practitioners. They will be required to pass only Part A of the Bar Examinations; and

Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who have significant experience as foreign lawyers or who are partners of foreign law practices. They may not need to sit for the Bar Examinations.

Admission of such individuals will, of course, depend on the strength of the application and will be granted, subject to such conditions and requirements as may be appropriate to maintain the quality of entrants to the Singapore legal profession.

Other miscellaneous amendments

Let me now touch briefly on the other miscellaneous amendments. Clauses 13,

14 and 15 of the Bill also contain various consequential amendments arising from the changes, and amendments of a technical or law revision nature.

Sir, these changes, together with other changes that are being implemented, will put in place a holistic framework for the admission of lawyers to the Singapore Bar and their professional education. The object is to ensure that Singapore continues to attract high calibre legal talent and to grow as a regional hub for legal services and legal education.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and lend my support to the Bill. I declare my interest, at the onset, as a partner in a Singapore law practice.

Earlier this year, in a speech during the debate in COS, I described how Singaporean law students, whom I visited in the UK and were working legal professionals there, were candid about wanting to return to Singapore to practise but found the one-year full time Diploma in Singapore Law course a major deterrent. I had suggested that returning law students be allowed to undergo training more relevant to practice, along the lines of a training contract. By fusing the Diploma in Singapore Law and the current Practical Law course into a training contract, the returning law student will receive his first pay cheque sooner, has greater incentive to return to Singapore and be a resource in our growing legal hub. He also studies areas of law relevant to practice, rather than repeating basic subjects he would have already covered at university, even in his

first year. This will also assist in meeting the increasing demand for more lawyers who are called to the Singapore Bar.

Therefore, I am pleased to note that the first major proposed amendment is to require a qualified person to serve a practice training period in place of a pupillage, ie, under a practice training contract with a Singapore law practice. I would like to express my appreciation to the Ministry for swiftly accepting feedback from the legal community to include more practical-based training to better prepare our graduates for legal practice. Replacing pupillage will assist to achieve this.

The Minister had mentioned at this year's COS debate that, "The intent of this change is for law firms to devise more meaningful Training Contracts for their trainees. At present, a pupillage system is in place. But some pupils may have little direct contact with their pupil masters. The intention is to try and ensure that trainees have a constructive and structured learning programme and make the law firms take a greater responsibility in this area."

Coming out of this, may I also suggest that the training contracts set out what kind of training and exposure their trainees should receive during the period of the contract, so as to prevent situations where they are made to perform tasks, such as photocopying and receptionist duties, which have no bearing on their legal and professional skills and knowledge, and do not constitute any form of legal training.

With greater involvement of the law firms in the training of our new lawyers, I hope the Ministry will, in consultation with the profession, issue guidelines to ensure the core content of the training contract is kept updated and continues to

be relevant to the evolving demands and needs of the market, thereby better preparing our new lawyer cohorts to meet them. It is important that a lawyer’s training always be kept up to date by having the Singapore Academy of Law (SLA), the Law Society (LS), and the Government, namely, the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers, actively involved in annual reviews of the syllabi. Ultimately, this will lead to improvement in the service standards of our new lawyers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 9 inserts a new section 15A to empower the Minister to approve certain person as qualified persons and provide for selected ones to be exempted from certain practice training requirements by his or her standing and experience. This will shorten the training period and encourage more graduates to return to Singapore to practise, increasing the number of lawyers needed here. This is a move in the right direction, ie, to let the market forces attract and recognise talent, thereby entrenching our position as a credible regional legal hub. Further liberalisation along these lines should be encouraged.

As these amendments are new, I urge the Ministry to closely monitor the impact on the market and, if necessary, make adjustments for further fine-tuning, especially to set the tone that any lawyer who intends to practise in Singapore should understand and respect Singapore’s legal systems and structures, as well as the jurisprudential principles underlying how our courts decide cases.

Sir, I record my support for the Bill.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

3.32 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

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

I do not support the Bill as it is based on wrong principles. The appointment of a person to be a qualified person is based on a non-transparency procedure, since the Minister is involved and also on political consideration. Currently, we admit UK Queen's Counsels (QCs) to practise law in Singapore on specific cases through the supervision of the High Court and the Board of Legal Education. I think this process is sound and should not be changed. I am reluctant to support a law that supports non-transparency in its provisions. The relevant clause is clause 15A which allows the Minister to exercise his discretion to allow any person to be a qualified person if, in his opinion, that person possesses such qualification or expertise that will contribute to promoting or enhancing the quality of legal service in Singapore or the economic or technological development of Singapore.

In section 15A(4), it gives a non-transparency clause. An exemption or abridgment granted to a person under subsection (3) may be subject to such conditions as the Minister may think fit to impose by notice in writing to the person; may be notified in writing to the person; and need not be published in the Gazette. This is where the non-transparency lies.

3.51 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the passing of this Bill, the Law Minister appears to be vested with more powers in relation to the admission of lawyers. Most of these powers are now vested in

the Board of Legal Education, which comprises the Attorney-General, the Law Society President, the National University of Singapore law dean and a number of lawyers or members nominated by the Singapore Academy of Law.

When this Bill is passed, the Law Minister will now be the one with the power to approve a person as legally qualified when he is actually one "who is not otherwise entitled to be a qualified person" within the meaning of the Act. The Minister would have the discretion to administratively exempt such persons from the usual courses of instructions or examinations if the Minister is of the opinion that these would be persons whose expertise would contribute to "the quality of legal services in Singapore or the economic or technological development of Singapore". Why should the Minister be the only authority to so decide without consulting the other relevant bodies? What KPIs are in place to measure the quality of the applicant's contributions? Can the Minister provide examples of what sort of persons he had in mind that would fall within this category of "privileged persons"?

Besides the transfer of such powers, one of the other main purposes of the Bill will be to implement changes to the requirements for lawyers to practise Singapore law. Instead of a pupillage in law firms, prospective lawyers must serve a practice training period of six months, which will be enhanced with a training contract with the firms. Would the Ministry be drafting the terms of this training contract so as to ensure uniformity and consistency in the quality of the training to be provided by the law firms involved?

I urge that such powers should be exercised cautiously and judiciously with checks and balances by the Ministry as

well as the legal profession as a whole. For a start, the Law Ministry should outline in lucid terms the specific grounds for the exemption or approval. This serves the object of transparency and public accountability and should be published in the Government Gazette or explicitly communicated to the members of the legal profession. Previously, there were suitably qualified persons to adjudge whether a person should be exempted or approved. I am concerned about the extent which the Law Ministry by itself would be sufficiently equipped to ensure the applicant's records (both academic and practical) can substantiate his or her exemption or approval.

By the same token, the provision of such powers is to fulfil one of the aims of admitting more lawyers into practice so as to redress the perennial problem of shortage of practising lawyers. It is therefore imperative in the admission of new lawyers under this new provision that persons who are exempted or approved should serve as practising lawyers for a requisite period of time so that this amended provision will not be used as a "back-door" provision for any person to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore and then immediately leave practice to work as in-house counsels or embark on other professions shortly after upon being called to the Singapore Bar.

I would also like to ask the Minister if he would provide an update on whether the recognition of graduates from additional foreign law firms or law schools for admission as advocates and solicitors in Singapore has resulted in more practising lawyers for the legal profession.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

3.55 pm

Sir, I would like to seek

clarification on the parts of the Bill relating to the practice training period and the Minister's enhanced powers.

First, the practice training period. The intention behind abolishing pupillage and replacing it with a practice training period is a good rationale. For many generations, a pupil's experience varied greatly and there was no common baseline with which to assure the public or profession on what the pupil had learned during the six months with his master. The change proposed is to require a firm or possibly an individual partner to undertake specific responsibilities to ensure that the trainee is exposed to relevant skills. In the Report of the Committee to develop the Singapore Legal Sector, it is mentioned that the training contract will ensure that the trainee is given certain basic skills, for example, advocacy skills and rotated among different departments. According to the Ministry of Law, the training contract may be served out with any Singapore law practice.

Sir, our law firms are diverse, both in size and type of work done. Given this situation, it is foreseeable that the trainee's experiences in the different firms will continue to vary greatly. Will firms with limited scope of work be less likely to be able to manage training contracts? Sir, there will be concerns about how onerous the new regime will be on the law firms or lawyers. Does it envisage the checklist to be filled out to ensure that trainees have done a list of different tasks? While employers may agree in principle to expose trainees to certain types of work, this may not be carried out due to a variety of reasons, for example, the law firm's priorities during the period and economic cycles as well. At the same time, failure of the firm to carry out a training contract does not seem a fair reason to delay a trainee's call to the Bar. Will there be measures to ensure that training contracts do not become just a formality?

Sir, I next move on to the enhanced powers of the Minister regarding admission of lawyers. The proposed section 15A gives the Minister powers relating to the admission of lawyers to the Bar and take these powers away from the Board of Legal Education. These powers are whether to exempt potential lawyers from requirements such as undergoing the six-month training contract, attending any course of instruction or sitting for prescribed examination. Under the current Legal Profession Act, these powers are vested in the Board of Legal Education, which Ms Ellen Lee before me had already touched on, comprises 11 persons standing, the Attorney-General, President of the Law Society, Deans of the Law Faculty and Law School, lawyers and the Singapore Academy of Law. On such an important matter as to whether to exempt persons from mandatory professional requirements, the collective wisdom of the Board would be most instructive. Under the Bill, the Board's decision-making power is reduced. As far as admissions go, it will only have the power to exempt a person from dining requirements which is the least onerous of all the requirements to be called to the Bar. Sir, would it not be prudent to continue to let the Board handle exemptions from admission requirements rather than to give this power to the Minister acting alone? While the Bill says that the Minister can consult the Board before he makes a rule about such matters, it also makes clear that the Minister can retain absolute discretion to decide on exemption cases.

3.59 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the Bill.

I appreciate the rationale underlying the proposed amendment, which follows the extended debate on the need to

urgently increase the number of lawyers in Singapore.

In addition to the proposal for foreign trained lawyers to serve a practice training period in place of a pupillage (tabled in this Bill), we have also gradually increased the pool of locally trained lawyers and enabled Singapore law firms to recruit outstanding foreign lawyers.

All these, to grow a sufficient pool of high calibre legal professionals, so as to facilitate the positioning of Singapore as a legal services hub for the region.

As I speak in support of this Bill, I would like to seek your indulgence to reflect on how these developments may impact our youth – specifically, those who had aspired to enter the local law schools but failed to secure a place.

In earlier debates on changes made to the legal profession in 2007 and 2008, much of the emphasis was focused on the implications of the changes to the practice of law and on the practitioners.

Very little had been raised on how these liberalisations to the practice of law in Singapore may have been received by students who aspired to be lawyers, but failed to secure a place in our local law schools.

From the perspective of our youths who, after struggling through 16 years of hard work, find out that they did not earn a coveted place in the NUS or SMU law schools, it must be very frustrating to read of this severe shortage of lawyers in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as an educator, I am very concerned with how we manage youth aspirations. For these are our future leaders, and the next generation that will

continue the good work achieved by this Government.

