Hansard, 2009-08-19

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2009) To (2009) Dr Teo Ho Pin 20 Aug 24 Aug Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 25 Aug 01 Sep

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Terry Lee asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, what is the trend of MediShield cases which have lapsed because an individual had insufficient Medisave or exhausted his Medisave; (b) what is the forecast of the number of MediShield cases which may lapse in 2010; (c) whether his Ministry has plans to prevent such lapsed cases and; (d) whether he will consider offering retirees some alternative form of basic medical coverage.

Last year, less than 1% of MediShield policies lapsed due to insufficient Medisave savings. As it will not be in the interest of the policyholders to allow their MediShield to lapse, MOH and CPF Board go to some length to help the policyholders avoid such an outcome and to restore their MediShield coverage, if possible.

First, CPF members will receive prior alerts and get up to three notification letters at various intervals. Second, we give members a two-month grace period to top up their Medisave to enjoy uninterrupted MediShield coverage. Third, we include a reminder in the members’ annual CPF statements. Fourth, we exercise some flexibility to allow members whose MediShield policies have lapsed to be covered under MediShield again, provided their health status has not changed and they start making regular contributions to Medisave. And many have indeed rejoined MediShield under such an arrangement.

Sir, as I stressed yesterday, Singaporeans should stay within MediShield and must not allow their coverage to lapse or they will regret it in future. For those who have exhausted their Medisave, their working family members should help them pay their MediShield premiums. Their Medisave can be used for this purpose.

Sir, supplementary question. Would the Minister consider helping policyholders who are 65 years and above with discounted premiums?

Sir, in formulating our insurance policy – and MediShield included – we have tried to avoid inter-generational cross subsidy. It does not work in the long term, meaning the young subsidises the old, because we know the population pyramid will change with age. When the pyramid is fat at the bottom, it is easy because there are many young people to support the old. But at some stage, the pyramid becomes more like a diamond which is what countries in the West are facing today. They introduced such policies 50 years ago – which then sounded very gentle and rational – but they are now finding great difficulty in continuing. What we have done instead is to encourage early subscription and then, allow discounts for loyalty, ie, under a loyalty programme. So the longer you stay, you get greater discounts below what your age group premium ought to be actuarially. I think that is the correct way, going forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister. The first concerns older Singaporeans. I am wondering if MediShield is sufficient for chronic ailments. This is the group that is caught in the gap because they are very likely not to be covered by private insurance. What plans does Minister have to augment their healthcare bills? My second supplementary question addresses the middle-aged group, people whom we are now encouraging to go for early health screening so that we can detect ailments at an earlier stage. And yet, contradictory to that, once you have a pre-existing illness, private insurers fail to cover you. So it seems we are sending a lot of people into the lion's den and then they will be without coverage for a long period of time. May I have the Minister's comments?

Sir, we have designed MediShield to look after acute hospitalisation, treatments that are generally provided in acute hospitals. The MediShield coverage, premiums and payouts accommodate all the age groups. It is quite robust. It does not mean that if you are elderly, your MediShield may run out or prove inadequate, that is not the case. You have heard in the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech over the weekend about step-down healthcare, outside of acute hospitals. This is a new and growing area as our population ages. We think that their needs can be adequately taken care of outside of acute hospitals – in fact it would be cheaper for the patients and their families as well. This refers to healthcare in nursing homes, and also community hospitals which the Prime Minister spoke about at great length.

Currently, MediShield covers community hospitals. We are now studying how we can also fund long-term care outside of acute and community hospitals, and that includes home nursing as well. So this is a new topic that my Ministry is placing great emphasis on and something that we can continue to discuss over the next few months. I am sure it will be an area of attention in next year's Budget Debate for the Ministry for Health.

The Member also asked about middle-aged patients who, after screening, discover something that private insurance may not pay for. It does not work that way because if it does, it would completely discourage medical screening. Who will then go for medical screening, in order to have ailments picked up and then be excluded from insurance coverage? But what insurance does – logically and globally – is to exclude pre-existing illnesses. In other words, if you already had something which was there for many years before you subscribed to your insurance policy, the insurers would then exclude that. Those are exceptions rather than the norm. For most people, so long as you subscribe early to MediShield, the insurance will have to cover the illnesses that crop up, eg, cancer, that you get because of ageing. The insurance will have to cover these, whether it is MediShield run by CPF Board or Integrated Shields run by private insurers. I explained yesterday the reason why insurers have to exclude pre-existing illnesses. If everybody waited until they fell ill to subscribe to insurance policies, it would be unfair to those of us who have been subscribing for years.

I would like to ask the Minister this. Currently, the Medisave maximum allowable usage for acute hospitalisation is $450 for daily hospital charges. And for community hospitals, it is just $150 per day. This disparity may have encouraged patients to stay put in the acute hospitals rather than transfer to community hospitals. Will the Ministry review this criterion to encourage more elderly sick or those with chronic diseases to transfer to community hospitals instead?

As part of the review on community hospital care, we are looking at how to fund this and ensure right-siting so that we do not have an incentive system that is warped, that ends up with patients going to a more expensive place because of the funding structure. We would certainly review how we subvent community hospitals, what is the withdrawal limit out of Medisave and also what is the insurance coverage. We will take a look at whether $150 daily limit is adequate. We had set a differential claim limit because the cost of care is indeed lower, and so the claim limit is lower (than for acute hospital). If we set it too high, it may encourage providers to over price, knowing that the bill will be paid out of Medisave. I am not saying that our community hospitals do that. Many of them are run by religious charities and they do not do such things. But then again, things may happen in an unpredictable way and we need to guard against that.

I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry can consider extending MediShield coverage to people suffering from mental illnesses because the cost of treating mental illnesses has increased for families and individuals. Such coverage would indeed be necessary.

I am sympathetic towards insurance, not just MediShield, covering mental illnesses. Today, the private MediShield schemes – some of them – do make that provision. Of course, you would have to pay higher premiums. I am holding back purely because we would need more money in order to cover this new benefit which requires more payout. And this is not the time to talk about increasing premiums.

2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can give an update on the progress made in the coverage of big hospital bills up to 80% after the last MediShield review; and (b) whether any persons had dropped out of the scheme because they could not afford the higher premiums.

Sir, we adjusted the MediShield payouts in December last year – nine months ago. I am not quite ready yet to discuss the full impact of the changes. However, the preliminary data are positive. For example, the MediShield payouts for large hospital bills have gone up from an average of $9,000 per bill to $10,600. What this means is that such patients would have saved hundreds of dollars per hospitalisation episode. As for the MediShield lapsed rate, I spoke about it just awhile ago. Less than 1% of MediShield members have seen their coverage lapse due to insufficient Medisave money. Among them, how many dropped out because of increased premiums? As the premium increases are less than a dollar a month, I think the number is likely to be very small, but I do not have such a number.

I would like to ask the Minister whether hospitals have seen a reduction in the number of patients who are not able to pay for big hospital bills because the payout has now been increased. Secondly, I would like to ask if the Minister could give us an estimate of the state of health of our MediShield funds now that the premiums have increased but payouts have also increased.

Generally, public hospitals do not have a major default problem of arrears whereby patients cannot pay, whether for big bills or small bills. A lot actually depends on the family financial situation. We do have some bad debts which we have to write off periodically, but offhand, I cannot recall the rate. These are manageable. We need to understand why we are in such a situation. It is due to Medisave which we put in place 20 years ago. Can you imagine Singapore without Medisave? I think affordability of hospital bills would then have been a major problem. It is precisely because we have enforced savings and rational withdrawal rules, that we are able to afford increasingly high standards of healthcare which inevitably come with high costs. And the general population, including the lower income group, can afford it. I would say that for acute hospitals, we are in a reasonably satisfactory situation. My job in the last two to three years has been focused on long-term care, care outside of acute hospitals. I am not saying that acute hospitals are perfect. There are still gaps here and there, and we are trying to fix them as we go along. But the bigger gap now is in care outside of acute hospitals, or what the Prime Minister described as step-down care. This is an area that we will be focusing on, and that includes community hospitals, home nursing, as well as in the community – GPs and so on.

As to what is the financial position of MediShield, it was heading towards insolvency prior to 2005, and the reason was what we discussed yesterday, ie, cherry picking, which Prof. Straughan mentioned as a possible phenomenon. We have fixed that. We have now won back all the "cherries". The risk pool of MediShield has now been restored, and we have been able to preserve the financial solvency of MediShield. Offhand, I do not have the data, but it is healthy. But like all things, because of escalation in costs and inflation, it requires constant nursing and adjustments – not every year, but every few years or so.

3. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the incidence of prison abuse by cellmates and law enforcement personnel over the last five years; and (b) what measures have been put in place to minimise such occurrences in the prison.

4. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) if there are any plans to improve supervision at our prisons to reduce the incidents of violence and abuse by inmates against fellow inmates; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider inviting experienced external parties such as District Judges to provide advice on how to make the disciplinary process against prisoners more transparent and effective in lowering incidences of inmate abuse.

5. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what criteria are used to decide cell-sharing arrangements for prison inmates; (b) how the three Changi Prison inmates convicted in July 2009 were able to inflict serious injury on their cellmate for over a week before it was discovered; and (c) whether the prison authorities are addressing any gaps in prisoner management arising from this incident.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together as they are related?

Yes.

Sir, let me state upfront that our prison authorities will not tolerate any form of abuse or assaults on inmates in our prisons, committed either by other inmates or by its officers. When such an incident is detected or brought to the attention of any prison officer, immediate action is taken to protect the victim and provide him with appropriate medical care. The incident is then thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to task.

The prison environment is a unique and challenging one. About 12,600 inmates, some with violent criminal backgrounds, live in close proximity to one another. They are there not by choice, but because they have to serve out their sentences imposed by the courts. Realistically, when such inmates live in close confinements with each other, we must expect that there will be friction and conflict, resulting in some occurrence of bullying and threats and the occasional assault, particularly amongst younger inmates. The role of the prison authorities is to put in place processes to minimise such occurrence of violence, facilitate reporting by a victimised inmate of any abuse and take firm disciplinary action against those who breach prison regulations. In serious cases, prison authorities will not hesitate to have the perpetrator charged in court.

Dr Lam Pin Min, Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about measures taken to prevent abuse and assaults in prisons. Ms Lim has also asked about the criteria to determine cell-sharing arrangements. Sir, as I shared at the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, Prisons has well-established procedures and safeguards for the safe and secure custody of inmates. These include body searches, regular patrols, muster checks and interviews by prison officers who act as personal supervisors. The cells also have distress intercoms which inmates can activate when in need of assistance. These measures have also enabled prison officers to detect assaults in our prisons.

In addition, Prisons assesses the inmate’s security risk when he is incarcerated. It takes into account various factors when determining cell-sharing arrangements of inmates, so as to minimise the incidence of abuse or assaults. They include the inmate’s age, his antecedents, if any, the nature of the offence for which he is in prison and the risk of him committing violence and harming himself.

Inmates with a high security risk are housed alone in a cell and closely supervised for security reasons. For medium and low risk inmates, they will be housed with other inmates in cells. In the current case of interest, the inmate and the three assailants were all young offenders, with similar types of antecedents and were assessed to be of medium security risk. They were housed together in a standard cell installed with a distress intercom system.

Let me emphasise, however, that despite all these measures, no system is foolproof. Whilst Prisons will do its best to prevent and detect such incidents, inmates must also take responsibility for their personal safety, for example, by complying with prison rules and regulations themselves. They should not try to conceal any abuse or incidence of violence and try to resolve disputes on their own. Inmates who are threatened by fellow inmates or are assaulted should report the matter immediately.

Prisons provides ample avenues of reporting. Besides any prison officer on duty and their personal supervisor, they can also raise any request or complaint with the volunteers, with the Superintendent of the prison or indeed with the Visiting Justices during their regular visits.

An inmate who informs of imminent harm or bullying is immediately sent for medical examination and treatment. He is also segregated for his personal safety and may be transferred to a another institution, if necessary.

The facts of the recent High Court case where an inmate suffered serious injuries as a result of being assaulted by his cellmates in Changi Prison Complex have been amply aired in court. I will not go into the details but we should see this incident in perspective.

This incident is an isolated one in terms of the seriousness of the injuries sustained and the intensity and duration of the assaults. What is of critical importance is that the victim had numerous opportunities over the period the assaults occurred, to report them to the many different prison officers he came into contact with each day, such as when he and his cellmates were unlocked for yard time and during the physical muster checks by staff which are conducted three times a day.

He could also have activated the distress intercom in his cell to seek help any time. The incident would not have remained undetected over eight days, nor would it have escalated to the extent that it did if only the inmate had sought help earlier. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to him, he chose to remain silent.

After more than a week, the inmate finally decided to report sick to seek medical attention. He activated the distress intercom in his cell. Even then, he was not forthcoming in revealing to the prison officer and the staff nurse initially on what had happened and had told staff that he felt unwell because of a fall. It was only after persistent questioning that he informed the authorities that he had been assaulted by his cellmates. So, whilst we sympathise with him for the pain and suffering he went through, he did not help the situation at all by not reporting the assault to a prison officer earlier.

The Director of Prisons has carefully reviewed the circumstances of the case and has not found any of the prisons officers involved to have been professionally remiss. Indeed, they took swift action on discovering the assault and rendered prompt medical attention to the victim. Prisons also reported the matter to the Police to initiate criminal investigations against the assailants so that they would face the full brunt of the law in court.

More generally, Dr Lam asked about the incidence of prison abuse over the last five years. Prisons measures the level of physical violence in prison by tracking the number of major assaults on inmates and prison staff annually, which includes both fights between inmates where serious injuries are inflicted and also abuse cases where there are elements of bullying or threats used against the inmate leading to serious injury.