This time of the year is particularly tough on many of our youth and their families. As we manage the massive admissions exercise at the universities, we also have to manage missed aspirations. How do you tell an 18-year-old who has faithfully slogged away at his books, only to find that his close to perfect scores are not good enough?

While intake into NUS Law and SMU Law has increased over the past few years, it is nonetheless a very small quota compared to the volume of qualified applicants.

Coming from the Faulty of Arts and Social Sciences, I for one am truly appreciative that not every top scorer lands a place in Medicine or Law – it is critical and important for Singapore to have capable scholars in all disciplines.

But we are, at the end of the day, talking about missed aspirations of our talented young.

While we can appreciate the benefits and rationale for the arguments laid out in this and preceding Bills on the Legal Profession, we must also be aware of the indirect effects. There are four broad concerns that we should take note of as we expand the parameters on who can practise law in Singapore.

First, we must be cognisant that there will be a social class divide. Among those who fail to secure a place in our local law schools, there will be the lucky group who can still achieve their aspirations by enrolling in a law school overseas. And who will now be able to return home to practise law here with less structural constraints.

In relation to this, my second concern is with communication. We must explain

to our youths why the local law schools cannot grow their intake beyond a certain critical level, and why we cannot just rely on expanding quota each year to meet industry demand. And we should lay out the expansion plans for NUS Law and SMU Law. For example, now that NUS Law has arrived at an intake of 250, the quota projected as optimum in the Report by The Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers, does it mean that the quota will not increase anymore?

Third, we must have a viable second route for acquiring legal training in Singapore. This allows the truly passionate an opportunity to live their dreams. In this regard, SMU's Juris Doctor (J.D.) programme is an excellent development.

My fourth and final concern is with the significant attrition in the local bar. Why are our law graduates not progressing as expected? Idiographic accounts suggest that work conditions in the legal profession are challenging, with long hours cited as a big deterrent. The Law fraternity may want to look at these and other triggers for attrition in greater detail.

It is difficult to change normative expectations in the profession. This is especially so if senior partners and supervisors went through similar rigour when they were young legal officers – and they survived the challenges. It may be hard for them to understand why their younger mentees should not make similar sacrifices and put in extended hours at the office. But if attrition remains high, something must be done. For the cost of each attrition is too high to bear, given the opportunity cost that someone else could have taken that place instead.

We teach our children to dream and to nurture aspirations. It is equally important to ensure that they can actualise these ideals in a reasonable manner. Otherwise, we lose them. To encourage the brightest

of our future generation to be active stakeholders in Singapore, we need to take time to explain to them the rationale for these macro shifts, and understand how these may impact them at the individual level. And we need to assure them that we know it is hard, and that we will continue to place their interest at heart.

With these comments, I support the Bill.

4.05 pm

Sir, I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. First, let me respond to Prof. Tay's concerns about the aspirations of our young people. She wants to know the extent to which the intake of our law schools can be expanded. We have, as she notes, increased the law intake for NUS from less than 200 previously, to 250 now and SMU now takes in another 120 students. As I had mentioned in response to a similar question posed by Dr Teo Ho Pin during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year, the NUS Law Faculty is of the view that it is already near its optimal size at around 250 students per cohort. Can we expand it? It depends on a variety of factors. The number of good quality law lecturers available for a start and there are other limiting conditions. Their own view was that 250 or thereabouts is about the right size. SMU would also like to keep the law school relatively small. As Prof. Tay acknowledges, there is a level beyond which it would not be sensible for either NUS or SMU to expand their intakes. These are constraints that top quality law schools all over the world face. We cannot increase the size at will, without compromising on quality.

And there is yet another factor which we have to bear in mind when we discuss this subject. When the SMU law students come onstream about two to three years' time, we will see an almost 70% jump in

the number of law students graduating from the two law schools. That is a very significant increase, and that is before we take into account the increase in intake as a result of the liberalisation that has been put in place this year. So we are seeing a considerable increase in the pipeline of lawyers coming onstream. We have to monitor and review that before deciding whether we need to further increase the number of law students.

Second, Prof. Tay has expressed her concerns about a class divide between those who are able to pursue their ambitions in law by going abroad and those who are not able to do so. There will always be those who can afford to go overseas on their own. What can the Government do about it? What we can do is to ensure that there are good law schools in Singapore; and that we have a fair system of admission, which does not depend on class or background, into the law schools in Singapore. The same applies to other Faculties which are highly sought after. Some who cannot get into the Singapore law schools, or prefer to go overseas, will be able to do so, if they can afford it. The largest cohort of lawyers however will come from our own two law schools and, as I said, entry to those is based on merit.

For those who are clear that they do want to be lawyers, but cannot get in the first place into the law schools, there are, again as Prof. Tay has noted, alternative routes. Graduates from other disciplines can take up law through obtaining a J.D. degree from SMU, subject of course to meeting SMU's admission criteria. This year, SMU has taken a pioneer batch of 30 J.D. students, from a pool of 135 applicants. Their selected students have a broad range of varying experience and undergraduate degrees. There are also J.D. programmes overseas. Graduates from other disciplines can enrol into these

when they are able to do so after they get another degree and work for a period. If they are really passionate, they can still become lawyers. So there are many routes available and money is not really a limiting factor. It may be a limiting factor for the first entry overseas.

Ms Ellen Lee has also asked for an update on whether the recognition of graduates from additional foreign law schools has resulted in more practising lawyers for the legal profession. Let me clarify.

The Schedules to our Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules list the universities whose law degrees are recognised (and I will refer to them as the "Listed Universities"). We have not expanded that list. We have, however, refined our admission and training requirements.

Some of these refinements are dealt with by means of subsidiary legislation. Let me summarise the framework of that legislation, for the benefit of the Members present:

Fresh law graduates from the Listed Universities will no longer have to do the one-year Diploma in Singapore Law course (DipSing). I think a move that was generally welcomed by the profession as well as the Members here. Instead they are required to pass Part A of the Bar Examinations. There will be an optional three-month course which will help them prepare for Part A. A very significant impact of this is that if you have gone overseas, you have studied, you want to come back and you feel that you can take Part A Examination even without any tuition, you are entitled to do so. So it makes the entry process very easy but at the same time, it allows us to regulate quality by making sure that they have to pass an examination to our satisfaction. And that is win-win on both sides.

From 2010, the Practical Law Course (PLC) will be revamped and culminate in Part B of the Bar Examinations. The five-month Part B course will comprise more practical-based modules that will prepare our graduates for legal practice.

Pupillage will be replaced with Training Contracts, which will emphasise the firm's role in training young lawyers.

Now, I will come back to the comments made by Members on this point.

Previously, foreign graduates from the Listed Universities with Lower Second Class Honours could not qualify for admission to the Bar without at least two years' experience. In light of the stricter Bar Examination framework we have put in place, these graduates may now be admitted if they pass the new Bar Examinations and complete 12 months of training.

I will now deal with the queries on these various training contracts here. I think Mr de Souza took, probably, full credit for the fact that we are changing to a training contract module and we would not begrudge him that. But it may be good to add that a number of others have suggested that as well. Ms Lee and Ms Lim have asked whether we would be drafting the terms of the training contract so as to ensure uniformity and consistency in the quality of the training provided by the law firms involved. I think Ms Lim put it slightly differently. I will deal with the specific points she raised later.

With regard to the training contracts, the proposed amendments provide for the basic framework that law firms must adhere to. The Board of Legal Education will follow up with Rules governing the training contracts and administrative guidelines as necessary, before fresh

training contracts commence this year. I think it will neither be practical nor desirable nor feasible for us by way of legislation to try and impose very precise and specific criteria on law firms and what they should do. We will provide the framework, certain basic minimum that should be complied with.

Specifically on Ms Lim's questions as to whether smaller law firms will have difficulties because of either economic cycles or because they are not sufficiently resourced not to be able to provide the training, let us take a step back. Why are we doing this? We have looked at the way pupillage worked. The obligation is imposed on the individual pupil master to train pupils. It is a no-brainer. We all agree that pupils need to be trained otherwise there is no need for a pupillage. The next question is, do we accept that they need to be trained adequately? The answer must be, "yes". Then the third issue, which experience has given the answer to, is that the current system does not train pupils adequately and you need to impose that obligation on the law firms. Is it a response to say that law firms may not be adequately resourced to train their pupils? If they are not resourced to train their pupils, we will try and find a way in which they can arrange with other law firms to go and get their pupils trained. But the pupils' interest and the profession's interest as a whole must not suffer. People should take on pupils with the clear idea that the pupillage period, the entire raison d'etre for the pupillage period is to train the pupils, not to use them as additional labour. It is no answer really to say that the law firms may not be in a position to train the pupils. It is not fair to the pupils which is why we now say, "We have provided the framework; please ensure that they are able to do so." While we understand very small firms may have some resource constraints, we will find a way in which they can arrange with other law firms for the pupillage period to have training. The

precise rules will be set out by the Board of Legal Education subsequently.

Let me move on to Exemption Powers on which Ms Lim, Ms Lee and Mr Chiam have spoken. All three Members have expressed some concerns about the exemption powers proposed to be given to the Minister.

I think what is being missed are two points: One, this power relates only primarily to foreign graduates who are seeking to return. Graduates from our local universities go through as per the criteria that are set out in the legislation, and those are the bulk of the graduates. So, for foreign graduates, the second point that perhaps may have been overlooked is that this is not a novel development. At present, under Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules – the Minister has very substantial powers to exempt any or all of the requirements in order for a person to become a "Qualified Person". And each of these are individual decisions and not gazetted.

And overlapping with that, the current structure is somewhat byzantine in nature. Overlapping with that, is the power of the Board of Legal Education (BLE) to grant exemptions from a variety of criteria to qualify. And a common refrain has been that, can we not rationalise it a little bit? And the way we have looked at it is, let us have a logical division of areas.

We are going to set up the Institute of Legal Education next year and it makes sense to look at the entry into the profession as governed by two distinct aspects: One, the rules governing the entry; and, two, the rules that would give substance to the content of training. And content of training is ideally taken care of by the Institute of Legal Education. They

will prescribe the methods, the training contracts, after they take over from the Board of Legal Education (BLE). BLE will set it out this year and also the continuing legal education requirements. So, everything to do with training, it is sensible to put it under the Institute of Legal Education which will come, in turn, under the Academy of Law.

On the other hand, the entry criteria: who should be given exemptions if they do not qualify with some of the published rules? That is a policy decision. Ideally, it is something that, taking off from the current structure, the Minister should exercise. It is Government policy. What sort of criteria can we waive? How many lawyers do we need? Should we expand the criteria? These are issues that the Minister should decide and be answerable in Parliament here for those decisions.

Now, the criteria, by and large as we have announced, are not all that intricate. We have indicated that the whole purpose of rationalising is to make it easier for our students – Singaporeans and permanent residents – to come back and not put a whole series of hurdles in their path.

I was asked just now by Ms Lee, what sort of people will qualify. Let me give an example. Let us say we have a top quality student who has practised for two years overseas, after having qualified from one of the listed universities. He wants to come back. Look at what he has got to do now. He has got to spend a year in DipSing and then he has got to do PLC, and then he has got to do pupillage, and sometimes, very often, it is understandable as Mr de Souza reflected in this House earlier, and others have reflected, that puts off many good Singaporeans. So, we rationalise it and we can say to them, "You just do this exam, Part A Exam. If you show us that you qualify, we waive/exempt the other requirements, because you have already worked for two years". Likewise, if a person has worked

as a partner in New York in a major American law firm for seven years, do we really want him to be put through all these hoops? So, that is the reason why we are rationalising it, and we are looking at it from the perspective of education which should be under the ILE and the procedural requirements which are really policy issues. And, bearing in mind currently, the Minister has and does exercise substantive powers of exemption. It is not a new development. To that extent, I think Mr Chiam may also not have appreciated that point because he sought to contrast the current situation with that going forward. As I said, in the current situation, the Minister already has the power. Maybe Mr Chiam never had to seek it.

Let me finally deal with the impact of the measures taken. Many of our lawyers work abroad. They are highly sought after by international law firms. They are well-educated and have a reputation for hard work. Often, their Mandarin skills are also in demand. Young lawyers have been attracted to the prospects of working in Shanghai, New York or London. Given these factors, and our supply constraints, law firms in Singapore have been quite desperately short of lawyers.

We have to keep these factors in mind when we refine our admission criteria. We have to ensure that Singaporeans who have qualified overseas are able to come back and practise in Singapore without too many hurdles. They are a valuable resource.

At the same time, I think a question was asked: what is the impact of these measures this year? We have about 230 young lawyers who have applied to take Part A Bar Exams this year, compared to an average of about 80-90 in the past who have applied to sit for DipSing courses. Of course, this reflects a part of the pent-up demand.

While the world economy is not in the best situation, the law firms in Singapore – at least six law firms have been given licences – have continued to hire and increase their headcount by about 20%, and our local law firms also tell us that when the economy recovers, they expect a shortage.

While on this topic, let me deal with Prof. Tay’s last point about the pace of work in our law firms. The fast pace, and the attendant high attrition rate, in top law firms in particular, is not peculiar to Singapore. To remain competitive, our law firms have to keep pace with market demands and provide legal services to their clients that match those in other major financial centres, such as New York and London, where the pace is often even more gruelling. I for one am not particularly apologetic about the demands of the profession. Those are demands of the economy, of the clients, and we have to have lawyers who can meet those demands. There will be many who will not want to be in that environment and they have other choices. The issue of attrition of lawyers, as I said, is not peculiar to us. It is a global phenomenon, and arises not just from the hard driving nature of the profession, but also the attractiveness of the law degree which leads lawyers to landing good jobs elsewhere. A law degree is often seen as a strong qualification to move into business, into banking, into finance. And many have done very well. So I do not regard it as a negative at all, unless it reaches systemic proportions which it has not. It is not at a rate where we need to be alarmed about.

Finally, Ms Lee asked if these returning graduates – Singaporeans who come back, permanent residents and some others who can add value to our system – would use these new rules as a back-door entry and get their qualifications as a badge and then move on; and should we impose a period when

they are compulsorily forced to be lawyers. Some might consider it a sentence. I do not see a need to put in these rigidities into the market. If they want to qualify as lawyers, and they have the background qualifications, we should allow them to qualify. Whether they choose to remain as lawyers or whether they choose to go out into the market and do something else is a matter of flexibility. There is no reason to build in these rigidities and punish them because they have gone abroad and are seeking to come back. I think the idea is to make it more liberal and more open, subject always to ensuring quality.

Sir, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister on his response.

First of all, in relation to what the Minister attributed to my comments about smaller firms, what I actually said was that firms with limited scope of work would be somehow disadvantaged in getting training contracts. I did not mean that they were inadequately resourced. What I meant was, for example, firms specialising in, say, divorce law, since the report mentioned that there should be scope for transfer of trainees to different kinds of work, would such specialist firms, for example, be somehow disadvantaged in getting trainees under the Training Contract scheme?

Secondly, Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify whether he agrees with me that under the new regime, the Board of Legal Education is, in fact, significantly weakened in its decision-making power?

Ms Lim mentioned specialist law firms, say, specialising in divorce law. As I said, the rules governing the Training Contracts will come out later this year. Before the Training Contracts start, we expect that this would be taken

into account, that there are some law firms which are either under-resourced or so focused in one area that they may not be able to give their pupils a complete training. However, what is our objective? It is to ensure that the pupils are adequately trained, and that cannot be dictated by where the law firm is strong in or weak in but, at the same time, bearing in mind that some firms may have very narrow fields of specialisation. It can be accommodated by allowing the firms to get their pupils to get the additional expertise from somebody else. They can make arrangements. So the rules can provide for that degree of flexibility, so that a very specialised law firm does not have to lose its pupil but, at the same time, the pupil learns both from that law firm and at least in one or two other areas from another law firm which the first law firm can make some arrangements with.

Her second point is that the Board of Legal Education will be significantly weakened or its powers will be significantly diluted. Sir, in fact, I have indicated that the Board of Legal Education's powers will be taken over by the Institute of Legal Education by next year – that is the intention. And the real question is, does it make sense the dichotomy that I put forward, – which is, first, what are the rules that should govern exemptions?; and, second, what should be the content of legal training that is given to someone before he qualifies for the Bar, and post-qualification?

We believe that the Institute of Legal Education is best placed to deal with the second aspect and do both continuing legal education as well as pre-qualification training and set out the criteria – set out the examinations, supervise the examinations, identify who would provide the examinations, what should be the course content.

As regards the qualifying criteria, as I indicated under Rule 16 now, the Minister

has broad power of exemption to decide whether someone should be given exemptions before he or she can be considered a "Qualified Person". So it is not a novel idea but it makes much more sense to rationalise it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – (Mr Shanmugam).

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to move this motion. Sir, I beg to move,

That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.

My inspiration to speak on the subject came about a month and a half ago when I was invited by BG Tan Chuan Jin, Chairman of NDP Ex-Co 2009, to write a piece on what the National Pledge means to me. Before that, BG Tan and I had discussed at some length the meaning of the Pledge and why it is important that it is re-energised, become a living, breathing mantra for all Singaporeans.

We lamented, with a good measure of alacrity, the way we used to "get it over and done with" in school when we had to recite it – a tradition, we gathered, is held up even today! We talked about how beautifully crafted our Pledge is, and what

a waste it is that its meaning and power are not understood enough or reflected on, let alone garnered for rallying us as a people.

It was when I was writing my thoughts for the essay that I realised how powerful the Pledge is, and how much it means to me, in spirit. The process of writing the essay was cathartic as an avalanche of memories came rushing at me – memories, good and not so pleasant, that formed the basis of my belief system as a citizen of this country, my home. The National Pledge, I realised, contained the basis of who we are and what makes us unique. In fact, it holds the key to our success as a peaceful, harmonious and certainly economically successful nation. And it struck me that the National Pledge is the only document, if we could call it one, that cannot be amended by a two-thirds majority in Parliament! In effect, our National Pledge is akin to the Bill of Rights in the United States of America; it defines who we are; what we aspire to remain regardless of the realities of a fast changing world; it is about what we stand for – our credo.

It has often been said that Singapore does not have an ideology – that pragmatism is our mantra and modus operandi. But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism. It is designed to serve as the moral compass for us as a people – we lose it, ignore it, or misabuse it to our peril.

The stability provided by the National Pledge gave us, especially our Government, the confidence to take decisive steps, make quantum leaps, rapidly shift gears or change directions to keep us moving with the currents – knowing very well the boat is even keeled and will not capsize. As such, the value

of the Pledge comes into sharp relief not when the going is good, but when we are facing tough challenges, be it the current economic challenges or SARS a few years ago. During these times, when scarcity is the order of the day, the centripetal forces of race, religion, language, and class go into overdrive – our instincts and impulses become primordial. It is during these times that our mettle, our resilience as a nation is tested. We did well during the SARS outbreak, and we appear to be working together fairly well to get through the current economic crisis. But the fault lines remain. What if we were to face a national crisis today that is not based on economic or health issues but on race and religion, as we experienced the race riots of 1964? Are we confident our national impulses are entrenched enough to override the divisive, primordial instincts? If the situation worsens and our livelihood and survival as a country is in doubt, would we have enough Singapore citizens, let alone Permanent Residents (PRs), digging in our heels come what may because this is our home? I wish I could say with absolute certainty the answer is "yes". The truth is, I am not sure.

Look at the results of a scientific survey done in 2007 by the Singapore Polytechnic. Eight hundred Singaporean youth – between the ages of 15 and 29 – were polled. They all went to Singapore schools and attended National Education sessions, as required. Thirty-seven percent of the youths polled said categorically that they are not patriotic. More than 50% said they would migrate if given a chance. The findings of this survey are not very different from many others conducted with youths, younger working adults, overseas Singaporeans and even National Servicemen.

I read a July 2009 article in AsiaOne.com that quoted a major survey

by Experiences 2009 (the organiser of an annual US education convention) that highlighted that of the 153 Singaporean students studying overseas polled, 79% prefer to work in the USA after they graduate. Earlier this year, at Chung Cheng High School’s 70th anniversary celebration, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed that more than one-fifth of the students who performed well in their "A" level examination between 1996 and 1999 are no longer working in Singapore today, a decade later. Now even though these findings may not be surprising for some of us, they must certainly become a cause for concern.

To me, the biggest challenge we face, as a nation, is not so much the sluggish GDP growth or flight of capital. It is not about whether we have enough able bodies here to create economic prosperity, but whether we have enough hearts and souls committed enough to make this home, not just a convenient place to live, work and play.

We need to ask ourselves if we are an "Inc" or a nation. If we are content to define ourselves as an "Inc", then our focus should be on the top and bottom lines and ensuring shareholder returns in quantifiable terms. But if we want to be defined as a nation, then it is imperative that we balance quantifiable outcomes and technical KPIs with emotion-based outcomes such as racial and religious harmony, and peace and happiness. To achieve this, society needs to place a premium on and reward commitment, comradeship and conviction – qualities that provide the resilience needed to face a sea of troubles; that remain consistent regardless of the fortunes of the day; that form the ultimate buffer against uncertainties during tumultuous times. This is a key point highlighted most lucidly by our Prime Minister two days ago in his National Day Rally speech.

The tenets of the National Pledge point to what we need to do to build and

sustain this resilience, this tenacity, this self-efficacy. But it will not serve us well if we merely pay lip-service to the Pledge and recite it as a ritual without internalising what it means.

We need to give our National Pledge the importance due to it as the ultimate glue that binds us as a people. We got a sense of the emotive power of the Pledge during National Day this year, when at 8.22 in the evening, the whole nation breathed it together. Many of my friends told me how emotional a moment it was for them and their family – and here we are talking about quite a lot of people whom you could not possibly imagine had the capacity to think beyond the sex appeal of numbers and digits! My ten-year old daughter, Maya, told me she felt she was saying the Pledge for the first time because it was the first time she said it with feeling. My wife told me being at this year’s National Day Parade gave her hope, and a stronger belief that, deep down, we are one united people. My business partner, who is a PR, said it made her feel Singaporean and proud of it.