The rates of major assaults per 10,000 inmates from FY 2004 to FY 2008 are 13.5, 16.2, 15, 22.3 and 35.2 respectively. The increase in FY 2008 is largely due to a review of Prisons' institutional offence guidelines, leading to more cases being classified as major assaults. There is generally no decline in the level of institutional discipline. Most of the assaults in prisons are one-off assaults arising from arguments that take place at the spur of the moment. Only a small number of the cases have elements of bullying, threats and intimidation used against the victim. Indeed, our major assault rates are also low by international standards and are achieved despite a lean staff to inmate ratio. For example, the reported figures are 46 in New Zealand and 165 in England.

Dr Lam also asked for data on prison officers abusing inmates. Whilst we expect the highest level of professional conduct from our prison officers, sporadically, some fall prey to provocation and lapses of good judgment. In the past five years, there were 14 cases where inappropriate force was used on an inmate, or about three cases per year on average. None of the cases resulted in serious injuries to the inmates. All these officers were all duly punished according to civil service disciplinary rules.

Our prison authorities continually explore ways to improve the administration of our prisons. Even though there are already a slew of safeguards in place to address the issues of abuse and assaults, nevertheless, in light of the latest incident, a review was conducted and additional resources were deployed to enhance monitoring of inmates. However, I must reiterate the point that it is not possible to eliminate all forms of negative behaviour between inmates within a prison environment. What is important is that inmates must also take responsibility for their own well-being. If they do so, like I have given the assurance just now, there are effective processes and structures in place for their concerns to be addressed.

Mr de Souza asked if the prison authorities are willing to consider the advice of relevant external parties on prisons discipline. Prison authorities are indeed open to the valuable feedback and suggestions from the Board of Visiting Justices, the Board of Visitors and its large core of committed volunteers as to how our prisons’ security and rehabilitation processes can be further improved. Their suggestions are studied closely.

In fact, to render prison’s institutional discipline processes more transparent and rigorous, Prisons set up an Institutional Discipline Review Committee about a year ago. This Committee, comprising reputable members of the public, including quite a few with existing or previous legal and judicial backgrounds, advises the Director of Prisons as to whether the institutional caning awarded against a prisoner for an aggravated institutional offence is, in their view, excessive.

Sir, in summary, let me assure Members that, notwithstanding this case, our prison remains one of the safest in the world. Moreover, our prison authorities will not tolerate any form of abuse or assault by inmates or staff, sparing no effort to ensure that any perpetrator is immediately brought to task. Inmates, on their part, must exercise responsibility for their own safety by reporting such incidents early to the prison officers as there are ample opportunities for them to do so.

Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the very comprehensive answer and the reassurances. But I must admit that when I read the recent report, I was shocked to find that the victim was actually subjected to physical and sexual abuses over a period of eight days under the watchful eyes of the prison service in Changi. This only reminded me of the scenes in the Hong Kong blockbuster movie Prison on Fire –

Ask your question, Dr Lam.

Sir, my question is that it is unimaginable that over eight days, the prison officers could not detect anything unusual about the abuse that this victim was subjected to. Surely there must be a way where prison officers can be trained to detect such abuses. I think we should not put most of the responsibility on the prison inmates themselves.

Sir, as I have said, there are operational procedures which at least try to ensure that the inmates are safe, but no system is foolproof. For example, I mentioned that there are muster checks three times daily. Body searches are also carried out on inmates. Cells also have the distress intercom that will enable any inmate who feels threatened or unsafe and who is beaten up to actually make a report. That is the key point.

The key point is that we cannot think of every conceivable eventuality that may happen in prison. What Prisons must do is to provide a system which is generally safe and that is a point I want to reiterate. Our assault rates are low compared to many in the world and, indeed, many inmates come out from the prison gates rehabilitated. But there are also inmates, because of their own backgrounds, because of their own attitudes, may themselves engage in risky behaviour. If we follow the case in the papers closely, this inmate was like that, because he himself had been disciplined in prison before for assaulting other people. So, when it happened, if he had reported it early through any officer on the first day, or on the second day, this would not have happened. That is the point that is best reminding. Otherwise, we think that for eight or nine days they were unreported, why did it happen? The Director of Prisons, as I have said, has carried out a very careful review of the relevant officers who had come in contact with the inmate and he is satisfied that no officer has been professionally remiss. They did what they were supposed to do. But for reasons which, in fact, also came out in the court trial, one reason the inmate himself offered was that perhaps because he had a dark complexion, the injuries were not detected. The injuries remained undetected until finally, he disclosed them to the officers.

Supplementary questions. Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State recited these figures of assault in our prisons and compared them internationally to other countries and said that they were low. But, Sir, during the trial, it was quite obvious from the testimony of the inmates in the cell as well as those in the neighbouring cells that, generally, they do not resort to reporting as a first recourse when they hear something suspicious or something has happened to them. Some of them said in the court that they did not want any trouble even though they heard something in the neighbouring cell, they did not want to report it for avoidance of trouble. So, does the Minister not agree with me that actually those figures that we have are only the figures that we know of and there is probably a significant under-reporting of such incidents in our prison? On the second point, the Minister mentioned that the Director of Prisons has done a review of the case and found that no prison officer was wanting. I am not in a position to say that they are but the question is, there appears to be some gap in the procedure. If the inmates in the neighbouring cells can testify that they heard beatings and cries over quite a number of days from 6.20 pm in the evening to 2.00 am, how come the prison officers did not seem to detect that? Also, with regard to the injuries on the victim, even if he had a dark complexion, they consisted of 10 fractured ribs, fractured chest bone, fractured spine vertebrate, lacerated kidney – would it not be reasonable to assume that he would not be behaving normally with such kind of injuries? Thirdly, Sir, it was mentioned that the victim himself is to be blamed, in a way, because he had ample opportunity to raise this matter and he did not. In court, he testified that he felt he could not tell anyone because he still had to go and face his cell-mates. So, even though the Senior Minister of State earlier said that if there was an allegation of trouble in the cell, he would be removed immediately, that does not appear to be the perception of the victim who has been in and out of penal institutions before. So, would the Minister like to comment on whether there is a gap here in terms of the inmates' confidence in that procedure?

Ms Lim, your question is too long.

The final question, Sir, on cell-sharing, I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether the cell-sharing arrangement is a deliberate policy. In other words, we would require our medium security prisoners to share cells and, arising from this incident, is there any thought of reconfiguring the numbers of people sharing the cell, say, instead of four people, would it be for example, three?

Ms Lim said she has two queries but ended up with having four. First, let me say that prison authorities are, of course, concerned that in prisons, they provide a safe and secure environment for its inmates. In fact, this is in the mission and vision statements – safe and secure custody of inmates. It is not just mouthing a slogan. In fact, from May 2006, the Prisons implemented a system where they take monthly random feedback from inmates. Forms are left in the common areas in four languages. The inmates can actually fill up the form. I have seen the form myself and there are important questions like: Do inmates generally feel safe? Do inmates have any problems talking to prison officers? And the feedback generally is that inmates do feel safe and they have no problems talking with the prison officers. It is for this reason that Prisons instituted this system of a personal supervisor so that the inmates can feel comfortable with a particular prison officer with whom they develop a rapport. Like I have said, 10,000 inmates come out of the prison gates every year, and our recividism rate is now only 25%. It has come down a long, long way. So, many inmates have come through the prison system, feeling safe and, in fact, being rehabilitated. So, you really have to ask the inmate or the victim in question, why he did not report? In fact, all inmates will know this. Should there be a report, like I have said, the various steps are taken – send for medical attention, separate him from the perpetrators and maybe, like I have said, even to send him to another institution and firm action is taken against the perpetrators. And I believe for this case, because it is so serious, the circumstances and facts would be publicised to the other inmates currently in Changi Prison so that everybody knows this has happened and if this happens again, what the wrong-doers will face. Of course, Ms Lim could be right, because we are talking about assaults that are reported and these are major assaults where there are serious injuries caused. There could be undetected fights and assaults that took place. I would not say significant – the term she used – but who is to say, there could be other fights, especially among the younger inmates, because I understand they are of that temperament. But the point is, should an incident take place, first, there is a reporting system and there are checks in place. In this case, like I have said, the prison officers did everything that was required of them but there was no detection of the injuries and also no suspicion aroused from the behaviour of this victim. That point is clear. Cell-sharing – three to four is about a good arrangement. If you are alone, anything can happen to you. So, high-risk prisoners are housed alone, for example, death penalty inmates, or those who are subject to institutional discipline. Two also is no good because it is one to one. It is either three or four, in this case, four were in the cell. If an inmate wishes to change his cell, again, there is a system in place. Of course, not all requests can be entertained. But an inmate can ask for a change of cell. He will be interviewed by the housing inmate officers and if the request pertains to his safety, particularly if he feels threatened or intimidated, that will be acceded to. One additional resource that has been put in arising from this incident is that an additional officer has now been deployed in the housing units so that more patrols can be carried out. Because, at night, especially after lights out, or even before lights out, after the muster check at 6.30 pm, there is skeletal manning and the prison is in locked-down mode; so you do not have that many prison officers around. So, perhaps, some of these wrong-doings can be prevented. Amongst younger inmates, there could be very well be a code of honour where you do not report on other people. I think Ms Lim alluded to that, but I would say that if you feel threatened, if you are the affected victim, you have no cause not to report, and no fear in reporting. That is the key point because no one in prison wants to get into trouble by reporting on things that happened in other cells. With this extra officer who will patrol the cells at night, I think, such incidents will be reduced.

Mr de Souza, last question.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. He mentioned that there will be processes put in place to reduce abuse and that, in serious cases, the matter will be referred to the courts and to the CID. So, the assumption and hope is that most cases are not serious and, therefore, dealt with internally. And if that is the correct assumption, then the question is, why not lend the support from experts like district judges who have in their experience, precedence and institutionalised methods of dealing with disciplinary problems to come, not on an ad hoc basis through the visiting programme, but on an entrenched and regular basis so that, internally, where disciplinary processes are concerned, there is a database and there is precedent so that discipline can be inculcated among the population, thereby reducing the amount of prisoner abuse?

I think Mr de Souza may not have heard me correctly just now. In fact, this new system instituted about a year ago, called the Institutional Discipline Review Committee System – there are about four or five committees empanelled – is part of the structure now. It is not just ad hoc visits by them or Visiting Justices. Every case that is adjudicated with caning will be put before this committee. Each committee will comprise, I understand, at least one lawyer, if not chaired by one, either a lawyer or someone with judicial experience. The full facts are put before the committee and the relevant officers are also there. For example, the investigating officers involved in the offence are there to answer any queries. The committee will then give its view as to whether the number of strokes given is excessive. So, this is part of the system which, in fact, to Prisons' credit, is something they instituted on their own, to involve members of the public to ensure that its processes are more transparent and, hopefully, fair.

6. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development (a) what percentage of new flat applications are from the elderly for the last 12 months; (b) what is the success rate of these applicants compared to the rest; and (c) whether the Ministry will be introducing any new measures to cope with the housing demand of an ageing population.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last 12 months, about 4% of new flat applicants in our HDB’s Built-To-Order (BTO) exercises were 55 years or older. New HDB flats are primarily meant for first-timer households with 90% of BTO flats set aside for them to set up their first home. First-timers are also given double the chances when balloting for a new flat. The success rate of applicants is therefore determined by the status of whether they are first-timer or otherwise, and not by their age. Many of the elderly have benefited from our public housing schemes earlier in their lives and, if so, they are considered second timers, and will be accorded lower priority. Elderly who are first-time applicants will enjoy the same chances as their younger counterparts. Sir, in recognition of the unique housing needs of the elderly, HDB has introduced the Studio Apartment for those 55 years or older. Studio Apartments are sold with a shorter lease of 30 years and come with elder-friendly features such as lever taps and hand bars. They have been very popular with close to 100% take-up rate. HDB will continue to build more of them. One thousand more units are planned for launch over the next two years. To meet the needs of an ageing population, we have also put in place an array of monetisation options to enable elderly home owners to unlock their flat equity to support their retirement. Downgrading to a Studio Apartment or a smaller resale flat is one way to unlock flat equity. The elderly can also choose to sell or sublet their flat and stay with their children. HDB has progressively relaxed its whole flat subletting rules to allow more lessees to do so. Since March this year, HDB has implemented the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) to help the less well-off elderly in smaller flats unlock their flat equity. This subsidised scheme allows them to age-in-place while receiving a monthly income for life. To date, more than 300 elderly households have applied for the scheme. We will continue to review and enhance the LBS and other monetisation schemes to cater to the needs of our elderly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Can I ask him if the Ministry will consider a system, similar to Hong Kong, whereby one of the criteria for allocation of priority for public housing is the age of the applicants in view of our changing demographics; and also whether a proportion of the flats can be guaranteed or allocated to this group of applicants. Likewise, will the units that are closer to the lifts, for example, be safeguarded for this group of applicants?

Sir, I think first we will have to make a distinction between the types of flats that we are talking about. If we are talking about flats which are 2-rooms, 3-rooms, 4-rooms, 5-rooms and newer flats, I think we will have to probably be fair to all flat applicants. It is an issue of subsidy – those who have had earlier subsidies and are not first-timers, probably it is only fair for them to get lower priority. We also have a lot of calls from first-timer applicants who have been asking for priority and the system that we have put in place will be able to weigh in favour of those who have not had their first flat.