The emphasis on the Pledge cannot be incidental or utilitarian. We need to commit to ensuring that every time each one of us recites the National Pledge, we say it with commitment. For this, we must ensure all citizens from young understand it beyond the words. Most importantly, we in Parliament must lead the way by demonstrating that no national policy or Bill will be passed if it goes contrary to the letter or spirit of the Pledge. Better still, if we can reaffirm our commitment to the tenets of the National Pledge – that they have primacy when considering national policies, especially economic policies.

So, what are the key tenets of the National Pledge? Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to take the House through each

of the four key tenets and share my thoughts on what they mean to me and how we have fared and what we need to do to address them more, going forward.

Let me start with the idea of Citizenship – "We the citizens of Singapore".

Born in the year 1959, the year we gained self-ruling status, I have had the opportunity to experience the steady, sometimes tumultuous, evolution of Singapore – and to a large extent this has shaped my idea of citizenship and commitment to country. Seeing the strapping, young Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew speak at the Fullerton Square arguing passionately for merger with Malaysia, and then the excitement of Merdeka Day on the 16th September 1963 when we became part of Malaysia, and learning that the Hibiscus was now our national flower; witnessing the racial riots as a boy, experiencing the tense environment of the curfew; trying to figure out why our Prime Minister was in tears as he talked on black and white TV on the 9th August about our independence – something that should normally call for celebrations; I remember the feeling of pride, even as a boy, as I watched our first National Day Parade on TV in 1966 with President Yusof Bin Ishak in full ceremonial attire reviewing the parade at the Padang; and then in 1967, the obvious trepidation parents felt when their sons were called up for National Service – how quite a few of my friends and family chose to leave the country because of it; the British announcing their pull-out and many losing their jobs including my father and uncle; the single-minded drive to industrialise and with it the creation of jobs and modernisation of the country – the transport system, buildings, proliferation of HDB flats; and at a personal level when I was in secondary one, having to vacate the old Raffles Institution (built in 1823 by Sir Stamford Raffles) when we marched as a school to the spanking new

premises replete with an Olympic sized swimming pool which was a rarity then at Grange Road.

What dramatic changes we have seen, and benefited from in just 50 years – that Prime Minister Lee illustrated during the National Day Rally. It was not just nostalgia for me. I felt this surge of pride, as I am sure many other Singaporeans did, during the visual treat by our Prime Minister with his witty asides!

National Day, especially in recent years, has been an occasion for me to reflect on how far we have come as a nation, a people – how we moved from black and white to colour and now different shades of each colour. How from being preoccupied with getting water in our homes and sanitation, and ensuring our children get their BCG injections, today our concerns are with quality of life, travel, upgrading our home and, for an increasing number, freedom of expression.

I am humbled by what we have achieved in just over 40 years – what I have been given the opportunity to have and enjoy. While lapping up the comforts of the day, how could we forget the journey here; the tough and rough corners we had to negotiate. How could we not pause to appreciate, if not salute, the many champions – leaders and unsung heroes alike – who got us here. It was service to the nation (even when we were hardly a nation) and self belief, self efficacy that propelled them. Many of them may not have known what JFK said about asking not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country – they lived it. Many of these were everyday people, people I knew growing up – people I had conversations with; people who taught me the importance of believing and striving. I

understood the meaning of being a citizen from these unschooled stalwarts.

Citizenship is not a concept – it is something you live, breathe and feel, deeply. For this reason, I believe it is futile for us to talk in technical or legalistic terms about citizenship – rights, obligations, fairness!

Just as it would be odd to talk about rights and obligations as a son or daughter when it comes to protecting our parents and our family, in my view, it does not make much sense for us to ask why, as citizens, we should serve our country. Would we have got here if our forefathers thought along similar lines – their sacrifices are immeasurable. For this reason, as a citizen and National Serviceman, I say let us drop the term National Service "liability". It should be National Service "commitment". The words I was introduced to, made to understand experientially as an officer cadet in SAF in 1978, still ring true in my heart – "Duty, Honour, Country".

If this is how a citizen ought to feel – unqualified commitment to country – what then is the "duty" of the country to us? Citizens should be made to feel our commitment is appreciated and not taken for granted. Rewards and privileges must be significant and discernable, and accorded without being asked for. Until recently, the only differentiator was that citizens could vote during elections – something that many hardly see as a privilege given the one party dominance in local politics and the fact that about half the wards are not contested in a General Election. Recently, there has been some effort in drawing a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs, in healthcare, for example. But this is not enough. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to still feel that they are taken for granted. Yes, we see the need to augment our resources by bringing in foreign talent, for economic reasons primarily. But if we do

not pay more attention to the sentiments of citizens in this regard, especially in areas such as competition for jobs and national service commitment, we could face a further erosion of rootedness and commitment to country. The consequences of this should be evident. I am aware this is a complex issue, but the Government must pay more attention to this, and this House must remind it to do so.

The country, through the Government, is also expected to be accountable to citizens. And this accountability must be visible. People’s views and concerns must be sought and heard, and acted up. Where the Government cannot address citizens’ views and concerns, it must explain the reasons. Yes, this may be tedious and at times could slow things down for Government, but it must be done. Similarly, when citizens challenge the Government on issues and policies, the response needs to comes across as being sincere and not unduly robust and intimidating on the one hand and callous and cavalier on the other.

Citizenship also comes with the right to expressing views and concerns without fear of reprisal. The climate of fear, that loomed large right up to the late 80s, is not so evident today – but I still come across people who say they are afraid to speak up on matters they feel strongly about because they are afraid of consequences. Half in jest they point to the sprinkler sensors and ask if they are indeed sprinklers. But only half in jest. The Government has come some way in its actions to ameliorate this concern, but I feel more can be done, because a climate of fear, no matter how mild, can erode our sense of ownership and affect rootedness. The Government should be happy when people rise to state why they disagree with policies even if it is conveyed as robustly as the Government’s own responses to the people – it shows that we care.

Where you see

anger, you are likely to find passion and commitment. The Government can afford to "chill" more and be less thin-skinned! There is a distinct difference between being pro-Singapore and anti-government. In this regard, the "social contract" between the Government and the people established in the 1960s needs to be better tailored to suit the higher level needs of citizens today. The Government must address this better and faster, not as a tactical consideration to extend the longevity of rule but because it is simply the right thing to do. It is not a legal but a moral imperative.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second tenet of the Pledge is that we strive to become a "united people, regardless of race, language or religion."

We live in a pluralistic world – people with diverse backgrounds, interests, beliefs and goals. It is challenging to unite people, but we cannot and should not give up the belief that we can build a collective reflex. This reflex is not a function of economics or material goals but built on a deep belief system that all of us – regardless of our station in life – can relate to. It is more than a shared interest. It has to be a core belief that we share, that connects with our sense of self, our worth, identity, our aspirations. It must make us feel good about ourselves as a people, knowing that it is unique to us. It has to have the power to transcend the social, political and economic differences amongst us.

To find what this core belief is, we need to go beyond the obvious; beyond the formulaic prescriptions that may have worked before. We need to move from the "what we do, and do well" paradigm towards addressing the question, "what do we stand for, as a people?".

For me, what we can claim is uniquely Singaporean that is admired by many would include our multi-racial, multi-religious make-up; our honest, trans-

parent, reliable set-up; and the principle of equal opportunity that we will not give up. These are values that we have built up over the years, and today have become an intrinsic part of our psyche, our culture as a people. Time and time again, my friends and visitors from overseas remind me of how lucky we are to be in an environment with such a high level of racial and religious harmony – that we should not take it for granted and, yes, we are guilty of taking this for granted. We need to take pains to illustrate these values experientially to our younger generation so that we do not risk losing them.

In order to prevent healthy scepticism in our people, especially our young, from becoming entrenched cynicism, we, as a society, need to address apparent contradictions and mixed signals. Examples are the issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism, the need for ethnic based self-help groups, the need for us to maintain the current racial distribution in society, and whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister. We have come a long way since the late Mr S Rajaratnam gave us the National Pledge. Much has changed along the way, sometimes for the better and other times posing a challenge to national unity. The terrorist threat is a case in point – it has set us back in our efforts to build trust and a social compact. We need to avoid becoming alarmist. But we cannot afford to be complacent and stick to the assumptions relevant in the years before.

I am heartened by the Government’s proactive approach in ensuring that racial harmony and our social compact are not threatened. Initiatives such as the IRCCs and the Community Engagement Programme, and the creation of organisations such as OnePeople.com can

go some way in building resilience in this area. Likewise, lucid and timely articulation of the Government’s unwavering stance against any elements whose words or actions could undermine inter racial-religious trust has helped send the desired signal to the ground. Senior Minister Prof. S Jayakumar’s considered thoughts on why it is foolhardy to take racial harmony for granted captured in his interview published in the Straits Times last month is a good example of this. And, of course, Prime Minister Lee’s clear, honest and inspiring articulation of the same point in his National Day Rally speech is timely. To me, being complacent about our racial harmony based on what we see on the smooth surface is akin to skating on thin ice: we assume from the surface that the ground is solid, but all it takes is one crack to deepen and spread into a network of cracks. By the time we realise how thin the ice really is, it may be too late.

We need to move forward in a leap of faith: that, yes, there are fault lines and some have deepened and widened, but the bonds that have come to bind us at a basic level since the 1960s can endure if we choose to focus on it. What we must avoid is overt propaganda, which can be counter-productive. Instead, we should seek to deepen the primordial ties between communities using sports, arts and culture and the mass media as agents. Talking about the media, let me suggest something the TV media should do in this regard. When TV came to Singapore in 1963, there was just one channel – so we watched all programmes regardless of language. Then it became two channels – Channel 5 in English and Malay, and Channel 8 in Mandarin and Tamil. What was interesting, as a result, and because it was not that convenient to switch channels (there was no remote control then), Tamil newsreaders were recognised in Chinatown. Likewise, Chinese newscasters had star status when they went to Little India! Today,

with each ethnic community having our own channels, we have lost the opportunity to cross-fertilise through the media! It must and it would be useful to have a policy for each vernacular channel to carry more stories or features about what is happening in the other communities. This is not happening enough today.

The third key tenet of the Pledge is about building a "democratic society based on justice and equality".

I am very thankful that my father chose to make Singapore his home when he came here with a few dollars in his pocket in the 1940s. Yes, it is far from perfect here. I certainly have issues with many things in my country, but would I wish to raise my 10-year-old daughter anywhere else? The answer is a clear "no".

Yes, I do lament our lack of freedom to express ourselves, and the Government’s seemingly unmitigated grip on power and what appears to be an inconsistent willingness to listen to public sentiment that does not suit it.

Yet, how can I not appreciate what I have received from my country in spite of these setbacks, and in some cases because of them. Equal opportunity, meritocracy and pragmatism were the underlying principles of governance that allowed us to grab opportunities and prosper.

However, even as we hold on to these values, we need to recognise that the lay of the land has changed, and drastically, in some ways. The freedom for citizens to express themselves, a free press and a truly level playing field in politics for a credible multi-party system to evolve – all of which are fundamentals of democracy – were placed on the backburners to make way for progress and prosperity, I feel. Perhaps we needed to accept the

trade-off as part of the social contract. The outcome of progress was affluence, and an educated and sophisticated populace whose needs have gone several notches higher. A roof over the head, a clean living environment, a good education and good healthcare system – today, these are for many Singaporeans nothing more than basic factors; things any good government is expected to deliver. In short, the Government has created conditions for success, which in turn today gives it the challenge of managing that success and the expectations that come with it.

Accountability requires the Government to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater democracy, civil liberties and choices. In the political arena, a more level playing field especially in the management of elections and media coverage. What is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but substance. Yes, it is ridiculous to expect the incumbent party in Government to facilitate the opposition parties to win more seats in Parliament. But what is asked for is that the Government desist from making it more difficult than necessary in an unfair and undemocratic manner for the opposition to gain success – through last minute changes in electoral boundaries, or a lack of media coverage or what can sometimes be seen as a biased coverage. In my view, it is the duty of a responsible government to help evolve a political climate that encourages greater interest in and participation from the people. If not, people are likely to feel increasingly alienated and disenfranchised resulting in apathy and, worse cynicism. I fear this is already happening.

But thanks to the advent of the Internet and new media, there appears to be a resurgence of interest in the people to engage in debate on issues. I think there is a growing sense of restlessness and even helplessness with what is viewed as a media that is aligned with the

Government. Many in this group are now vacillating towards cyberspace, seeking out and contributing contrary viewpoints, often expressedly anti-establishment. This is gaining momentum, given the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, and the growing number of net savvy Singaporeans and PRs. While some illuminating and thought provoking ideas are raised in the cyber sites, it is not uncommon to find misinformation and at times, I suspect, even disinformation circulating. The tone can be angry and sometimes downright caustic seasoned with a good dose of vulgarities. What is giving this new 'movement' life and momentum is essentially the perception that the mainstream media tows the Government’s line because it is required to. We can sit here and debate whether this is true or not. But for me that is not what is critical. What is important is for us to acknowledge that there is a challenge here – the mainstream media needs to gain greater credibility in the eyes of the people, and must not be seen as functioning to serve the interest of the establishment. The current situation is certainly not healthy for the Government or the country as it nurtures a "them versus us" climate that could become unnecessarily adversarial.

Pragmatism as a modus operandi may have worked well to get us here, but going forward, the Government has to accept that the end will not always be seen as justifying the means. Especially with the triumphant advent of the Internet driven new media, there is bound to be greater scrutiny of inconsistencies between societal ethos as enshrined in the National Pledge and the Constitution, and actions and statements on the ground. This is an inevitable outcome of success and being plugged into the international grid. As we continue to strive for economic progress, we must be guided and, where necessary, even

constrained by what the fundamentals of our National Pledge are as spoken through the words "democracy", "justice" and "equality". Underscoring the sentiments of these words would be respect, accountability and fairness.

The notion of justice is intrinsically linked to fairness. When justice, especially in the way it is meted out, deviates significantly from the common man’s sense of fairness, questions of legitimacy arise. This, I believe, is the basis and value of common law. In this regard, the Government needs to listen more carefully to the ground and address disquiet and unease in response to specific policies and practices. Examples would be the ground sentiment about the string of libel suits filed by PAP leaders against various Opposition party leaders, and the second round of increases in the pay of Ministers and senior civil servants soon after a two percentage point increase in GST. I am not suggesting that the Government be populist and adjust good policies to pander to popular sentiment. This Government has earned the respect of many – here and abroad – for coming up with effective policies and being decisive in implementation. My point is that the Government can do more to find out why for certain policies and practices there was such a strong reaction from a generally accommodating people. Just as important is for the Government to take pains to address the key causes for the reaction by going the extra mile in persuading on the rationale for the policy in question and, where necessary, review the policy.

The last tenet I would like to discuss is what it means to "achieve happiness, prosperity and progress".

When the National Pledge was crafted in the 1960s, life and aspirations were relatively simple. Common wisdom dictated that economic prosperity and

progress led to happiness. And, quite often, this was right.

Today, the scenario is quite different. Society is more sophisticated – better educated, travelled, exposed to thoughts, ideas and ideals, people are given to making different life choices as a result. And options are growing, especially with globalisation and greater mobility. Unlike before, there is a growing disjoint between national priorities and those of the individual. It is not unfashionable today for people to take the path not taken, to do what gives them maximum satisfaction, even if it means economic prosperity is a trade-off. The growing number of successful professionals who have chosen to go into the arts and social work/enterprise is indication of this trend. Similarly, I see more people being disillusioned with being on the fast track, especially after seeing how "greed" has resulted in the current global meltdown and the suffering that has come with it. Many are vacillating towards a balanced lifestyle, while a growing number is looking to spirituality and philosophy for answers.

While our enduring mantra "society above self" is worthy and has served us well as a nation, given the realities of the day, we need to pay more attention to the needs of the individual. After all, individuals make society and, by extension, happy individuals with a sense of accomplishment in whatever their fields are, will have a positive, sustainable effect on the happiness quotient of society. This, in turn, will have a bearing on prosperity and progress.

4.59 pm

Perhaps we need to reverse the cause-effect relationship between these two desired outcomes. Traditional thinking

would suggest that prosperity, defined usually in economic terms, is the cause and happiness is the effect. Now, with research showing that happy people are more productive and driven and therefore have a higher potential for career success, it may make sense for us to pursue happiness as a necessary condition for sustainable economic success. Naturally, this is counter-intuitive but if we are prepared to think out of the box, it may just make sense.

Regardless of whether economic prosperity is a cause or effect, one thing is clear – happiness is a higher goal. It must be.

If so, let us now evaluate whether our economic policies have indeed resulted in or at least contributed to happiness. GDP has always been a key indicator of economic performance. Our per capita GDP has risen exponentionally over the past 44 years. According to figures from the Department of Statistics, in Singapore dollar terms and in nominal terms, Singapore’s per capita GDP grew from $1,567 in 1965 to a whopping $53,192 last year – certainly, it is one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Without doubt, this is something we should be proud of and thank the Government for.

But when we look closer at what constitutes the GDP, there is cause for concern. According to data, profits make up about 46% of Singapore’s GDP, which according to economists I spoke to, is extremely high compared to other developed economies. And from what I understand, half of this high profit share goes to the coffers of foreign-owned companies with operations here. What is left in the GDP pie to directly benefit Singaporeans is therefore a relatively small amount. According to a recent article in the Edge by economist Manu Bhaskaran, and I quote:

"This could be why even though Singapore’s per capita GDP is roughly 11% higher than Hong Kong’s, our per capita consumption is about 21% lower that Hong Kong’s. If we take per capita consumption as a better indicator of welfare, then simply going for high growth per se does not guarantee that we will achieve the best possible welfare outcome for Singaporeans."

I am not saying that per capita consumption should replace per capita GDP as the leading indicator for economic well being. What I am highlighting is that per capita GDP or GDP for that matter, as indicators have limitations. Perhaps the Government should look at a bundle of indicators to get a better picture of how economic performance is benefiting the people.

On the point about happiness, there is another observation I would like to share that should be a matter of concern to all of us – income inequality. According to figures from CIA World Factbook, Singapore ranks as one of the highest in the world in terms of income inequality. The Gini Index is the measurement of income inequality – the higher the Gini coefficient, the worse the level of inequality. Based on 2008 figures, Singapore has a Gini coefficient of 48.10 – which is much higher than other countries in Asia including China, Malaysia and the Philippines. In fact, it would appear that Singapore is closer to many under-developed countries in the Gini Index.

Income inequality is certainly not a desirable thing – it certainly cannot be a contributor of happiness in society as a whole. But I did not realise that, in fact, studies have shown that income inequality has a strong bearing on happiness and mental well being of individuals and societies. According to Equality Trust, a London-based organisation, studies have shown that, "inequality

makes life more stressful … (it) divides people by increasing the social distances between us and the widening differences in living standards and lifestyles." In a study conducted by Equality Trust of more than 23 countries all over the world, Singapore has the highest level of income inequality but second lowest in terms of trust amongst the people.

One can argue that the figures I have quoted may not be accurate or that it is one out of many studies with different findings? That may be the case, but can we or should we summarily dismiss these findings. What if there is truth in what is stated? If indeed happiness and quality of life are higher order goals and economic growth and jobs are a means to achieving those goals, then we should ask ourselves if we need to rethink how we are managing things, and perhaps see how we can do things better. We may not need to do a complete turnaround, but it looks like some adjustments may be warranted.

The final point I would like to make about happiness and sharing of prosperity pertains to the plight of two groups of people in society – the very poor and the elderly.

Financial aid for the poorest of the poor in society is not a fresh issue. Members in this House have argued for Public Assistance (PA) to this group to go up. According to MCYS, there are about 3,000 families who fall into this category – defined as people unable to work due to illness or disability, with little or no means to finances. The latest upward revisions to the Public Assistance rates are, for example, for an individual – from $330 a month to $360 a month, a $30 increase! For a four-person family, the PA increased from $830 a month to $950 per month, a $120 increase for four persons.

Yes, we do not want to become a welfare state. But what has that got to

do with an elected Government’s responsibility to provide the basic needs of a small group of citizens who, it has been established, cannot fend for themselves because of illness or disability. The Government’s response to calls for increasing Public Assistance grants has been that we should avoid creating a dependency on handouts, which in turn could become a disincentive for working for a living. As such, the Government’s view has been to provide a very basic level of assistance which will be supplemented by what the community and grassroots organisations can provide. Yes, this is possible, but why should it be an expectation imposed on these organisations when Government does appear to be in a strong enough financial position to provide the necessary assistance directly? Even if we talk about doubling the Public Assistance for a four-member family from $950 per month by $1,000, it would amount to $36 million to benefit 3,000 families or 12,000 needy Singaporeans for a whole year to cover the increase! Our GDP for year 2008 was $257 billion and Foreign Reserves officially estimated to be in excess of $250 billion. It is not just about providing for their welfare per se, it is about allowing them a measure of dignity as they struggle with poverty. It is about ensuring their children get good, nutritious meals and a decent level of comfort and security at home to have a decent chance at doing well in school and making it in life. It is a small investment in happiness and dignity for our citizens. I do hope the Government will, over time, relent on this issue. I am confident that this is something most Singaporeans desire.

The other group that deserves special attention and appears in deficit of happiness comprises those in their 70s, 80s and 90s – Singaporeans who worked hard to lay the foundation for what we are enjoying today. Veteran journalist, Mr P N Balji, in a comment piece in TODAY recently referred to them as the "Merdeka

Generation". He laments the plight of those in this group who are "bedridden … breaking their backs cleaning up after us in food outlets and even being pushed in wheelchairs by the maids at some of our parks." Do we not feel, as an affluent society, a conscionable people, a good Government, that these senior citizens – our grandparents - deserve better? Do they need to fend for themselves in this manner? We owe them dignity and respect. I echo Mr P N Balji’s call: "It is time to start thinking of another pledge, this time for our Merdeka Generation: We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge to look after our Merdeka Generation by taking care of their needs and wants in a way that they can live their golden years in happiness and look back at the nation they helped create with joy and pride."