In the example that Dr Lim mentioned, the Hong Kong system is applied to allocation of rental flats rather than purchase flats. In terms of allocation of rental flats, we have put in place certain criteria respecting the uniqueness of the housing policies that we have.

I think what we want to try to address is really whether the elderly have got housing options. And when we talk about housing options for the elderly, it really is – at the same time we must also bear in mind – the other aspect of ageing which is economic adequacy. So that is why we talk about allowing them to monetise and unlock their flat equity. For the elderly, if they want to downgrade or they want to unlock their flat equity, there are several things as I have mentioned earlier – either you sublet the whole flat, give your children, sublet the rooms or Studio Apartment.

As far as Studio Apartments are concerned, they are treated separately from the 2-room, 3-room or 4-room flats. In that case, it is the elderly who are so-called "competing" amongst themselves with regard to who will be able to access to Studio Apartments. Again, at the end of day, it is a fairer system where they have to ballot for those Studio Apartments. We recognise that Studio Apartments are very, very popular amongst the elderly and we continue to put forth new projects. As I mentioned earlier, we will be putting up about a thousand more Studio Apartments in the next two years.

On the issue of allocation of flats near the lifts for elderly, I think it is a complex system if you want to consider that. At the end of the day, first we have to look at where the elderly are today. We have met the needs of the elderly by providing access to lifts through our Lifts Upgrading Programme (LUP). We have not had spectacular requests specifically for them to be located next to lifts. I think it will require a lot more issues that have to be dealt with in relation to how we can actually facilitate such a process. For now we are quite assured that the needs of the elderly have been met through the LUP, meaning that they have access to lifts on every floor. We have provided an array of opportunities for them to continue to be housed adequately and at the same time have adequate economic resources for their retirement.

7. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) what action is being taken to eradicate the problem of posting of paper notices at void decks, lift landings and common properties in HDB estates; (b) whether such postings constitute an offence and, if so, under which statute; (c) what actions can be taken against these offenders; and (d) whether there were any prosecutions of such offenders in the past two years and what were the sentences, if any, meted out to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Town Councils maintain common property, including void decks and lift landings, in HDB housing estates. It is an offence under the Town Councils’ Common Property and Open Spaces By-Laws to post paper notices on common property without prior written approval from the Town Council. The offence carries a maximum penalty of $5,000. Town Councils can compound such an offence, in lieu of prosecution, by collecting a composition sum not exceeding $1,000 from the offender. This is under section 49 of the Town Councils Act.

If a Town Council comes across an illegally posted paper notice that bears an address or contact number, the Town Council will normally contact the offender and advise the offender against such acts. Should the offence persist, the Town Council would proceed to serve an offence notice to the offender. Generally, offenders would heed the advice of the Town Councils. Therefore, none of the Town Councils have prosecuted such offences in the past two years.

Supplementary question, Sir. May be it is because the Town Councils have taken the stance that they will only issue warnings and perhaps call up the person who posted the notices, that we still see the problem recurring especially in void decks and in lifts and things like that.

The thing I have noticed is that no notices have been put up to advise against such acts and the penalty it carries. So, would the Ministry consider putting up such notices so that it acts as a deterrent because I have come across residents who are very irritated by such acts of posting?

Sir, I think, as far as Town Councils are concerned, they are the ones responsible for the management and maintenance of the common spaces. We will leave it to the Town Councils to see whether it is befitting for them to put up these notices. We have seen Town Councils put up different types of notices along void deck spaces. We have seen "No Playing Soccer", "No Cycling", different kinds of posters being put up to remind residents. Being a local issue, we would probably want to leave it to the Town Councils to see fit what kinds of notices to put up. There is nothing stopping Town Councils from putting up the notices that specifically remind residents of certain offences that they will be committing should they violate some of these bye-laws that are within the Town Councils Act.

8. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) if the Ministry has identified the lapses in the fee collection process which resulted in the over-collection of $6.06 million in radio and TV licence fees from about 684,000 households since 2005; (b) what steps it will take to correct this and prevent future mistakes; and (c) how and by when the money will be refunded to the affected households and parties.

9. Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in view of lapses in the administration of the Scheme for Co-Investment in Exportable Content (SCREEN) noted in the Report of the Auditor-General for FY08/09 (a) what measures are being taken by the Media Development Authority to recover outstanding revenues; and (b) what have been the financial and non-financial returns from SCREEN so far.

For Mr Baey Yam Keng's question, I would like to explain that the $6.06 million are actually not cases of over-collection but rather they are un-refunded vehicle radio and household TV licence fees. Unclaimed refunds for vehicle licences make up about 85% of the 684,000 cases with TV licences the remaining 15%. Most car owners and car dealers do not actively seek refund of their vehicle licence from MDA after their vehicles are transferred or deregistered as the pro-rated refund amount is quite small. Almost half (48%) of these 684,000 cases have outstanding refunds only below $2.50, while the rest of the cases of outstanding refunds are mostly below $20. For household TV licences, property owners have similarly not sought refunds for the TV licence cancellations.

Since the audit by AGO, MDA has refunded $2.3 million of the earlier unclaimed amount of $6.06 million. To clear the rest of the outstanding cases amounting to about $3.8 million, an automated process to proactively refund excess payment and an auto-posting of undue claims to MOF’s website on unclaimed public monies will be implemented by October this year. Previous owners of houses or vehicles which have changed ownership may refer to www.unclaimedmonies.gov.sg or approach the MDA for licence fee refunds if they have not done so.

And now I would like to respond to Ms Audrey Wong's question. Under the Media 21 Blueprint, MDA established the Scheme for Co-Investment in Exportable Content (SCREEN) to better ensure our own local media sector and the industry can gain a larger share of the production and post production work done in Singapore.

MDA adopted a co-investment approach instead of just simply giving a direct grant or subsidy through SCREEN for the purpose of reducing market distortion. AGO reported that $9.89 million of revenue was outstanding to MDA from the 46 projects observed under the SCREEN. MDA would like to explain that this $9.89 million is actually a forecast or projected but yet-to-be-realised revenue from the 46 projects. Based on the media industrial norm, it will usually take a few years for these projects to yield their actual revenue. So far, some of these projects have already produced about $130,000 which is due to MDA as at the end of June this year. MDA is currently taking steps to collect this amount from the relevant project owners. MDA aims to complete this collection by the end of 2009. MDA will also further monitor closely the development of all the other 46 projects and will initiate action to collect the revenues whenever they are due.

In terms of returns and the benefits from the SCREEN initiative, it is actually a programme that is conceived mainly as a capacity building tool to boost our local media sector. In the past three years, SCREEN has raised the profile of Singapore as an emerging creative hub with more than 180 co-production projects made, sold, distributed or broadcasted in more than 50 countries. Examples of successful projects include the Little Tao Shu – The Warrior Boy which has won the US-based iParenting Media Award; The Home Song Stories has received seven nominations at the Golden Horse Awards; and I Got Rocket – an animated TV series has won an Emmy Award for 3D Animated TV Series in 2008. Our locally made productions through the support of SCREEN actually had made headway internationally.

As of 31st March 2009, more than 1,000 full-time equivalent jobs were created under SCREEN, with $164.8 million committed by international and local production houses to be spent in Singapore. Through SCREEN, MDA has helped to build up a core group of local TV, film and animation companies which own or co-own intellectual property and these companies are capable of producing top quality projects with leading international players.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I would like to ask him since the radio and TV licence fee is tied to either a vehicle or the household, would the Ministry consider tying the refund or transfer of any balance of the fee to that of road tax, COE or property tax?

My second question is, since there is administrative hassle which we need to minimise for both the Authority as well as the licence holder, would the Ministry consider setting a deadline for the claims to be made and provide a provision for the Authority to deploy the unclaimed refunds (that are past the deadline) back into the Public Service Broadcasting Fund to support more content productions?

My last supplementary question is, for the non-internet savvy public who may not be able to go to the website to claim the refund, could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on what are the means and channels where they could claim those refunds?

For the refund of the unclaimed fees, MDA is now working on the system to proactively refund the fees. It is developing a system that it is hoping to put in place in October this year. Essentially, what this new system does is that, the MDA will do a daily auto-offset through automation to offset excess paid against any other fees payable by the same customer, that is any customer who has got this unclaimed TV licence or any other radio licence, MDA will pick it up and then will offset any other fees that this same customer is due.

The second component is that the MDA will also put in place a daily auto-refund to the customers including the TV and the radio, if the accumulated refunds to any customer exceed $20.

And lastly, the MDA will also put in place a monthly auto-posting to publish any unclaimed monies online so as to cater to the list of people who are internet savvy. But for those who are not internet savvy, MDA will trace the record, the address and then we will take it up individually with the owners of the unclaimed monies. Deadline for the refund, since there is this new system put in place, MDA will aim to completely refund all the money by the end of this year to those who have the contactable address.

For those who do not have the contactable address, MDA will post the names on the website for the people to find out. I hope I have addressed your questions.

Supplementary question, Sir. With regard to the various schemes from MDA for investment in film and television production in Singapore, does MDA conduct regular periodic reviews of all these schemes? Would these reviews be available to the public or to the industry with information such as the specific projects that were funded, how much was the investment and what were the returns?

The SCREEN programme has been in place for about five, six years. So MDA is currently conducting a review on the procedures for funding principles, and so on. We will consult the industry. Once the review is completed, it will be published to the industry concerned with the purpose of further improving the scheme to better make Singapore a more attractive international creative hub.

10. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports whether the Ministry will consider a solution package, with timeframes and ownerships, to address the problem of elderly parents whose able children are unwilling to support them, especially financially.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a fundamental principle of our society is the concept of filial piety. At a practical level, what that means is that we have to support our ageing parents.

Unfortunately, I think Members in this House would all have come across cases, not common but not rare either, circumstances in which you will see that some aged parents are not getting the support that they deserve from their children. Sometimes, it is because there is a problem with the relationship. Other times, this dispute is really between siblings on how to adequately share the responsibility of looking after their parents. But whatever the case may be they often result in a situation in which the elderly parents are left to their own devices or they are forced to seek assistance from charitable organisations or from the State. This is unacceptable and unfair. It is unfair to the parents. It is unfair to the charitable organisations and it is unfair to the taxpayers. Over the last 12 months, there has been a total of 172 applications filed at the Tribunal for Maintenance of Parents. The usual annual rate is about 100. So over the last 12 months, there has been a significant increase in the number of applications filed.

Consequently, there are three areas my Ministry is focusing on in response to this escalating situation.

First, we will tighten the workflow and referral processes and the information flow between agencies in dealing with this. Let me give Members an example. Of the elderly who approach the CDCs for financial assistance, we have found that nearly one third do not even have the contact details of their children. This makes it more difficult obviously for the CDCs to process the applications and also to check on whether the children are available and able to support their parents. We are exploring how the relevant information from different Ministries, different agencies can be shared without compromising privacy and confidentiality. But, nevertheless, we see that the information can flow safely and appropriately so that we can deal with the cases comprehensively.

Secondly, we are looking at strengthening the office of the Commissioner for Maintenance of Parents. Under the Act, the Commissioner already has legal powers to act on behalf of the elderly parent before the Tribunal. In the future, I have requested that the Commissioner play a more active and effective role in case monitoring and advocacy, in facilitating mediation and conciliation, and also for ensuring proactively that the elderly receive prompt assistance. My Ministry will therefore increase the resources available to the Commissioner's office so that all these things can be done.

The third area is to ensure that elderly parents who are caught in this situation receive timely and comprehensive assistance. The ComCare schemes already provide for urgent interim assistance to any needy parents who need help. The elderly parents who are caught in such a situation can, of course, see the local advisors and can access the schemes delivered through ComCare. But in addition to that, I think there is also a need to provide more information to the elderly parents so that they are aware of their options. Many of them will not want to initiate legal action in the first instance. But, nevertheless, we are going to refer them to the Tribunal, refer them to the Commissioner's office so that they know that these options are available. They will be able to consider whether or when to initiate legal actions. Even if they do not pursue these legal actions, the Commissioner's office can, as I said earlier, assist the elderly parents with managing the complex, social and family problems which they often are caught in. So the key point is to provide timely, effective and comprehensive assistance to the elderly parents at the point of need.

I want to end by saying that legislation and legal actions have to be the last resort. We cannot legislate love nor can you use legislation in this House to guarantee emotional support. We know that the vast majority of families in Singapore are still strong and instinctively abide by the concept of filial piety. Our ageing Singaporeans deserve to be surrounded by a strong network of close family ties. But we will know that there is a small minority that will need help and what we will focus on is ensuring that for this small minority, help and recourse will be available and in a timely and effective way. Our job is to make the entire process as efficient and effective as possible basically so that those who are even contemplating abdicating their responsibility will know that the system will catch up with them and this is not a path of least resistance. I am also studying the possibility of amending the Act and I look forward to receiving suggestions from Members of this House as well as members of the public on how we can further strengthen the Maintenance of Parents Act.

I want to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and also the focus on this matter. On the ground, I think there are parties – the grassroots leaders or even the CDC staff – who try to help these distraught elderly parents. Most of them are usually ill-equipped to counsel or to mediate. At most, they can offer, what I would call, general advice. So I think there is a gap that needs to be closed. Also, contrary to what the Minister has just said, there appears to be an erosion of this moral value of filial piety and looking after one's ageing parents and even respect for the elderly. So amongst one, the young and, two, even amongst us adults who may sometimes be bad role models to the young, there is another gap which also needs to be addressed. Would the Minister consider then developing and resourcing a continuum of solutions to close these gaps? Solutions can range from cultivation of the desired values that we want to see in Singapore; counselling, mediating and then legislation, hopefully, as a last resort.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the Member that if you ask an untrained volunteer or even a grassroots leader to mediate and provide advice, that is not going to be sufficient. So I agree with her. I think we do need to provide more training. We also need to provide more information about where to go for help and we need to educate everyone about the legal options, even if you do not want to or are not contemplating using legal recourse in the first instance. I agree with her that there is always a danger of erosion of filial piety and, as I said in my earlier answer, the fact that in the last 12 months, we had a significant increase in the applications with the Tribunal is a cause for concern.