Madam, if we agree that the National Pledge is the document that comes closest to capturing who we are, and what we stand for as a nation, then it behoves us as Members of Parliament to give it due importance – as a primary reference when we debate major national policies and practices. It is important for us to ensure alignment of policies with the key tenets of the Pledge. For this to happen instinctively, which is what we need to aspire to, we need to develop a stronger collective reflex that is faithful to the Pledge.

To facilitate this, I would like to make three specific suggestions: First, I believe it would be useful to have a review of all existing major policies and practices to check for significant contradictions with the key tenets of the Pledge – resulting in mixed signals being sent to the ground which in turn could create confusion and disengagement or worse, cynicism. This is an important exercise that should involve participation of the public, private and people sectors. We will benefit not only from the outcome, but the process itself which will help us build a better national

collective reflex. I can see an organisation such as REACH spearheading this initiative, together with the CDCs and OnePeople.com.

Allow me to highlight a few areas where we may find these mixed signals that I am talking about. First, over the years, we have, I feel, become very race conscious as a people. In almost everything we do, we are reminded of, and asked about our race. Starting with the NRIC, and in almost all application forms – schools, jobs, marriage, clubs and even when signing up for a cooking course at a Community Centre. Then, the creation of ethnic self-help groups, such as Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and the Eurasian Association, I feel they have all inadvertently exacerbated the problem. Even media reports on crime see the need to highlight the race of the criminal and go a step further in describing him as dark or fair in complexion. Do not get me wrong, I do see value in some of these initiatives and actions. I am currently serving as Vice President of the Executive Committee of SINDA and have been an active contributor for more than a decade – I can see the practical need for such an organisation and the contribution it makes. I can also understand that for data collection and study of trends it is useful and sometimes necessary to capture the race of the individual. All I am saying is that we need to study this practice carefully and with an open mind, with a view to finding ways to amend or tweak the practices to better manage mixed signals that do confuse. Many young people I have spoken to have highlighted this apparent contradiction with the "regardless of race" tenet of the Pledge. Principals and teachers I have spoken to have also raised this issue.

Another example of an area that the review could look at are policies pertaining to foreign workers. We understand the

economic and business justification for this, but there continues to be the undesirable effect of wages of Singaporean workers in this category getting depressed. I understand the NTUC is trying to address this issue, but from what I have gathered from talking to lower skilled Singaporean workers, their wages have come down. This cannot be a source of happiness for these workers even though there is prosperity for the nation.

The second broad suggestion I have to help align policies with the tenets of the Pledge is that we need to urgently address the issue of rootedness and commitment to nation. I view this as a time-bomb ticking in our midst. There is enough evidence that there is a lack of a sense of rootedness on the ground, especially in younger Singaporeans. This could be attributed to many factors which would include a lack of knowledge and understanding of our history and current affairs, a lack of meaningful engagement on matters of national concern, and easier prospects for leaving the country. I do not believe our youth are apathetic. In fact, when effectively engaged they can have strong and constructive ideas and often the commitment to walk the talk. What puzzles me is how come we are in this situation even though we have had National Education, and before that, when I was in school, civic education, for decades now? It cannot just be because the young of today have not experienced the difficult times in the earlier years of nationhood.

I suspect it could partly be because, as a society, we seem to have lost the oral tradition of sharing experiences and telling stories. We need to revive this, and fast, while we still have enough people of the older generation who have the stories and are in a condition to share them. The other contributing factor could be that those assigned to "teach" National Education (NE) may themselves not be

sufficiently motivated to do so. Perhaps our teachers are too bogged down with work to have the bandwidth necessary to impart NE with conviction. Also, I suspect that a subject like NE is best conveyed through informal activities and not through formal lectures with the indispensable power-point slides. There could be other more salient reasons or challenges. I feel it is necessary for us to do a systematic review of how we can increase the sense of rootedness and commitment especially of our younger brethren – and this would need to include an open-minded review, and rethink if necessary, on how NE is taught, and how NE initiatives could be better coordinated with similar activities by OnePeople.com and the Community Engagement Programme managed by MHA. In terms of improving the knowledge our youths have about our history and current affairs, I would recommend a systematic revival of importance given to subjects such as history and geography in schools, which in the recent past have been relegated as being "soft subjects" that provide less utility than science subjects.

More than teaching these subjects, I hope we can find a way to inject curiosity, interest and fascination in our youth, so that they would be motivated to find out more as a life-long journey of inquiry. Recently, I met a young lady who had a good honours degree from a local university who did not know the difference between the President of Singapore and the Prime Minister. It is not just confounding but upsetting to be confronted by such realities. Something is very wrong here. Whatever the case might be, one thing is clear to me – what we have right now has not worked well enough, and if we do not intervene promptly and creatively, the tenet of being a united people may not happen in substance.

My third and final suggestion seeks to help align our current policies and rules

with conventional principles of democracy. From the late 1960s there were stringent rules that may have discouraged active political activism, even participation. Detention of political activists under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and media controls, whether real or perceived, right or wrong, created a climate of fear that inhibited political participation. Over the years, in my view, this could have crystalised into a political culture of apathy and disinterest. This in turn exacerbated an already fragile sense of rootedness and a lack of patriotism. Our senior political leaders have been highlighting the challenges they have been facing in persuading the best and the brightest to serve in political leadership, and why salaries had to be significantly high to help them make the decision to come on board. This situation does not augur well for Singapore on many fronts – it poses problems in succession planning, retards socio-political resilience and could result in brain drain the moment we face a serious enough crisis.

For these reasons, it is imperative that we consciously and proactively start the process of re-politicisation – to get people, especially the youth, interested and involved not only in social work but political matters. A good place to start this would be our universities, which have been the traditional base of political interest and activism. Political associations should be encouraged, and campus rallies should be allowed once again. I know that for some of us in the House, especially for Minister Mentor Lee, this suggestion could be somewhat heretical as unpleasant memories of the 1960s and 1970s are still fresh in the mind. But we are indeed dealing with a very different Singapore today: people are generally politically apathetic, risk averse, more educated, affluent and so stakes are higher. Regardless of the changed circumstances, there is, as always, the residual and potent energy of youth which today is channelled increasingly towards

activism in cyberspace creating an underground culture that may not always be constructive. If we read the content in the blogs and internet sites we can sense restlessness, frustration and even anger. It is my firm belief that if the mainstream environment comes across less sanitised and more politically engaging, we will, in due course, see a healthy migration of these energies. This is good because in the mainstream there is a greater level of transparency and accountability. But this will only happen if there is real and discernable relaxation of rules pertaining to political participation and activism. Today, there still is a climate of fear though a lot less prevalent than before. This will change if the right signals are given, clearly and unequivocally. And only the Government can do this.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we are at a point of inflexion – an opportunity to change; to reverse some trends and attitudes that are detrimental to our progress, indeed our survivability, as a nation. This Government has time and again demonstrated the ability and will to change course when it is deemed to be in the best interest of society – the 1987 reversal of the "stop at two" policy, the introduction of the IRs and then the F1 Grand Prix are just some examples. We now need to demonstrate the same will and courage in other areas that have a strong bearing on our resilience as a people, a nation – specifically, areas I have taken the time to elucidate.

Yes, in recent years especially, we have seen the Government opening up and paying more attention to some of the points highlighted. But there have been mixed signals which are confusing to the ground and this does not incentivise sufficient positive action. Incremental change is generally prudent and less disruptive, but I fear this may not be

enough to address the issues I have raised. The clock is ticking. We need to act fast and radical changes may be called for to get the desired outcome.

Yes, there are risks. There will always be risks in change. But that has not and should not stop us from doing what is right. I put it to the House that, in this instance, inaction is not an option.

We need faith. Faith in our people’s capacity for good judgment. Faith that Singaporeans will not abuse what is given to them – the privileges, the choices. Faith that we will value the increased space for expression and action and use it well, and appreciate the support given to us in times of need. Yes, there will always be some who will go the other way, but let us not punish the rest of society for this. This Government has good reason to trust the people – Singaporeans have stood by this Government through thick and thin for 50 years. To a good extent, this is demonstration of faith in a government that has, by and large, been upright, effective, responsive and consistently delivered on promises. It is time now for the Government to reciprocate – by demonstrating the same measure of faith in the people.

I say to the Government and to this House, let us take a chance on our people, on ourselves. Let us act on the firm belief that our National Pledge will serve as a bright shining light that keeps us on track. We have reason to believe that we will succeed if we are faithful to the Pledge that was crafted 44 years ago with passion, conviction and foresight by our founding leaders in their infinite wisdom.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you, once again, for the opportunity to move this motion.

Question proposed.

5.21 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this motion. I agree to second this motion because I felt it is timely. The theme for this 44th National Day and 50th year of our independence is for us to come together reaching out, reaching out.

The focal point of this year's Parade was at 8.22 pm when the call went out to all Singapore citizens to rise and recite the Pledge together. What resonated with me was that we recited the Pledge together. The fact that everyone was reciting those same words together, whether at the floating platform or in different parts of Singapore, or indeed in different parts of the world, gave the moment even greater significance.

I spoke to several people after the Parade. They all told me that this was a significant moment for them. Yes, there were some who were caught by surprise and there were some who did not take part. But, and large, many of those whom I spoke to said they were moved by the moment. They said it was a timely reminder of what we stand for and what we must continue to uphold for our future.

Mr Sadasivan has covered many points in his speech. I do not intend to revisit all of them. However, I feel I must express my disagreement with three issues that he has raised. First, he has raised the accountability of the Government to the people. As an elected Member of this House, we are always accountable to the people on the ground, in our constituency, through our residents and to Singaporeans as a whole. We are accountable on a daily basis for everything that we do. When elections come around, we are ultimately accountable. I, therefore, cannot agree that there is a lack of accountability.

Second, I do not agree that there is a climate of fear among our people. In fact, my experience on the ground has shown the opposite. People are not afraid to speak up for what they believe in and against Government policies that they disagree with. This feedback is received through numerous channels, including my email box, on a daily basis. It would appear that the younger the generation, the more vociferous they are about their disagreement. Therefore, I do not think that participation is lacking. This is not viewed in a bad light but instead is considered seriously by the Government.

Third, I cannot agree that this Government does not listen in response to the concerns of the people. In my view, the opposite is true. There are numerous channels of communication between the Government and the people. Ministers also make an effort to explain policies not only in this House but also on the ground. Singaporeans are given every opportunity to engage the Government and have their views heard. Inevitably, some will disagree but, ultimately, the decision lies with the Government and they are accountable for that decision to the people at the ballot box.

In fact, what contradicts the climate of fear that Mr Sadasivan has spoken about is that he stands in this House today and he is able to express his views openly and freely without fear of reprisal. My disagreement is also a demonstration of the democratic process at work. The Government's adherence to the tenets of our Pledge has brought us to where we are today. That said, it is perhaps timely that we reaffirm our commitment to that.

Madam, let me move on to the portion of the Pledge that I would like to speak about. It is the opening sequence which reads, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion."