I also agree with her that this is not going to be a simple solution and we do need a continuum. It starts with the inculcation of values and, on that count, I must say, as parents, we have our responsibilities too. Our children will treat us the way they watch the way we treat our own parents. So in a sense, it comes round. Secondly, we need to make sure that we remain a society which I would say is unashamedly conservative as far as family values are concerned. And you need to know that no matter how successful you think you are, if you do not discharge your familial responsibility, you really have not made it. Third, we need to make sure all the community facilities, charitable organisations and support facilities are available to people who need help. Lastly, we need to make sure that if need be, the law is available but as a last resort.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the Minister's concern and I note that the trend of our children not supporting aged parents is a worrying one. I am also concerned and I suspect that this problem will grow as Singapore faces this ageing population situation. I would like to ask the Minister if he has studied the root causes for such a phenomenon and also what insights can be gleaned from this. Is there a particular group? And, thirdly, have we looked at other societies, how have they fared and what can we learn from the measures that they are taking?

Mr Speaker, I think these are very important fundamental questions and I really cannot do justice to it at this point in time. I think we all should be aware that, first, we are going to be one of the fastest ageing societies anywhere in the world. In the next two decades, the proportion of Singaporeans who are aged 65 and above is going to triple. The dependency ratio is also going to go down because we have smaller families or no families in many instances. The breakdown of the extended family also means the personal network of support is going to be much less available. The fact that we are an open, global city and many families travel or are extended across different continents will also make care more difficult.

So there are many, many fundamental reasons which make me worry that this is a problem which is only going to get worse and, hence, my objective of focusing on it now while it is not yet an emergency. But I am flagging this as an issue which we need to pay attention to. We will look, of course, at the experience of other countries but even that is going to be limited because circumstances are different. But one key point of difference which I think we want to ensure in Singapore, and this is the principle which actually pervades much of the debate in this House, is that we have to try to arrive at a situation in which every generation earns and saves enough for his entire life cycle. Because if we can do that – and we can do that through making sure people get jobs, hold on to jobs, increase productivity, save enough,

maintain CPF accounts, make sure you have enough for your healthcare, then this question of inter-generational dependence will be reduced. If we can maintain that as well as maintain a social safety net, in which we remember the fundamental principles of self-reliance, family support and the many helping hands approach, then we can also ensure we have a system which is fully bankable. The funds are available; it is a fully-funded system.

So, many of the things that we are doing now actually straddle across different Ministries and across many of the policies which we argue about in this House. But the Member's question deserves a further study and we will pursue that.

Mr Seah, last question.

Sir, I certainly agree that legislative measures should be used as a last resort. I think there should be equal emphasis on education, and this does not apply just to MCYS but certainly to the Ministry of Education. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will consider an inspiring campaign, just as the Ministry had done in the last two to three years. There was one about family bonding – there was a "Red Shoes" campaign; and there was one about marriage – the "Funeral" campaign. I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider one which talks about educating the young on filial piety. The numbers are certainly scary, and I think it is worth considering putting some resources into it and possibly reduce the pressures that we are all facing.

My favourite answer – yes.

11. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether there are sports governing bodies recognised by People's Association (PA) that are conducting courses at various Community Clubs but which are not recognised by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) or Singapore Sports Council (SSC); and (b) should there be differing safety standards, whether PA will consider adopting those that are stipulated by the sports governing bodies recognised by SSC and SNOC.

Sir, the National Sports Associations (NSAs) are recognised as the governing entities for their respective sports by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and the Singapore Sports Council (SSC). They oversee all aspects of the conduct of the sport. There are, however, other organisations such as clubs or associations which operate independently of the NSAs and are not affiliated to the SNOC or SSC.

The People’s Association (PA) currently adopts an inclusive approach when engaging instructors or organisations for courses conducted by the Community Clubs (CCs) and Residents’ Committees (RCs). To cater to the demands of a diverse clientele and to provide more options for participants, the PA’s policy is not to turn down any established groups from teaching in the CCs and RCs, provided they are legally registered and have qualified instructors who are competent to teach. Ninety percent of the sports courses are actually conducted by coaches from NSAs that are affiliated to SNOC and SSC. However, it is not a requirement for these instructors or organisations to be affiliated to SNOC or SSC.

Most of the sports organisations conducting classes in the PA are linked to their own international sport bodies. Each has its own set of safety rules and measures when conducting activities in the CCs and RCs. In addition, PA requires every sports instructor to have a first aid certificate.

Mr Seah may be aware that the PA has just convened a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to study the tragic incident during a recent taekwondo competition organised by the Greenville Residents' Committee. The COI is currently reviewing the safety rules and measures adopted by the different sports organisations conducting classes and competitions in the CCs and RCs. The PA will look into the findings and recommendations of the COI when it has completed its work.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have supplementary questions. I have no objection to an inclusive approach. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the basis for the differences in approach between PA, SSC and SNOC in classifying these associations.

The second question relates to safety standards. I also understand that in the current case, the hearing is in progress. But I would like to suggest that, in the meantime, clearly for physical contact sports, since the safety standards are already there, I do not know whether PA should immediately consider adopting them. They could still refine them pending the outcome of the Committee of Inquiry.

There is basically no reclassification or classification of club associations. It is just that some sports clubs are affiliated to the National Sports Association; some are not. It is a matter of option, depending on whether they want to participate in international competition, like the Olympics or inter-club competitions that are endorsed or sanctioned by the NSAs. PA adopts a more inclusive approach in that it allows different sports clubs to conduct the courses that residents might favour. When there is demand, they will allow the clubs to conduct those courses. But I take the point which Mr Seah has brought up, that safety is of paramount importance and we must make sure that we have stringent regulations of the highest safety standards. PA is actually reviewing all the safety regulations, including those recommendations from the Sports Safety Committee. Between two sets of rules that are different, they will adopt the more stringent one in the future for any competition that is conducted under PA.

12. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what factors are taken into account in the market valuation of hawker centre food stalls to justify hikes in rentals; and (b) how such hikes will impact the price of cooked food.

Sir, the National Environment Agency (NEA) engages a professional valuer to assess the market rent for non-subsidised cooked food stalls in hawker centres. The market rentals for such stalls are generally lower than those in private food courts. This, together with subsidised stalls which still make up about half of the number of cooked food stalls in the hawker centres, helps keep cooked food prices affordable. Cooked food prices in hawker centres are also influenced by a number of factors, including the cost of utilities, raw materials, salaries, as well as market competition.

Supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there were hawkers who have this year received notices that their rentals would be doubled from $1,000 to $2,000 per month, and there has been feedback from them that they will not be able to cope with this increase.

Secondly, the questions that are being asked are: why the Government chooses to do so at such an economic situation that we have now? If there is a need to increase it, can you not make it more gradual and perhaps defer it to a time which is more favourable.

Thirdly, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that eventually the price of cooked food will go up in tandem with the rentals?

I would like to inform the Member that rental revision of these cooked food stalls does not necessarily imply rental increases. In fact, in the most recent rental revision exercise of about 150 stalls, between January and June this year, rentals of 49% of these stalls actually remained unchanged whilst another 18%, in fact, saw rental reduction. Furthermore, as part of the Government's efforts to help cushion the effects of the economic downturn, NEA is giving a 15% rental rebate for all stallholders paying market rental for a period of one year, from 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2009. With this rental rebate, the proportion of stalls that actually experience rental increase is 20%, and the median rental increase is brought down from some 20% to 11%.

With respect to the particular stall in question, we will need more details from the Member if she wishes to have a more specific and detailed explanation. But the quantum of increase really depends on why there was a rental revision. Was it due to the expiration of the lease or is it due to an assignment from, say, a subsidised stallholder to a non-subsidised stallholder, in which case the quantum would be higher? But all things being said, the market rentals of these stalls would, by and large, be much lower than those of food courts and coffeeshops.

I would also like to assure the Member that we are committed to helping residents access affordable food at hawker centres in a pleasant environment, and we do keep tabs on the food prices charged at hawker centres. As I have noted, the price of hawker food depends on a host of other factors, including cost of utilities, salaries, and so on. In fact, there are many stalls that do not actually raise the prices of their food even after rental revisions, say, due to upgrading. I can cite the Member a very good example at Yuhua Hawker Centre where you can still find nasi lemak, bak chor mee, etc, at $2 per plate.

13. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the state of the vector control problem (including rodents, crows and pigeons) across HDB housing estates; (b) what is the number of such complaints received in the past two years; and (c) what is being done to contain the problem at the national and constituency levels.

Sir, the National Environment Agency (NEA) exercises stringent monitoring and control operations on vectors which pose a significant risk from the public health perspective. Currently, mosquitoes and rodents are the vector populations being targeted as they can spread diseases like dengue and murine typhus respectively. Crows and pigeons caught locally have so far not been found to carry infectious agents. Nonetheless, we have put in place programmes to manage their populations so as to minimise public nuisance and to mitigate any potential health risks.

Between 2006 and 2008, NEA detected 1,473, 1,773 and 2,290 mosquito breeding habitats in the common areas of HDB housing estates respectively. Although the numbers are on the rise, they are lower than the 3,688 breedings detected in 2005. The increase in breedings detected can partly be attributed to increased checks by NEA. The annual number of day-biting mosquito complaints, which largely comprise dengue-transmitting Aedes mosquitoes, received by NEA between 2005 and 2008 were 3,732, 1,855, 2,588 and 2,038 respectively.

We will have to sustain our efforts to control the mosquito population. NEA will continue to coordinate national efforts to locate and remove mosquito breeding grounds and potential habitats. At the constituency level, the Town Councils are engaging professional pest control operators to carry out regular inspections of the common areas in HDB estates for mosquito breeding. NEA will also continue to support these source reduction efforts with its outreach programmes that encourage the community to prevent mosquito breeding in their homes and surroundings.

With regard to rodents, between 2005 and 2008, the number of rodent sighting complaints in HDB estates reported to NEA was 368, 176, 153 and 383 respectively. The 58% reduction between 2005 and 2007 was largely due to a two-year intensive rodent control programme introduced by NEA and the Town Councils in 2005.

NEA adopts a risk-based approach to rodent control by targeting efforts on areas that could be conducive to rat infestation. The key strategy is to ensure that estate managers and premise owners practise good housekeeping and effective waste management, and this is complemented by rodent trappings. With the rise in the number of rodent sightings over the past two years, NEA is assessing the need for rodent control efforts in HDB estates to be stepped up.

While the vector situation has generally improved over the past few years, we can do better. I wish to assure the Member that we will continue to take all necessary measures to control vectors and prevent the transmission of vector-borne diseases. However, controlling the vector population downstream is not the most sustainable approach in the long-term. Each of us must also play our part in keeping our premises clean and tidy, thus depriving the vectors of potential breeding grounds and food sources and limiting their population in the first place.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 14-16 and 18-26 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question No. 17 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

*Cols. 1237-1256.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [18th August, 2009],

"That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.". – [Mr Viswa Sadasivan].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to recite the Pledge:

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."

Sir, upon closer scrutiny of the Pledge, I realised that the Pledge only comprises three sentences. Because in those three, albeit long, sentences is captured the essence of how we should live our lives as Singaporeans, and what we want for Singapore. It is somewhat like a Vision Statement.

To me, Sir, the most poignant statement is the line, "regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality". Each time I read this line, I feel a sense of purpose and pride as a Singaporean. This is the heart of the Pledge. It is the one organ that is responsible for supplying the body with oxygenated blood. Each time the heart beats, it applies just the right pressure on the veins and arteries for the blood supply throughout our body. Hence, this statement in the Pledge is the key element that underpins our belief in the plurality of our nation.

This year, we celebrate 50 years of self-government. It is worthwhile for us in this House to reflect honestly on what we have attained. As this year's national song title asked us, "What do you see?", and I also would like to ask this House, "What kind of Singapore have we built?"

Yesterday, as I sat in this Chamber and listened to Mr Viswa Sadasivan, this was the picture that was painted:

– we are more an "Inc" than a "nation", more concerned about the bottomlines and KPIs;

– we lack freedom of expression, as Singaporeans live in a "climate of fear";

– we are a society confused by the mixed signals;

– this is a country that takes its "citizens for granted";

– the Government lacks accountability to its people, and he said, "accountability requires the Government to go beyond lip-service ...".

He also mentioned that we do not care enough for our old and needy; and we lack justice and fairness, and to quote him, "When justice, especially in the way it is meted out, deviates significantly from the common man's sense of fairness, questions of legitimacy arise."

To be honest, Sir, I was worried. I ask myself – is this really what Singapore is today? Is that what we have become after 50 years of nation building?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think and I feel that this is not what Singapore is today. We have built and done much more for our country. Let us not be too harsh on ourselves.

Allow me, Sir, to cite some of the good work our forefathers, leaders and citizens have done that resulted in this country that we are enjoying today.

Racial and religious harmony was not a natural instinct when we attained self-government 50 years ago. The multi-racial and multi-religious profile of our country posed a big challenge for the government of the day as there were potential community fault lines that could scuttle the good work that needed to be done. The harmony that we have today was made possible through the will and determination of our founding fathers. Many would not even know that 34 people were killed and 563 injured in two outbreaks of racial riots in 1964. But Singaporeans of that era, shocked by the horror of those riots, have resolved from then on never to take racial harmony for granted.

Singapore, in the 50s and early 60s, was not too much different from the preceding century, where identity was concerned. Singapore had developed and thrived since our founding as a motley mix of immigrants, united by the necessary business of making a living. A sense of community and common destiny was gathering momentum, however, forged by the experience of the war years.

At the heart of the challenge to turn Singapore into a functioning state was the handling of our racial relations. It is no understatement to say that our efforts at instilling racial harmony are primarily responsible for the tremendous economic success and political stability we enjoyed in the last five decades.

Since the early days of our nationhood, we have worked hard at maintaining peace and stability for our country. But maintaining racial harmony is a long journey, and we would be foolish to assume that we have arrived. We only have to look at the ill-fated first steps of our journey as a nation to realise how fragile race relations can be.

The lessons of the racial riots in the 1960s remain an indelible part of our history. Everyone whose lives were touched by the riots understood how we all lost when racial differences spilled over into actual conflict. Lives were lost, work slowed down, there were food shortages, hawkers could not conduct their business, and children could not go to school. It was a setback for all of us, and generations after have remained convinced that we cannot afford to ever bring ourselves down that road again. We cannot afford a repeat of the panic and irrational fear that led to segregation of the races after the two riots of 1964. Houses and buildings can be rebuilt in a flash, but trust and harmony take generations to restore.

Peace and harmony did not happen today by chance. Our leaders made that one decision never to allow these events to happen again. Yes, we cannot erase race and religion from society. Indeed, race and religion run so deep in our lives that it is unthinkable to try and remove them. It is like the East and the West, and never the twain shall meet. But that does not mean we cannot get them to communicate and to maintain harmony. So, our leaders created a new set of values that could be commonly accepted by the different communities – the principles of meritocracy, justice and equality.

What has been the outcome? Where there were squatters and swamps, we turned them into housing estates and playgrounds. Where there were sorrows and sufferings, we brought happiness, comfort and relief. We gave jobs to the people, we trained the untrained so that they could get reemployed. We helped the poor not through the outright handouts, but through a deliberate policy to give them the tools to enable them to break out of the snares of poverty. Education is compulsory and dote on each child through their school years to ensure that by the time they leave, they are equipped, if not academically, then technically. Not one is disadvantaged because of his or her race or religion. You name the professions, be it medical, legal, accounting, engineering, banking, and they are all there – Chinese, Indians, Tamils, Malays, Eurasians and more.

Speaking from my experience with NTUC, we see tripartism between labour, management and Government working at its best. The Government is so concerned that the voice of the workers would not be heard in its policy deliberations that the NTUC Secretary-General is made a Cabinet Minister. Again, so concerned is this Government for the elderly and aged sick that a Minister is assigned full time to take care of policies on the aged. We spend so many hours in this House explaining policies on healthcare, housing, transport to barrier-free environment because we care for the people. This is one Government whose heart throb is one with its people. This is one Government which does not take its people for granted. At the end of every term, it stands before the people to be judged by them.

The policies have worked. The people across all races know this. These policies benefit everyone, everywhere, everyday. Therefore, in this motion before the House, while it offers us the opportunity to discuss the issue of nation building, I think we can do better.

With that, Sir, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion on Nation Building Tenets.

Mr Zainudin, could I have a copy of the amendment, please? [Copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]

The amendment seems to be in order. Mr Zainudin, do you have enough copies to distribute to hon. Members?

Yes, Sir. May I request the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to hon. Members a copy of the proposed amendment to the motion? [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members.]

Please move your amendment.

Sir, I beg to move,

"That we delete the words in line one, after the word "house" to the end, and there insert:

"acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies."

Sir, while I thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Mr Michael Palmer for moving the original motion, I must say that the motion does not do justice to what those present here and those before us have been working on all these years. The original motion overlooks the progress and the very exemplary manner in which we have delivered all our policies even handedly on the basis of justice, equality and meritocracy.

I see no reason why we should only emphasise the principles of meritocracy, justice and equality in economic policies. Rather, in the last 50 years, we have achieved so much in our nation building that we are often cited as an example of a good government that has brought prosperity and progress for its people through its multi-racial policies. It is my submission that all the key policies, whether economic, social, security or political, must be grounded in these common values of meritocracy, justice and equality.

Take the case of the Health Ministry and its introduction of the Advanced Medical Directive Act, which was passed in 1996. This policy was widely discussed and debated, and religious groups were consulted to take into account the sensitivities of the teachings of the different religions. The other example is the introduction of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in 1998 to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act. It was to recognise the need to ensure that the minority voices were heard and represented in the highest policy-making body that this amendment was made. This is an example relevant to our maintenance of race and religious harmony, and meritocracy. Another is our education policy on selection of candidates for scholarships, admission to schools and universities.

We have also encouraged our people to mix freely. We have incorporated racial integration explicitly into our public housing policy. While we may not have many close friends from other races, we will not be strangers to their practices and traditions. This willingness of our people to embrace the diversity of ethnicities and religions continues to be passed on from generation to generation. This is also something that we have come to accept and treasure in Singapore, in order to keep our small, multi-cultural society cohesive and harmonious.

Sir, as our population grows and our country progresses, we must be mindful that the social environment has also moved. We are a global city. We trade with the world and we communicate with the world. We can read and watch events in our living rooms as they unfold anywhere in the world. As the Prime Minister has said in his National Day Rally speech, there is also a growing religiosity among the various groups. Religious fanaticism and the spread of militancy among some quarters elsewhere can spark off incidents in our community if we are not careful. After all, the fault lines are there – we cannot deny that – like crevices in a wall, where external water can seep in.

Singapore's demographic landscape is changing as we continue to progress. Higher population density can easily create tension. We face critical challenges to racial harmony and social stability in our country. These challenges, if not addressed, would lead to the undoing of the precious harmony that we have carefully built over 40 years.

Globalisation has connected us all together more closely than ever before. All over the world, people of different backgrounds now live and work together in mixed societies. We face new challenges as we welcome foreign talents and new citizens to our country. Apart from the knowledge and skills, they bring to our country new cultures, traditions and perspectives. The recent Straits Times Forum page articles on the issues of integration with our new citizens are a clear indication that we have some way to go in dealing with these current challenges. Eventually, the level of integration boils down to the depth of interaction with our fellow citizens, and equally for us to understand our bearings as Singaporeans. If we do not grow this common space, then sadly we would be back to where we started 50 years ago.

Just as we did in the past, we must allow room for diversity and talent to thrive if we are to progress as a nation. We must be gracious enough to share our experiences and trade our cultures. Likewise, new citizens would also need to reciprocate and understand the Singaporean way of life and values. It is this spirit of give and take that would allow every section in the society to work together as partners for a common cause – to build an equal and harmonious society.

The other challenge that we face in our quest for racial harmony is the engagement of our younger generations, who have never experienced the horrific consequences of racial strife. We need to find new platforms to demonstrate that the values of multi-culturalism and racial harmony can and must coexist with the commitment to meritocracy. Civic movements in Singapore are too often carried forth by our seniors. We need more of our youths to step forward and champion the cause. Perhaps the way to go is to connect with our youths in their own style and lingo, through mediums which best reach out to them, be it Facebook, blogs or YouTube – it is what makes them tick that will work. As future flag bearers of this country, they will determine the destiny of Singapore. It is thus vital for us to imbibe values of harmony in our young as early as it is possible.

Sir, there is only so much that the Government can do. And also that there is so much that we, the hon. Members in this Chamber, can do to promote racial harmony, compared to the collective efforts of more than three million Singaporeans. We can start the rhythm but, ultimately, for the sound to travel across the communities, it must come from the people beating the drums.

There is no shortage of community efforts to address these challenges. OnePeople.sg, which champions racial harmony initiatives in Singapore, has developed programmes to foster harmony among our youths, community and religious leaders and the wider community as a whole. This is done through workshops, camps and conferences for our youths to engage deeper on issues relating to inter-racial understanding and appreciation. Inter-faith learning journeys and inter-faith dialogues in partnership with the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) are organised for religious leaders to understand the practices and beliefs of different faiths. Community Engagement Workshops are conducted for Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles to sharpen their knowledge and nuances in handling racially charged issues. At the OnePeople.sg portal, resources are also available to raise the depth of our community level efforts in the promotion of racial and religious harmony.

Sir, the People's Association (PA), over the years, has also developed strong community bonding initiatives at the grassroots levels as well as a vibrant PA youth movement to engage young people to take an interest in community issues. PA has also successfully developed grassroots circles to engage new citizens. In addition, the Community Development Councils also play a crucial role in community development in strengthening harmony and integration by building community networks at the local district levels through far-reaching initiatives.

While there have been much efforts to grow the harmony we have in our beloved country, we have still not arrived. Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, shared his thoughts on harmony recently. His remarks that we are very much a "nation in transition" invoke the reality that faces our nation. Racial and religious harmony, as an important part of our nation building, will always be work in progress.

One of my proudest moments when I am walking around the housing estates is to watch the children from different races playing together, holding hands, dancing and laughing. I always remember the times when I took the National Pledge as a school boy, standing shoulder to shoulder with my other non-Malay school mates. The National Pledge makes it even more meaningful, because it was penned by our late Minister S. Rajaratnam, a member of a minority race. Similarly, in singing the National Anthem, I cannot but be satisfied that it was composed by the late Mr Zubir Said, also a member of a minority race. Our National Flag was designed by a Committee headed by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye. And it was Sir George Oehlers who was the first Speaker of Singapore's Legislative Assembly in 1963. These events alone show that justice, equality and meritocracy were principles that we have infused into our system from the days of our gaining self-government.

Sir, as a multi-racial and multi-religious country, we will face undercurrents and challenges from time to time. We can certainly be proud of how far we have come, but we must never relent on working towards strengthening our ties. While there are many initiatives by the Government, community and religious organisations to promote harmony, it is strong connections among the people at a personal level that will keep the wheels of harmony turning. The extent of harmony we will achieve in the next 50 years will depend on the extent in which we are willing to respect, understand and appreciate our differences. It is our personal responsibility to ensure diversity continues to be the greatest asset of this country. And looking forward to the future, it is for us to build a country and a nation that is going to surprise our next generation like the way our forefathers have done. Nobody expected us to arrive and build this country as it is today. Similarly, in 50 years' time, the foundations that we have built will allow for another surprising outcome for Singapore in the future.

Sir, with that, I beg to move.

It has been proposed, as an amendment, that the words from "house" in line one to the end be left out, and there to insert the words as proposed by the Member. It may be convenient that the debate on the original motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have Members' agreement on this?

indicated assent.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed with my speech, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Member on his amended motion. He said that he acknowledged the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years, etc, and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. I would like to ask, what does he mean by "achieving the tenets"? Is he saying that we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge or is he saying that it is in progress?

Sir, what I mean is that in the last 50 years, we have built our nation and we have also achieved what is in the Pledge. But, moving forward, there will always be challenges. That is what I mean by "achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge".

Sir, I do not think we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge, but I can recognise that we have made progress.

Sir, I am of the opinion that we should not read too much in the Pledge and attempt to interpret for one's own convenience and to suit one's own argument. The language used for the Pledge is simple, succinct and to the point. The first part of the National Pledge says, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion ...". This is a statement of fact – that we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, and we are all Singapore citizens. By having this common identity of being Singaporeans, we should be united as a people. We are a young nation.

The second part of the Pledge is to forge a consensus for a roadmap forward – "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality ...". It clearly defines the guiding principle by which Singapore, as a society, should forge ahead with actions based on justice and equality tenets towards the type of society we wish to build, ie, a democratic society.

The last part of the Pledge expresses our ultimate goals and aspirations for Singapore as a nation. Why is the need to be a united people and to build a democratic society? It is to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. Therefore, Sir, my view is that we should read and understand the Pledge as a reminder of the fundamental statement of what we want to be as a people, as a society and as a nation. Some may want to argue over the details or even how to formulate or implement policies to conform to every word of the Pledge. But I believe that we should leave the Pledge as it is and not attempt to interpret it in one's own way, breaking down its component parts for application in argument.

The National Pledge represents the spiritual part of our nation. And unless it is really necessary and justifiable, we should not invoke it for the sake of argument.

Sir, last but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress. And the Pledge begins with, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves" – not the Government of Singapore pledges itself. Therefore, each of us, as citizens, if we find Government policies or some social behaviour which are not right for Singapore, then, as a citizen, we should make it right for Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have requested for copies of the National Pledge to be disseminated as reference to my speech and as a reminder to the House the "living words" of this Government.

Sir, the amended motion on nation building tenets provides a timely reminder that our society is a multi-cultural and meritocratic society, and that to progress as one Singapore, we need to work together regardless of our racial, language, religious or income differences. The amended motion reaffirms that this Government has lived and will live by all the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge and refutes the special emphasis, in the original motion, on commitment to non-discrimination in the making and conduct of economic policy.

Sir, economic life is an important aspect of existence, and the original motion affirms the Government's commitment in ensuring that all Singaporeans have equal access to Government opportunities regardless of race, language or religion. The progress that this Government has made to be in the first league of nations is testimony to the vigilant adherence to the principle of non-discrimination as reflected in the Pledge, and the emphasis that the principle operates through all aspects of policies.

It was not good economic policy, per se, that lifted us out of poverty but a combination of good political, economic, and social policies. The efficacy of any policy depends on other policies, so we will never realise the fruits of economic policy, whatever our effort, in the absence of social policies that stand on a solid ground of non-discrimination.