The challenge that we face going forward is to remain a "united people, regardless of race, language or religion." Indeed, this is a very substantial topic. But I would like to highlight three areas that I believe this House would have to consider in the days to come. They are: keeping Singaporeans connected to Singapore and united in the face of globalisation, uniting with new Singaporeans, and our unity in the face of rising religiosity.

I was invited to speak at the annual Temasek seminar a few weeks ago. This is a seminar organised by MINDEF to engage a group of top students from our junior colleges and polytechnics. The theme for the speech was "Our Home, Our Future, Our Singapore". Naturally, being students who would soon have to decide on their tertiary education in what they do with their lives thereafter, the topic of globalisation and whether they would continue to live and work in Singapore arose during the question-and-answer session. To my surprise, a handful of students openly expressed their view that they felt no connection to Singapore and would not have a problem moving to another country to live and work. Some other students were unsure what they would do and, therefore, non-committal. Happily, some students affirmed their commitment to make Singapore their home but the majority of students were silent. After the seminar, I approached various groups of students and asked them whether they were surprised that their friends and fellow students had expressed the desire to leave Singapore. They said they were not. Apparently, this was the subject discussed in their circles. What they were surprised about was the fact that some of their cohort were bold enough to express their desire to leave Singapore in an open forum. This is certainly a worrying trend. The fact that some of our youth do not feel a connection to Singapore and are ready to

leave means that they are not one united people. Many reasons were cited by those who declared that they would leave. The main ones were that they felt there were more opportunities abroad and that some of their family members had migrated, so they, too, will migrate.

Our dilemma is that in our globalised economy, we cannot stop Singaporeans from venturing out and living and working overseas. In fact, in many ways we encourage it because we need to expand our markets and economy. We need some of our best talents to go out into the world gain invaluable experience and skills which they can then bring home to benefit Singapore. The crucial thing is that they return. In order for that to happen, they have to feel rooted to Singapore. But how do we keep them connected to Singapore? This is by no means an easy question to answer. I think that involves a certain level of constant engagement, perhaps just enough to remind them that we are still here and we look forward to them coming back. It might also involve reminding them of the many positive attributes of Singapore. We can assert the familiarity of family and friends from different cultures and religions all co-existing harmoniously, our security and stability, our gastronomic draw, our clean and green city landscape, and the buzz of the new cityscape as depicted in the URA video that the Prime Minister screened during his Rally speech.

Currently, our overseas Singapore units and our overseas missions carry out this engagement. They organise Singapore days and smaller gatherings for overseas Singaporeans. The task that they have of keeping Singaporeans connected is not an easy one but I would encourage them to keep up their efforts and step them up where possible. Come what may, we cannot give up.

Let me touch on the second issue, which is uniting new members of our

society and those of us whom I will term "old" Singaporeans, that is, those who are born here and have lived here for all or most of their lives. The low birth rate coupled with an outflow of talent have left a gap in our talent pool. The worry is that in time to come there will not be enough people to facilitate our growth and development. We have all heard the irrefutable arguments we cannot progress without attracting more people to make Singapore their home. However, as we know, allowing more people to become new Singaporeans and make Singapore their home is not without its own difficulties. People of different races and religions who have grown up in other countries have their own customs, practices and ways of life. These are often different from our local customs and ways of life.

These differences may give rise to friction which is exacerbated by the fact that living space is scarce in Singapore and a lot of the time we have to share our common space.

Friction arises between new Singaporeans and old Singaporeans often because of a lack of understanding of familiarity with each other's customs, living habits and practices. New Singaporeans need to be acquainted with our local customs, practices and living habits. Old Singaporeans also need to be tolerant of new Singaporeans and give them time to adjust to our way of life. After a certain level of understanding is reached, a certain level of give and take must come into play. As the Prime Minister put it, "live and let live". I believe that over and above attracting people to become new Singaporeans, it is also essential that we acquaint them with our local culture and way of life.

Similarly, we must try to get all Singaporeans to interact with new Singaporeans to give them a better understanding of their background and culture. To this end, the People's Association has introduced integration and

naturalisation champions (INCs) in the grassroots network. These INCs who are selected grassroots leaders take the lead in organising events to help new citizens and PRs integrate into the Singapore way of life. The CDCs are also looking at this issue on a district level. This is certainly a good start. Much of the time, I find that the INCs organise community events with a view to integrating the new Singaporeans. Aside from meeting some old Singaporeans and perhaps having their olfactory nerves tested with the durian or two, the new Singaporeans learn little about daily habits and ways of life in Singapore.

In my view, more can be done to prepare our INCs so that they are better equipped to introduce the new Singaporeans to the local way of life as well as deal with any friction that may arise between the new Singaporeans and the old Singaporeans. Perhaps, this may not be a job for a grassroots volunteer but someone who is employed and specifically trained with the necessary skills. They can, of course, be assisted by grassroots leaders. In schools, our current efforts to promote racial harmony centre largely on teaching our children the customs and practices of Singaporean Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians. Bearing in mind that we are increasingly getting new Singaporeans who hail from all over the world, we should also teach our children the importance of accepting and befriending people of all races and religions beyond focusing on the main races in Singapore. Hopefully, our children will grow to have open minds and be better placed to understand the people that we are embracing as new Singaporeans. Ultimately, our new Singaporean population will grow but our available space will not. The necessity for us to learn to share our common space with more and more new Singaporeans is inevitable. We must take steps now to reduce as much of the potential friction as possible.

In his National Day Rally speech on Sunday, the Prime Minister spoke at length about the rise of religiosity around the world, including Singapore. Religion is a sensitive topic and not one that is easily discussed, particularly when dealing with different religions. I must admit that when I learned about what the Prime Minister was going to speak about at the Rally and that is going to be a centrepiece of his speech, I was a bit apprehensive. To give such a sensitive topic such prominence left a great deal to each individual's interpretation. The different interpretations of the message are illustrated by the differing headlines in the press the following day. The Straits Times carried the headline "PM warns of religious fault lines", while TODAY's newspaper headline read "Of Race and Religion". I think the underlying message in the Prime Minister's speech is that religions and racial harmony does not come naturally and without concerted effort. We must always remind ourselves of the need forward and we must work and maintain it. Part of this process is to discuss the topic from time to time and not shy away from it. In doing so, we must always remain respectable of each religion and have due regard to the views expressed by the different groups. This is particularly important when there is a potential flashpoint over growing friction. When it comes to racial or religious issues, they are better nipped in the bud.

I believe that Singaporeans have an immense capacity for racial and religious tolerance and an understanding of the importance of such tolerance. I believe that our understanding of it goes beyond that of people in many other countries. This is primarily due to our education system. My belief was reinforced just last weekend in my constituency. I was attending an event and happened to notice some celebrations going on in the nearby office hall. I noticed birthday

banners and I thought I would take the opportunity to extend my wishes. As I approached, I noticed that on one side of the hall was a group of Chinese celebrants with their catered food laid out and party flavours set up in one corner. On the other side of the hall, I noticed a group of Malay celebrants with their catered food and party flavours. I discovered that both the Chinese and Malay families had booked the hall for the same evening to celebrate first birthdays of their respective family members, and they informed me that both bookings had been approved by the Town Council. My immediate thought went to the example of the Malay wedding, the Chinese funeral that the Prime Minister referred to in his Rally speech. But to my delight, I was informed by both groups that they had realised that an error had occurred. They discussed the issue between them and had amicably agreed to share the hall, each taking one side. Each group had exercised tolerance and restraint. Each group had realised the situation for what it was, a situation that required them to share a common space, no intervention or mediation required.

In this House, I believe that on the one hand, we need to be able to discuss of race and religion openly and address any potential areas of friction that may arise. We must be an example for people to follow. On the other hand, we must be careful not to micro manage every situation so that what may not have started out as an issue of race or religion then becomes one. This in itself would be counterproductive. We should also trust in Singaporeans to know the value of racial and religious harmony so that the best solution can be found by the party involved with little or no external intervention. It is a delicate balance that we need to maintain, but maintain remarkably.

At 8.22 pm on 9th August this year was a special moment. Singaporeans

stood together, united, regardless of race, language or religion. It was a proud moment, a historic moment. The question that this House needs to ask itself is this: how do we maintain that unity and pride in every Singaporean, whether new or established in the days to come? How do we make that moment last for more than just the moment?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, with that, I support the motion.

5.37 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on the points mentioned by the Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Viswa Sadasivan on the poor and the elderly. I feel that he sounds a little too pessimistic. Our safety net is designed based on several principles, in particular, we are work-focused and low in entitlements. We stress family as a first line of support. We help the needy to stand on their own two feet and we focus a lot of our help on the children so that they can break out of the poverty circle.

The ComCare Fund was set up in June 2005 to help the neediest which are the bottom 20% of our society. Through ComCare, we ensure that no needy Singaporean is left behind. The Fund now stands at $800 million and would eventually be topped up to $1 billion. We expect to spend $77 million on ComCare programmes in FY 2009, 37% more than what we spent in FY 2008. As at end June 2009, the ComCare nation-wide schemes were helping about 27,000 cases, an increase of 15% compared to the number of cases receiving assistance as at end December 2008. Since the inception of ComCare in 2005, we had helped over 85,600 cases. ComCare is a working model of flexibility and

decentralisation highlighting particularly the role of the "many helping hands" – grassroots organisations, the voluntary welfare organisations, the self-help groups, the Community Development Councils (CDCs), etc, – coming together to provide a robust and sustainable safety net for the needy. We recognise that it is important to be flexible in applying help to the needy. The CDCs, which administer our schemes, have the flexibility to extend help to needy families that somehow do not fully meet the ComCare criteria due to special circumstances.

The Public Assistance (PA) scheme is only but one of the many schemes under ComCare which cater to a range of different target groups. First, ComCare Self-Reliance is targeted at those who can work. The Work Support Programme and the ComCare Transitions are part of this pillar to help them to get jobs, to go through training. Second, ComCare Grow which is targeted at the children. The CDCs administer childcare, kindergarten and student care subsidies. They also link needy school children with help under the Ministry of Education's Financial Assistance Scheme and give them free textbooks, free meals and school materials. Third, under the ComCare Enable pillar, the CDC administers Public Assistance and also work with hospitals and HDB to apply for Medifund and rental flats respectively for the old and needy.

In view of the economic downturn, we have made several enhancements to the ComCare scheme to help needy families this year. The PA scheme was revised upwards from April 2009. An individual person on the PA scheme now gets $360 a month in cash, up from the previous $330. MCYS also provides children from PA families with additional assistance of up to $130 per child per month. This is to ensure that children from PA families continue to receive care and education so that they may break out of the poverty circle. A family of four – two adults and

two children – could get up to $1,210 a month. Besides the PA Allowance, PA recipients have also received extensive cash handout and utilities, rental and S&CC rebates, etc., from the Government this year. For example, an elderly living alone in a 1-room flat would have received almost $120 a month in cash and rebates from the Government. Together with his PA Allowance of $360, this comes up to almost $480 a month. On top of this, he enjoys free medical care – outpatient and hospitalisation care, and a range of community support like meal vouchers, cash grants, ang pow s, weekly visits by befrienders' programmes, etc. So, on the whole, some of them get about $500 a month. The PA rates are not generous, but they are calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients. Nobody needs to go hungry in Singapore. We dare to make this statement.