Sir, one of Singapore’s founding fathers, Mr S. Rajaratnam, wrote this Pledge in the wake of the storm of racial riots that plagued our nation during the turbulent 50s and 60s. Mr Rajaratnam had intended for the Pledge to stand as the beacon of hope and guidance for a new country that had just set foot onto the long and arduous path towards nationhood.

When Mr Rajaratnam was tasked with writing the National Pledge in 1966, he understood that ethnicity formed the core identity of most people, especially within a multicultural setting that lacked a strong, overarching national identity, a situation in which a newly independent Singapore found herself. He correctly identified language, race and religion as potential fracture points that would immediately shatter any attempts at nation building and therefore emphasized the role of non-discrimination as the foremost principle governing our political, economic and social affairs.

Wise words, Sir, stand the test of time, and his words were wise. The central tenet of non-discrimination enshrined in the Pledge still rings true to this very day. We must not mistake the calm seas that we inhabit today as proof that the tempests of yesteryears are over. The harmony and prosperity that we currently find ourselves in is not the natural state of affairs but, rather, the product of good governance and an unwavering commitment to meritocracy and to a policy of non-discrimination in all aspects of life.

Our policy of non-discrimination forms the glue that gels or that seals the potential rifts of discord that constantly threaten to tear us apart. Deviate from the principles emphasised in our Pledge, and I guarantee, Sir, that all our collective years of nation building, painstakingly undertaken by the PAP Government and the people of Singapore will come to naught.

Our incredible journey from third world to first within a generation was made possible only through the collective effort of every citizen, each working in unity with a government dedicated towards the betterment of Singapore. Our unprecedented success against all odds in turn reflects the Government’s commitment to non-discrimination in all areas of policy and its desire to involve every citizen in the nation building process.

But it is crucial to note the following: that the cooperation and unity that underlie our hitherto success stems not from a well-defined national identity, nor from a long and shared sense of history, but from an implicit trust forged between the Government and the people over the flames of adversity and the shared trials and tribulations experienced by all Singaporeans during our journey after independence.

Sir, trust is by nature delicate, difficult to build up, but easy to shatter. We have arrived at a key crossroad in our history as a nation, a moment where we seek to define ourselves, to understand our place in history, and to chart the path forward that we wish to take as a people. The Member may like to know that we must at this critical junction build on the collective unity that we have taken years to achieve; any attempt by opportunistic voices to discredit the good work done by the PAP Government will create a swirl of uncertainty that will slowly but surely hammer away at the foundations of trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and, ultimately, unleash a torrent of discontent and ill-will that will dismantle all that we have achieved and deliver the coup de grace to our existence as a first-world nation.

Sir, on social policy, we have to first navigate the dangerous waters surrounding our racial and religious harmony when it comes to social policy, which has a direct impact on the personal lives of Singaporeans. When creating social policies for Singapore, our racial and religious mix must form the backdrop of all deliberations. We have to be mindful of different viewpoints of each group on sensitive issues and to make a conscious effort to operate in the secular common space. As Prime Minister Lee emphasised in his Rally Speech, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion or status would be treated equal; no particular group would be shown any special favours. But this does not mean that the Government should shy away from adopting the approach of a particular group, provided that there are cogent reasons independent of racial or religious considerations for doing so.

Sir, racial and religious harmony, as it is currently practised in Singapore, does not guarantee a homogenous Singapore society – with a single shared culture. Today, even after 50 years of nation building, a "Singaporean" ethnicity has not evolved. Although we cannot rule out that a Singaporean race would evolve in the future; such a development may just happen with the passage of time and a feeling of "Singaporean-ness".

As Minister Mentor Lee pointed out at an event in July this year, the multi-racial performances at the event were a contrived effort that represented an ideal that we may never completely reach, but because of this ideal, we will continue to make progress.

Although there is this ideal of promulgating a shared Singaporean identity, in trying to encourage this development, we must remain vigilant and sensitive to the feelings of individuals and of communities. One wrong reading of a situation could spell disaster for Singapore. Prime Minister Lee recounted such an incident where two families, one Malay, another Chinese, tussling for the same spot at a void deck to hold their respective functions. It was settled amicably when the Malay family gave way, even if it had the right and necessary permit to hold the function. Sir, timely intervention helped avert an ugly situation from arising. This incident gives hope; that as a nation, as one Singaporean people, although we have yet to arrive, we are slowly but surely reaching the goal of One People, One Nation and One Singapore.

Perhaps this explains why some surveys indicate that many our youths do not feel patriotic or why some express a desire to migrate. I would like to let Mr Viswa know that in fact their views do not reflect the Government’s failure to commit to the tenets of non-discrimination. Rather, they reflect the fact that we have arrived at the crossroad that I had mentioned earlier in my speech. Thrust unexpectedly into the murky waters of independence and headed towards a waterfall on a small, rickety boat with a crew that had never worked with one another before, we had little choice but to rely on trust to guide us to safety. So the citizens worked hard at rowing, believing that the Government was leading the boat with everyone’s best interests at heart. And so we averted disaster and emerged into the oasis of the first world.

The youths of today are no longer content with relying solely on the implicit trust between the Government and the people. They seek a more active role in charting the path forward that Singapore will take. This should hardly surprise, for we have arrived at a state in the evolution of our history as a nation where we seek to define ourselves and to understand our place in history. So, Members who have spoken earlier, clearly are mistaken when they attempt to discredit the PAP Government’s achievements over the years, for the "unpatriotism" that we witness today is the product of the passage of time, rather than the Government’s lack of commitment towards nation building.

Sir, the path forward should therefore build on the implicit trust that we have accumulated. We need to root young Singaporeans in their community by engaging them in community programmes that allow them to contribute by giving back to society-at-large. Doing so provides a sense of involvement and a stake in the community. We already have such programmes in the form of youth clubs that engage in voluntary grassroots work, but we can do more to increase the numbers of and membership in such clubs. Sir, we must also allow for greater participation in the political process. We have made progress in this area through the Feedback Unit and increasing opportunities for participation in Parliament, and we must continue to move in that direction. The upshot is that in charting our path forward, we must stay united as One People, One Nation, One Singapore.

But what then defines us as One People, One Nation, One Singapore? Answering this question requires us to define our national identity. I would like to think of national identity as a shared vision, a belief in our common destiny as a people. The Americans believe in their role as the bastion of democratic values and in the liberty to pursue their individual happiness; the Chinese believe in their millennia-old civilisation and share a common desire to make China great again. So, in the context of Singapore, what is our national identity? Sir, I do not have an answer. As a young nation of 44, we are still in the process of defining ourselves as a people.

What will the Singaporean identity look like? Again, I do not have the answer. What I am certain of, however, is the paramount importance of involving all parties in the process of developing a uniquely Singaporean sense of identity. Our unique multicultural flavour means that our national identity must be specific enough to distinguish us as a people, while at the same time broad enough to allow for different racial groups to preserve their own identities while taking part in and contributing towards a larger identity and purpose. America is a good example of where this has occurred. Americans tend to retain their ethnic identity and refer to themselves as Asian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, and so on. But outside the United States, they all refer to themselves as Americans. So we must provide enough space for each race to preserve its own ethnic identity while creating enough common ground for all races to identify with a larger cause.

What does the path towards a Singaporean identity look like? Progress must occur at a comfortable pace for all parties – we cannot force a minority which is not ready to assimilate into what the majority determines should be the Singaporean identity. The process of change must happen naturally and gradually, through dialogue and interaction and consultation with all stakeholders. Constant and free-flowing communication between various ethnic groups is what will drive the development of a Singaporean identity. But for this communication to be successful it must be civil; it must be tolerant of differences; and it must accept differences. In a way, it is like a negotiation between cultures; giving and taking perhaps consensually and parties walk away from the negotiation together, in a win-win situation.

What the Government can do is limited; it can only provide a conducive forum for cultural negotiations to take place by prescribing rules of engagement. It cannot take the role of cultural parties involved in deciding what and how the Singaporean identity should be. The Government can only step in when lines are crossed and social behaviours become inappropriate or destructive. However, the ideal situation will be when all stakeholders exercise self-restraint and self-regulation, and treat each other with utmost respect. It is the mark of a civilized society when we are able to disagree respectfully but then work towards an amicable resolution. Sir, as our society progresses, more thorny issues with the potential to divide Singaporeans will surface. This is especially so in the cutting edge areas of biotechnology where potential ethical, religious and moral issues will be raised, and the shift towards greater awareness of human rights. Each race or religion will have their own teachings and ideals, and will seek to promulgate their ideas on their followers.

Sir, it would be appropriate at this juncture to remind our community leaders that we must preserve our common secular space for all, and proselytisation must remain within reasonable limits. Much as we enjoy our racial and religious harmony now, it cannot be taken for granted. Community leaders must have, at the forefront of their decision-making process, considerations of whether their actions will have a larger impact on Singaporean society at large. As Prime Minister Lee and our leaders have mentioned, the majority of our racial and religious groups in Singapore have done very well in this respect. And indeed, it was heartening and encouraging to see religious and community leaders, in full force, at the National Day Rally. Their presence served to underscore their commitment towards Singapore’s nation building efforts.

Sir, only when there is peace and harmony in society, can Singapore progress as a united nation. As the cliche goes, united we stand, divided we fall.

And it is no truer when it comes to nation building and progress as a nation. For a small country with no natural resources, we are only as good as the sum of our parts. And our parts are made up of Singaporeans – Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, rich or needy – and wherever they may be physically, we hope they continue to contribute to Singapore. It is inevitable that many of our top talents will end up working overseas, but we hope that they can still contribute to Singapore in their own ways; be it by being our informal ambassadors overseas, or discovering new business opportunities overseas for future Singaporeans to follow their footsteps.

In relation to the point that we have to depend on our people for progress, we have to ensure that we provide all Singaporeans with good education and training, so as to build our capacity in the changing economy. We know that certain groups in society may be lagging behind others and we must try to equalise opportunities as much as possible. We will therefore have to put in place social policies or education policies which will encourage equality for all but not at the expense of meritocracy.

In this aspect, the PAP Government has been living the tenets of the National Pledge and much has been done to alleviate the distress of the lower income groups and to provide opportunities for the poor to break out of the poverty trap through a well-placed meritocratic system that provides equal opportunities to all.

Sir, I will like to share a conversation I had with an American recently. Sir, two US visitors from Ideo, a design company from US met me recently. One of them, based in Shanghai has been working in Singapore on a business re-engineering project.

He told me that to be in a world class city, is not about the hardware but software. Compared to Shanghai with its big and modern skyscrapers, Singapore may lag behind but in his opinion, Singapore has a higher value proposition to offer. He explained that Singapore’s value proposition lies in its software or human capital which has evolved as an important strategic asset giving Singapore that brand of success. This is possible because we have not just invested in educating our young but we also invest heavily in continual education and training for our workforce, to level up our human capabilities and strengthen our value system.

Sir, indeed it is sad to say that some Singaporeans cannot seem to appreciate what we have and they continue to ask, "what more is there for me?". Our challenge really is addressing the expectations of such people. There is no end to fulfilling expectations but we can count ourselves lucky that a majority of Singaporeans have moved from basic sustenance level to arrive at the state of self actualisation. Amongst them are those whose only preoccupation is aspiring to move to the next level of contentment. Sir, to these people, including Mr Low Thia Khiang and the Nominated MP, I would say to them that I am not sure that such an utopian state could happen anywhere in this world.

Sir, allow me to end with an analogy that encapsulates the main points of my speech. Sir, most profitable firms apply the principle of non-discrimination in their hiring and compensation process, and what binds their staff together is therefore equal access to the opportunity of making money. Great companies, however, also have a vision shared by their employees. Apple is one of the most innovative and dynamic firms in the world because it combines non-discrimination with a vision that all its employees share. Japanese companies combine profit-making principles with a sense of community, so when the going gets tough, the employees stand united behind the company. We have to do the same in Singapore.

Sir, the importance of remembering the nation building tenets should therefore not just be focused on economic policies but rather what Singapore has progressed to and for what makes us tick as Singapore and as Singaporeans, it is not just our economic progress, but also we are – as a country, as various communities within the country, and as individuals – proud to call ourselves Singaporeans.

On this note, I support the amended motion.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I embrace the National Pledge. I believe in the whole of the National Pledge. If Mr S. Rajaratnam were here, I will tell him that I and my Party thank him for crafting such an excellent legal document. I think we should look at the Pledge as a whole and not as a contract word for word, and try to argue on the words. The whole thing is a great ideal. I think we can accept this as the foundation stone for nation-building for Singapore.

Sir, you see the importance of unity. Mr Rajaratnam did not say "united people", he said "one united people". For the people to unite, there must be justice and equality, and I think these words are very meaningful and very important to Singapore – "united people". But we cannot have united people if the Government discriminates against certain sections of the people. In a democratic country or society, we believe in free thought. We should be allowed to think as we like, whether we like the Opposition or the ruling party. But as it is, there is great discrimination from the first day I entered politics until today. At first, it was worse. The ruling party threatened that anybody who supported the Opposition would get the facilities last. So if you stayed in a HDB flat, and if the lift gets spoiled and you get caught in it, you will be the last to be rescued, which is quite a frightening threat actually. I think the people should take it with a pinch of salt but, sometimes, such a threat can be quite frightening.