With the recent revisions in the PA Allowance, the rates for larger families are already very close to what a low wage worker earns. However, there must be a difference in the amount of money received by a PA recipient and a working adult receiving Workfare. We may be able to afford to be more generous like the Nominated MP suggested since the number of PA recipients is only 3,000. However, the greatest danger in doing so would be taking away the incentive for the much larger number of Singaporeans who are working hard.

From July 2009, the Government raised subsidies under the ComCare Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC). Including the Government subsidy for working mothers, it is over $600 per child per month. When we ask this question at quite a number of gatherings, nobody guessed it right. There is also the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme

. Family with a monthly income of $1,500 or less receives at least 95% fee subsidy and pays only $10 a month for childcare – they get 12 hours care – and $5 for kindergarten. Those earning between $1,500 and $1,800 per month, they pay $20 for childcare and $10 for kindergarten a month. So, no young children are deprived of kindergarten and childcare in Singapore unless their parents are irresponsible or they do not know where to get help.

More flexible Work Support Programme: The Work Support Programme provides the unemployed with financial, medical and educational assistance while they upgrade their skills and find a job. From mid-February 2009, we have extended assistance to families on the margin during this downturn. The length of assistance has been increased from six months to one year. During this period, we also offer other help. The benefits are very close to Public Assistance. We call it ComCare Transitions. For those with kidney problems or other diseases, we help them from month to month.

The third feature is about empowering the community. The CCC ComCare Fund has been raised by $0.75 million to $7 million per year, for financial year 2009 to financial year 2010. Grassroots leaders can tap on this Fund to provide immediate help to residents. This means that anyone can go to the Meet-the-People session or the CCC to get help immediately while the CDCs process their applications to get them onto national ComCare help schemes.

We have a very comprehensive social safety net to help needy and vulnerable families in Singapore. As Minister Vivian mentioned during the Committee of Supply debate early this year, we estimate that the social service sector will receive some $460 million in financial year 2009, and this will come from MCYS

funding, the ComCare Endowment Fund and public donations. It is not a small amount.

On top of this, various Government Ministries also provide various assistance and subsidies for the lower income – for example, the Ministry of Health has Medifund to help needy patients, the Ministry of Education has its Financial Assistance Scheme to help needy students, and HDB provides subsidised public rental housing to needy families. This is further complemented by the "many helping hands" in our community, such as the voluntary welfare organisations, the self-help groups and the grassroots organisations.

All these various forms of support, taken together, make up a robust and comprehensive social safety net that has served us well over the years. We will continue to improve on this safety net and make it better going forward. And we will make sure that no one will be left behind as Singapore progresses.

Let me say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Just now the Nominated Member has mentioned about the needy, elderly people in Singapore. I felt that he was too pessimistic.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me give a short brief on the social safety net of our people. Most importantly, we must train those who are strong and healthy so that they are able to work and look after themselves. As for the young ones, we must be able to educate them and bring them up. I would say that no other country can give the assurance to the people that so long as the children can get a place in the school, they will not be deprived of education just because their parents cannot afford it. In fact, we have given various subsidies and bursaries to

our children – we have our childcare centre subsidies, kindergarten subsidies etc.

For the childcare centre, the Government subsidises more than $600 for the needy families. Apart from this, the parents need to pay only $10 per month for the childcare centre services and $5 per month for the kindergarten services.

On many occasions and during some gatherings, I ask the people: how much do you think that you have to pay if you take into account the Government’s subsidy? Most of them will say, maybe a few hundred dollars. But I can tell you that for the very poor families, when the children go to the childcare centre, they pay $10 per month and for kindergarten they pay only $5. For those earning $1,500 to $1,800, they pay only $20 per month for the childcare centre and $10 for kindergarten. In fact, not a single student has to drop out because they could not afford to pay the fees.

As I said earlier, for the elderly who are not supported by their family, we give them Public Assistance of $360 per month, excluding housing subsidy and the medical subsidy. They do not have to pay for medical treatment. I have visited one resident and he told me that his doctor is a specialist in the eye centre.

Apart from that, temples and religious parties also give them ang pows. And on top of that, the Government also gives other subsidies like utilities, service and conservancy charges. So they enjoy subsidies in cash and in kind for as much as $480 per month. On top of that, they receive subsidies from other social welfare organisations. All in all, they get about $500. Honestly speaking, we do not give $500 to our parents every month. For the singles and destitute, they enjoy subsidised rental housing and so they pay about $20 to $30 a month. If they do not

have a flat, they can go to the old folks' home run by our VWOs.

With Government subsidies and the assistance from the social welfare organisations, all our people are looked after, but the underlying principle is that we want them to be self-reliant. They must be able to help themselves. We would also like to depend on the family as the first line of social safety net.

I would like to emphasise this once again – for those who are healthy, they must be self-reliant and work to support themselves, and their children and elderly will be looked after. For anyone who needs help, they can always call the ComCare hotline 1800-222-000 for assistance.

*Cols. 1095-1096.

5.53 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I watched my fourth National Day Parade this year as a Member of Parliament. Each year is better than the past, and this year's NDP is the best one yet. As I stood and recited the Pledge at 8.22 pm, it was a time for pride and reflection.

I am sure the same sentiments also ran through the mind of the Nominated Member, which had in turn motivated him further to write a well-crafted, articulate and very lengthy maiden speech in Parliament. I think he broke the record.

I share some of his views and I agree that we should find ways to re-energise the Pledge as the ultimate social glue that binds us as a nation, as a people. However, I do differ with the Member on a number of issues. I will not attempt to address all of the Member's points as he

has given us a full slate of issues to ponder over. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will just confine to a few issues that are close to my heart.

Let me start with our humble beginning in 1959, the year when Singapore gained self-governance. So, Singapore is 50 years old this year. And the Confucianist in me realises that at the age of 50, a man knows the will of Heaven or, in Mandarin, Kong Zi shuo: wu shi zhi tien ming (孔 子 说: 五 十 知 天命). On the level of rhetoric and philosophy, this can be interpreted to mean that at 50, a man has gained wisdom and clarity – he knows that his life is larger than himself, he knows the forces of nature and the strength of his own destiny. It can also mean that he has chosen a more deterministic view of life at 50, and he has made a decision to contend with, or resign to, his lot in life.

It is a statement of epiphany, a crystal of philosophical wisdom, a way of life, and an expression of your beliefs. On a personal soul-searching level, I have a deep appreciation for it. However, on a matter of public policy it provides – I fear – very little concrete direction.

The Nominated Member might have inadvertently confused the first for the second. There is room for rhetoric and there is also room for practical intent. But the first cannot be the cover for the second. The Member makes many points but, in there, there are two ways to make good points, or rather, two sorts of good points. The first sort, which is more philosophical in intent, makes good listening, good reading, and gives us memorable turns of phrases. The second sort, which is more pragmatic in nature, makes you think, challenges the Government in public policy, and gives you more meat to chew on. The second sort, I am afraid, is less apparent in the Member's speech. Let me elaborate how.

Take for example, what he says about citizenship, and I quote: "We must ensure all citizens from young understand it beyond the words. More importantly, we in Parliament must lead the way by demonstrating that no national policy or Bill will be passed if it goes contrary to the letter or spirit of the Pledge." He says that it would be useful to have a review of all existing policies and practices to check for significant contradictions with the key tenet of the Pledge, resulting in mixed signals being sent to the ground. So he wants the Pledge to be some sort of check against bad Bills. But he then says further that: " – Citizenship is not a concept – it is something that you live, breathe and feel deeply. For this reason, I believe it is futile for us to talk in technical or legalistic terms about citizenship – rights, obligations, fairness!"

So, you want the Pledge to be a check on bad law-making, but then you also dismiss the rights and obligations that laws create. So, what is the point of this suggestion then? This appears to be what the Member would call "a mixed signal" to me, which I do not quite understand. But this may not be a fair reading, to lump one sentence with another, to look for coherence where none was meant. Perhaps there is a more straight-forward reading of the criticisms. For example, one, the Member might be saying that the Government is not accountable to the people and the Government takes them for granted; two, there is a climate of fear and the people are afraid to speak up; and three, our current rules and institutions are not aligned with conventional democracy.

He might be saying all of the above, but he is saying it very carefully. First, he is asking for more, he acknowledges that the Government is accountable but we ought to be faster, more sensitive, more genuine in our approach. This I would not disagree. I would very much disagree, however, with an allegation that the

Government takes people for granted. How so? Does the Government ignore the fact that our population is ageing and not make lifts to their flats? Does the Government not fund and build such lifts and make sure every block will have one? Does the Government ignore that people find it difficult to find jobs during a recession? And does the Government not help all it can to the extent of using the reserves and offering Jobs Credit? Does the Government, as the Member alleges, care only to grow the rich but ignore the poor on Public Assistance (PA)?

Madam, I know this subject as I have spoken on this several times when I was a backbencher. Now that I am on the Government bench, I will not change my mind and my tune.

It is true. PA recipients have a hard life. They have to watch every cent but they have a roof over their head. They have something basic to live on each month. Just now, my colleague Mrs Yu-Foo, has taken some time to explain what the Government has done to help the needy through Public Assistance and ComCare. So I shall not belabour the point suffice to say that the Government does not take the poorest for granted. It ensures that they do not pay a single cent when they fall ill through the Medifund.

There are many helping hands to put food on the tables but of course, there is always room for doing better and at the urging of the Members in this House, including the Nominated Member of Parliament, the Government is increasing the PA grant periodically, sometimes without the Members asking for it. So Madam, we do these things because it is the duty not to do less. We do not do them for the reasons that the Nominated Member says, so that the citizen feels unqualified commitment to the country. He says, and I quote, "Citizens should be made to feel our commitment ... is appreciated and not taken for granted. Rewards and privileges must be significant and discernible and accorded

without being asked for." Madam, I think he has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Commitment to a country requires no quid pro quo. If we are treading on rewards and privileges, if these are the things that a committed citizen needs, then I do not think the commitment is worth very much.

What about the first generation of leaders, the Merdeka generation? They asked not for rewards or privileges. There were none to give then and yet how much these people gave. Not just the likes of Dr Goh Keng Swees or the Kenny Byrnes but the trishaw riders who gave to build a university, the business leaders who set up schools and foundations and the men and women who took in their neighbours of different races during the racial riots in 1964. So do you think they were doing all these for a PBM? As I see it, the Government does not, cannot and will not take the citizens for granted because it is the duty of the Government to provide as well as they can for them but this is quite different from the issue of commitment and citizenship. One, it is not traded for the other. Second, the climate of fear. The Member is not saying that the Government is instilling fear deliberately. I am glad he made this clear but merely that there is such a perception. People are speaking up but we could do more to encourage participation, he says. This, I would not disagree with. But I would disagree if he adds that the fear was created by the Government that was thin-skinned. I think our Government can take strong views and criticisms as well as any other government in the world. Perhaps in my firm rebuttal, we can see more evidence of thin-skinned government but if there is a difference between being thin-skinned and standing up for what we believe in, if doing the latter risks being mistaken for the former, then I would take the risk rather than leave my principles lying in the mud. So that is not what the