With regard to transport, the MRT Station is built ready for use but the train shall not stop at the Opposition ward. Sir, I can remember those days very clearly. Fortunately, for us, the train did stop at Potong Pasir. Believe it or not, I wanted to plant one tree, and it was refused. I had told the story many times but I think it is worthwhile telling once more. In those days, the PAP was generous enough to give me a walled-up empty office space at the void deck. The public got to know about it. The owner of a flower nursery donated one exotic plant to me, and I believed he also gave one each to Mr Goh Chok Tong and Dr Tony Tan. Of course, I straightaway told him that I would be planting it in the constituency itself, and not take home to plant it. Like a dutiful MP, I wrote to the Minister, I said, "Can I plant one tree in my constituency?" He said, "No. The planting of trees in the constituency has been mapped out by the Parks and Trees Division." So I wrote to the Parks and Trees Division, "Can you please give me a map of the planting?" And they said they do not have such a plan. So I wrote to the Minister and I said they did not have such a plan. And their reply was through the HDB which said, "You cannot plant a tree there because the soil does not suit that plant." I do not know how he said it was the soil. Did he make a test of the soil? Anyway, I stopped linking with him and I planted the tree in any event. Believe it or not, that same night, some hooligans came and pulled the tree out with the roots still intact and threw it in front of the office. I was really surprised. It was a good tree, and the Chinese name is supposed to be the "seven sisters" tree because they have fruits like gingko nuts. I suppose there are seven of them in a bunch. That was the treatment I got but we still persisted. I planted it in a big pot and it started to fruit, and somebody must have thrown a bottle of bleach into the pot and, sad to say, the tree of course wilted. I should have taken it home to plant it. Anyway, that is the story of the tree.

Sir, how can we have unity in our people if the Government behaves in such a way? Nowadays, of course, I think the Ministers are more enlightened. They do not behave like the Ministers before. The Minister's name was Mr Teh Cheang Wan, in case Members do not know. But he is not living now. He is dead. If we want to have unity, I think the Ministers should be more enlightened and do not behave like Mr Teh.

Sir, justice and equality, these are the values that we should adhere to. If you want to have unity, you must have justice and equality. I have one brother older than me. Believe it or not, we never quarrelled and we never had a fight in the house. I know why now – it is because our parents were equal and just. Whenever they bought a shirt for my elder brother during the New Year, they would buy one for me. If they bought a pair of shoes for him, they would buy one for me. So we always had equal treatment.

If the Government does not take it too seriously about the Opposition, treats them fairly, I think they may get Potong Pasir back. A bit of equality would do a lot of good. Sir, we should look at this Pledge as a whole, not word for word. "One united people, build a democratic society based on justice and equality, to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress". Sir, these are the key words. The American Constitution also said they want to acquire happiness. That is a very elusive thing.

But I think we can achieve it with this Pledge. I think if Singapore builds on the foundation of this Pledge, it would not go wrong.

4.25 pm

Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth.

Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out during Independence. And our Malays in Singapore were apprehensive that now that we were the majority, we would in turn treat them the way a Malay majority treated us. He drafted these words and rose above the present. He was a great idealist. It came to me; I trimmed out the unachievable and the Pledge, as it stands, is his work after I have trimmed it. What is it an ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to keep on trying. Are we a nation? In transition.

I want to move an amendment to this amendment that "acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets ...". These were aspirations. This was not an ideology.

Can I have a copy of the amendment? [A copy of the amendment was handed over to Mr Speaker. ] Thank you. Everything seems to be in order. Minister Mentor, carry on.

Sir, reference was made to the Constitution. The Constitution of Singapore enjoins us to specially look after the position of the Malays and other minorities. It comes under Articles 152 and 153. I will read it:

"Minorities and Special Position of Malays. It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore. The Government shall exercise its functions in such a manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays who are the indigenous people of Singapore and, accordingly, it should be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests of the Malay language."

And on Muslim religion, Article 153:

"The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a council to advise the President in matters of the Muslim religion."

We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everybody as equal. It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that principle. So this was an aspiration.

As Malays have progressed and a number have joined the middle class with university degrees and professional qualifications, we have asked Mendaki to agree not to have their special rights of free education at university but to take what they were entitled to; put those fees to help more disadvantaged Malays. So, we are trying to reach a position where there is a level playing field for everybody which is going to take decades, if not centuries, and we may never get there.

Now let me read the American Constitution. In its Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776, adopted in Congress, the Declaration read, in the second paragraph:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The Constitution, passed a few years later, says:

"We the people of the United States [this is the preamble], in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nowhere does it say that the blacks would be differently treated. But the blacks did not get the vote until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s with Martin Luther King and his famous speech "We Dare to Dream". An enormous riot took place and eventually President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, and it took many more decades before the southern states, which kept the blacks in their position, allowed the registration of black voters and subsequently even after that, to allow black students to go into white schools. It was 200 years before an exceptional half-black American became President.

So, my colleague has put it: trying to put square pegs into round holes. Will we ever make the pegs the same? No. You suggest to the Malays that we should abolish these provisions in the Constitution and you will have grave disquiet. So we start on the basis that this is reality. We will not be able to get a Chinese Minister or an Indian Minister to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not have teenage pregnancies which lead to failed marriages; subsequent marriages also fail, and delinquents. Can a Chinese MP or an Indian MP do that? They will say: "You are interfering in my private life." But we have funded Mendaki and MUIS, and they have a committee to try and reduce the number of such unhappy outcomes.

The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach. It may take us centuries before we get to a similar position as the Americans. They go to wars – the blacks and the whites. In the First World War, they did not carry arms, they carried the ammo, they were not given the honour to fight. In the Second World War, they went back, they were ex-GIs – those who could make it to university were given the GI grants – but they went back to their black ghettos (in 1945) and they stayed there. And today there are still black ghettos.

These are realities. The American Constitution does not say that it will treat blacks differently but our Constitution spells out the duty of the Government to treat Malays and other minorities with extra care.

So the basis on which the Nominated Member has placed his arguments is false and flawed. It is completely untrue. It has got no basis whatsoever. And I thought to myself, perhaps I should bring this House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base, and if we do not recognise where we started from, and that these are our foundations, we will fail.

Nobody can speak – I would not say authority – with the knowledge that I have because I knew the circumstances in which the Pledge was made. I admire the sentiments of Mr Rajaratnam. At that moment in 1965, my worry was, what would the Malays in Singapore do, now that they knew they were a minority, and that we would wreck havoc with them as we were made to suffer when we were a minority. When I returned on the 9th of August, on the advice of our Special Branch, I did not go back to my house. I stayed at Sri Temasek, which was my official residence. I stayed there for one week, then I went to Changi Cottage and stayed there for two months to make sure that everything subsided.

These are realities. Today, 44 years later, we have a Malay community, I believe, at peace, convinced that we are not discriminating against them, convinced that we are including them in our society.

Our Member works in SINDA. I am told he has been there for 10 years. He will know Indians are not equal. There are those Brahmins; they will not be in SINDA. It is the non-Brahmins who are in SINDA. So I think it is dangerous to allow such highfalutin ideas to go undemolished and mislead Singapore. We are here today, we have this building, we have all these facilities. All around us is evidence of our accountability. Without being accountable, we would not have been re-elected and there would be no Singapore of today.

It has been proposed as an amendment that after the words "achieving the" in Mr Zainudin Nordin's notice of amendment, to insert the words "aspirations and". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted". Mr Calvin Cheng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the chance to speak. I feel a lot of pressure now having to make my maiden speech after Minister Mentor has spoken. I will try my best.

I thank Minister Mentor for giving us a reminder of the origins of the Pledge – origins the young might have forgotten.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I however do so with some reservations. This is because although the Pledge enshrines ideals that we want all citizens to aspire to, many of the basic tenets, the building blocks of the Pledge, are, in my opinion, open to interpretation; consequently, the national policies that one would support would differ according to how one interprets these tenets. In this speech, I hope to clarify the following. Firstly, that some important ideas enshrined in our National Pledge will mean significantly different things to different people. Secondly, as a result, these different meanings, if adopted, will lead to vastly different policies in practice. And, thirdly, I will argue that it is important that Singaporeans debate, discuss and understand these different meanings and be aware of their practical implications.

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion …". These lines are fairly un-contentious. Although some may argue that other social divisions should be included, I believe that this is not necessary. Race, language and religion are the biggest divisions in most multi-cultural, multi-racial societies such as ours, and pledging ourselves as one united people, despite these major differences, is a sufficiently noble, important and challenging task. However, even though the meaning of "regardless of race, language or religion" is clear, I wonder how practical it is to formulate all policies according to this line of the Pledge. These divisions are very real and even though the idealist in me would very much like to see a single Singaporean ethnic identity, I feel this may be a pipe dream.

Even in America, allegedly the poster boy of the melting pot, multi-cultural society, race and religion still remain very important. This has been most markedly demonstrated during the last American presidential election where race and religion of Barack Obama was a very important issue. I thus think it is still important to bear in mind the differences in race and religion when formulating policies. That said, I am young. And being young, I hope and I dream. Even if complete assimilation is impossible, I hope that integration can be further increased, for example, by allowing more interaction between the self-help groups and their volunteers. Even if separate ethnic identities will always prevail, I dream that one day a strong Singapore identity will arise that unites us around our similarities and commonalities.

The issue of differences in meaning arises with the next line of the Pledge – "to build a democratic society". It may appear self-evident what democracy is, or what a democratic society is. It is not. I find it extremely annoying when people tell me, "Singapore is not democratic". I am annoyed not because they are right, nor because they are wrong, but because they assume that they have a monopoly over the meaning of democracy.

Western liberals are particularly guilty of this, and they assume that their version of democracy is the benchmark by which all democracies and democratic societies have to be measured against. Some Singaporeans have also adopted this attitude, and have criticised Singapore for being undemocratic, because we do not meet the standards of western societies.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that the western model of democracy is wrong – I am just saying that their model, which even differs from western country to western country, is but one possible model of democracy. Most political theorists would agree that democracy is a system of governance "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Beyond this three-part description, there is enormous dispute over what democracy is.

For example, should democracy be simply a system of majority-rule, or should a protection of the minority, the minority who would lose in a democratic vote, be also protected? Is a representative democracy where citizens elect representatives to govern for a period of time sufficiently democratic, or is a truly democratic system direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on the enactment of laws and policies as much as possible? These are all questions that, when answered, lead to different models of democracy.

I do not believe there is a right or wrong to these questions, and each country, each culture, must choose a system of democracy suitable for itself. But Singaporeans must be aware that this choice is not merely an academic exercise but will have practical implications. For example, if we believe that there should be a protection of minority rights in a truly democratic society, and that simple majority-rule is not sufficiently democratic, then Singaporeans must ask themselves whether sometimes, even if the majority feels a certain way, the minority still deserves to be protected. For example, I think it was this sort of thinking that led to the debate on the repeal of section 377A.

Yet, not all minorities can be protected – this is simply neither possible nor practical. If we do, every group with special tastes, with unique preferences, will be able to claim protection, and the smallest minority is a minority of one. In practice, even if we think that democracy requires us to protect minorities, there needs to be a balance when formulating national policies that takes them into consideration. It is my opinion that the best form of protection for minorities is the equal regard that all individuals get in the eyes of the law.

Our founding fathers have, like in many countries, chosen a system of representative democracy, specifically parliamentary democracy, as Singapore’s system of government. In a system of representative democracy, regular elections are held to decide who will form the government, rather than to decide the issues of the day.

Once elected, a government has the authority to formulate policy and enact legislation, until it loses its mandate in the elected chamber, or when fresh elections are called. Singapore has this system, and with variations, so do countries such as the US, Britain and many democratic countries. On the other hand, Switzerland has a system of government that incorporates more elements of direct democracy, where ordinary citizens can propose legislation, and referenda are regularly called for the citizens to vote on. If one day, Singaporeans were to think that this is the sort of democracy they want, and this is the type of democratic society they want to build, they must do so with their eyes open to the practical implications. For example, direct democracy is very time consuming and citizens have to educate themselves about the proposed legislation before voting in the referenda, turning up on voting day to vote, and do this several times a year! For Singaporeans who even now complain that they do not even have time to make babies, they should especially make sure that they consider carefully!

I have not yet heard strident calls for more direct democracy, but another more important debate about the form that democracy should take will be more familiar and significant to Singaporeans – voting procedure. In Singapore, some political parties have called for a system of proportional representation to replace the current "first-past-the-post" system. In the current system, it is possible for a party with 51% of the popular vote to win 100% of the parliamentary seats. To some, this is unfair – the Workers' Party, for example, in its manifesto, calls for "An alternative system of proportional representation ... that could reflect party votes at the national level".

There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems, and both are used by democratic countries elsewhere. In deciding what sort of democratic society they want to build, Singaporeans should be aware of the practical implications of both. In a first-past-the-post system, stable governments with clear majorities are more likely. This, if I am not wrong, has been the view of the People’s Action Party. A proportional representation system, because it allows smaller parties with small proportions of the popular vote to gain seats, is more likely to result in a proliferation of parties in Parliament, and thus a need for coalition governments. Experience in other countries has shown us that coalition governments tend to be more unstable and weak, leading to more frequent elections.

A proportional representation system is also more likely to introduce fringe parties to Parliament, like when the Pirate Party of Sweden won a seat in the European Parliament recently. Fortunately, these are not real one-eyed bandits but people who believe that the sharing of music on the Internet should be free; more dangerous would be the introduction of extremist parties, like the blatantly racist British National Party, into an elected chamber. Yet, the supporters of a proportional representation system are not wrong: it is a fairer, more proportionate system that more accurately reflects voter preferences. There is something intuitively unfair that a party with 51% of the popular vote could technically end up with all the seats in Parliament. In deciding what sort of voting system will help Singapore build a more democratic society, Singaporeans should thus be very aware of the costs and benefits of both systems in practice, and choose very carefully. When theory becomes practice, and when idealism is tempered by pragmatism, an idea that may sound very attractive conceptually may not be so easy to implement in reality.

I now move on to the next part of the Pledge that reads, "... based on justice and equality". When Mr S. Rajaratnam penned the Pledge, I believe he put these two concepts together on purpose, for there is a conviction that a just society is an equal society, and an equal society is a fair society. Justice, equality and fairness are thus ideas that are inextricably linked.

However, when Singaporeans put their hands to their hearts and pledge to build a society based on equality, what do they exactly mean? What is equality? There are many ways to discuss this but I would like to focus on two meanings of equality that I think are most important to Singaporeans and, depending on which meaning they believe in more, would shape their thoughts about what national policies, especially economic policies, should be formulated to build a society based on equality. The first is equality of opportunity and the second equality of outcome.

I think equality of opportunity can best be encapsulated by the phrase, "a level playing field". It means that whoever we are, wherever we come from, regardless of what socio-economic group we are born into, or gender, or race, we have an equal chance to succeed in life. It is this type of equality that I think underpins a meritocratic society. A society that offers an equality of opportunity will have institutions that are blind to the differences I talked about – class, gender, race – and every man, every woman, would have, in theory, an equal chance to get into the best schools, obtain the best jobs, or even run for the highest political offices in the land. A society based on the equality of opportunity strives to ensure that each citizen is not disadvantaged by any discrimination.

Fundamental to the idea of equality of opportunity is the principle of dessert. The thought goes like this: if the playing field is equal and nobody is unfairly disadvantaged, and if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, then the outcome must also be fair and just. Whether you win or lose, you have an equal chance to succeed. If you are one of the winners, your prize is well-deserved. If you are one of the losers, you have nobody to blame, as you had an equal chance to succeed, but you did not. But is this really just?

There is a fundamental weakness to the idea of equality of opportunity and this is it: no matter how level the playing field is, no matter how fair the rules of the game are, some of us are always more likely to lose. This is because even if opportunities are equal, human beings are not born with equal talents. When I was young, I was pretty sure I had an equal chance to become a star basketball player or even a supermodel, in so far that there are no laws in Singapore that stop me from doing so. That I am neither now is not a reflection of unequal opportunity, but the fact that I am challenged in terms of height and in looks, something that I was born with through no fault of mine.

The role that luck plays in our lives is also very important, when judging whether mere equality of opportunity is enough to create a just society. As the cliché goes, accidents happen, and like most clichés, there is truth in it. Sometimes people do badly in life not because they are lazy, or made the wrong decisions, or are unwilling to try, but because they are plain unlucky. This is not shifting blame or avoiding responsibility, but a very real fact of life. For instance, illness could incapacitate an otherwise talented man in the prime of his life.

The fact of the matter is this: equal opportunity may lead to unequal outcomes, and these unequal outcomes sometimes outrage our sense of justice. This leads me to the other very important meaning of equality: equality of outcome.

As my colleague Mr Viswa has pointed out, Singapore has a relatively high income inequality, closer to the standards of under-developed countries in the world; its income inequality, as represented by the Gini coefficient, is higher than many of our neighbouring countries. Income inequality is an inequality of outcome. The important question is this: Even if we accept that Singapore is meritocratic, and even if the Government has successfully ensured a more or less even playing field and equality of opportunity to all citizens, it remains a fact that Singapore has one of the highest income inequalities in the region.

Can we as a people accept that this inequality is just, that this inequality is fair? Is equality of opportunity all we need to care about when we pledge to build a society based on equality?

As I argued before, equality of opportunity and a meritocratic system can still produce very unequal results because people are born with different abilities, or are just plain unlucky even if they are hardworking, committed or even talented.

The important issue is thus this: if we believe that unequal outcomes that arise from equal opportunities are still unjust, then we have to do something about it and the only thing we can do is to tweak the outcome. That is where the problem starts because when translated into practical economic policies, it reveals a tension between the two types of inequalities.

Let us go back to a practical issue – the very important issue of income inequality. If we believe that it is unjust for some people to be very rich whilst others hover on the edges of poverty, regardless of whether they had an equal opportunity to succeed, then one of the most powerful ways to address this inequality is to redistribute income. But by redistributing income, by taking away some from the rich and giving it to the poor, through taxation for example, we are actually telling the winners this: that though your rewards may have been justly won, through you taking your opportunity, through your hard work, your industry, we are nevertheless taking some of these rewards away from you, and giving them to those who have lost out, so we have a more equal outcome. To some of these winners, this may seem not only unequal, but outright unfair and unjust – they succeeded fairly and squarely, and yet do not get to enjoy the full fruits of their labour. Perhaps this is the reason why advocates of low income tax are convinced that higher taxes will discourage industry and impede meritocracy. On the practical level, the policy level, a belief in equality of opportunity is thus not wholly compatible with a desire to see more equal outcomes.

In his speech, my colleague Mr Viswa talked about spending more money on public assistance to the poor and the needy. This is necessarily also redistributive in nature, and focuses on creating a more equal outcome, or at least reducing inequalities. Yet, this is what must be done if Singaporeans are convinced that the equality that they believe in, the equality that they pledge to, is not merely an equal opportunity to succeed, but also a more equal society on the whole. If, on the other hand, Singaporeans believe that as long as our society is meritocratic and we all have an equal opportunity to succeed, that this sort of equality is enough to build a just society, then the national and economic policies they support will be vastly different – perhaps a regime very much like the one we have now, lower income taxes, less redistributive economic policies and an ethos that focuses more on people having an equal start to life, rather than an equal end to it.

4.59 pm

Let me end this segment of my speech with another sporting analogy. In a race, there are several runners. Everyone starts the race at the same time, and nobody gets an unfair head-start. Some people, the fitter ones, are running faster. The less able ones are slower and halfway through the race, one of the runners stumbles and falls. Imagine these runners are all citizens of Singapore – us. We now have to decide, do the faster runners stop and try to help their fellow citizen who has stumbled, catch him, haul him up and help him along? If they do, it will mean that they will run slower themselves and finish the race in a slower time. Or should they continue running and try to finish the race as fast as they can, and let the stumbler lament his bad luck? This is the question we have to ask as Singaporeans. Helping our needier Singaporeans by diverting some resources away may mean that we run a little bit slower as a nation as a whole, but if we believe this is equal and just, this is what we must do. If we do not, and believe that our nation is best served by letting our fastest runners run as fast as they can, not stopping for any reason, then what can we do for those of us that stumble and fall?

And finally – "happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". Mr Viswa has already touched on this in detail, and how happiness, as measured by GDP per capita, may not be the most accurate measure. But without a doubt, it remains the most practical, and the way most nations measure their prosperity and progress. We must not abandon it. Yet, dignity, quality of life, and having a meaningful life are all undoubtedly also important, if unmeasurable indicators of well-being. That they are unmeasurable does not mean they should not be pursued, and each Singaporean should be encouraged to find his own meaning of happiness. It is only if Singaporeans truly believe the happiness for our nation is a happiness worth pursuing, that prosperity and progress can come.

Our National Pledge, though simple, is thus arguably also extremely complex. This is the beauty of it. We can all hold our hands to our hearts and say it with conviction, even if we agree to disagree what we each believe to be democracy, and what equality and justice mean to us. In order to mature as a polity, I hope Singaporeans can be aware that the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge can have many significantly different meanings that can lead to significantly different political beliefs, that will underpin vastly different national policies. These differences need to be vigorously debated and discussed, because regardless of our political convictions, it is still our National Pledge. There thus needs to be space and opportunity for Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, to discuss and understand these political concepts, in order for us to mature as a politically aware electorate, less susceptible to demagogy and more able to make informed political choices.

However, at the end of it all, when all the dust has settled and when all the debates have been concluded, when partisan lines have been drawn, elections called, elections won and elections lost, we must return to the start of the Pledge – the first line, the most uncontroversial line, and arguably the most important line – we, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion.

I was glad that this motion had been moved by the Nominated Member. It is an appropriate occasion on this 50th anniversary of our self-government. It is a suitable occasion to remind us all about the aspirations and tenets, the goals and ideals in our Pledge upon which we have built this nation.

I was especially cheered to hear how the Nominated Member, his wife and daughter and even his business partner felt the surge of emotions during this National Day Parade, that they felt connected to this home we call Singapore. These positive stories, such as the one told by the Nominated Member, make up for all the hours and hard work that our organisers and participants put in for each National Day Parade.

Sir, I listened intently to his speech, eager to hear more, and there are many aspects that I could easily agree with – that we need to improve our National Education and ensure that all citizens from young understand our Pledge beyond the words, a commitment to NS through duty, honour and country, to do more to lead our citizens, care for them, especially the poor and the disadvantaged, create a Singapore identity which binds all people of different races and religions, provide more avenues for public feedback, in crafting our policies and taking greater effort to explain these policies. We can always improve on these aspects and should never be satisfied with the status quo. And I agree with Members who have said that these aspects should always be work in progress. These are things that we continually strive for – a point which was also made by Mr Low Thia Khiang.

But like my parliamentary colleagues before me – Mr Sam Tan, Mr Michael Palmer, Mr Zainudin Nordin – I did struggle with some arguments in his speech. So I was glad that Mr Zainudin Nordin proposed an amendment which more accurately reflects Singapore's journey. Minister Mentor Lee has added another amendment, because he was one of the originators of this Pledge, and I fully support the amendments.

I would also like to share my perspectives on the Nominated Member's key assertions and pose some questions. I do agree that our Pledge is a vital and powerful tool. Many Members in this House have, in their own ways, shared how the words expressed to each of us, whether in different parties, Nominated Members, that it is a vital and powerful tool that teaches national values to our children and unites us as one people. We treasure this Pledge, simply and elegantly crafted, because it embodies common virtuous ideals and aspirations that serve as guide posts, as moral bearings, upon which we have built this nation and progressed. But the power and resonance come only when actions match these words. Because a set of words, no matter how beautifully crafted, or conceived ideals, no matter how noble, provide no certainty that that nation will survive or prosper. In other words, ideals are necessary but insufficient conditions for progress.

Other countries too have national anthems and pledges, some so gloriously and exquisitely composed that they can make grown men weep. If I may, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to hon. Members some examples which I will touch on. [Copies of national anthems and pledges of other countries distributed to hon. Members].

These national anthems and pledges have indeed, in moments of despair, caused men to weep, when dire circumstances contrast hopelessly with all they aspire to in their pledges. My first example is from Rwanda – it is a far away place, but it is beautifully written. If I may, let me read it:

"My Rwanda, land that gave me birth, Fearlessly, tirelessly, I boast of you! When I recall your achievements to this very day, I praise the pioneers who have brought in our unshakeable Republic. Brothers all, sons of this Rwanda of ours, Come, rise up all of you, Let us cherish her in peace and in truth, In freedom and in harmony!

Let the victory drums beat throughout all Rwanda! The Republic has swept away feudal bondage. Colonialism has faded away like a worn-out shoe. Democracy, take root! Through you we have chosen our own rulers. People of Rwanda, old and young, citizens all, Let us cherish her in peace and in truth, In freedom and in harmony!

Home-born Rwandans all, beat the victory drums! Democracy has triumphed in our land. All of us together we have striven for it arduously. Together we have decreed it – Tutsi, Twa, Hutu, with other racial elements, This hard-won Independence of ours, Let us all join to build it up! Let us cherish it in peace and in truth, In freedom and in harmony!"

And the rest, Members can read for themselves.

It is beautifully crafted. Of course, this is a translation. I remember I accompanied the President on a trip to South Africa. We did not visit Rwanda but we visited South Africa, Namibia, Botswana. Every time we went there, the people sang not with their voices but with their bodies and their souls. So I can well imagine how passionate this was sung.

But the perceived ideals within expressed so eloquently and passionately could not prevent a civil war between the Hutus and the Tutsis which started in 1994 where, many Members know, almost 800,000 people were reportedly massacred. And this was Rwanda's former national anthem. In 2002, they changed it.

Let us go to France – a land of liberty, equality and fraternity. In Article 1 of their Constitution, it reads:

"France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis. Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to professional and social positions."

It is quite French in its articulation and composition, very prescriptive, rigorous. Like our Pledge, the tenets have been clearly articulated and enshrined in the Constitution and implemented rigorously because, in France, they are not allowed to state their race in any official document.

The Nominated Member asked if this was a better way. Because in Singapore – he is right – race is recorded in our NRIC, and self-help groups are organised along racial lines. His argument is that if we do not draw attention to differences, perhaps they might disappear.

In October 2005, a series of riots, believed to be incited by racial tensions, started in poor housing projects in various parts of France, and many Members will remember that period. A state of emergency had to be declared and extended for months. We can have constitutional tenets, but these do not prevent racial and social discrimination against people, as we have discovered in France. According to the BBC, those who lived there said that when they go for a job, as soon as they give their name as Mamado – I presume that is a common French Muslim name – and say that they live in a particular precinct, they are immediately told that the vacancy has been taken. One non-profit organisation associated with some parties sent identical CVs to French companies with European and African or Muslim sounding names attached, and they found that these CVs with such names were systematically discarded. It is in the constitution – they are not allowed to say what race they are. But the reality on the ground is very different from what the hopes are in the constitution.

One last example, closer home, Thailand. This is an English translation of a part of their national anthem:

"Thailand unites flesh and blood of Thais.

Nation of the people; belonging to the Thais in every respect.

Long maintained [has been] the independence

Because the Thais seek, and love, unity.

Thais are peace-loving."

We hear more of the turmoil and the deep political divisions between the yellow shirts and the red shirts in recent times. My grassroots member said that when he went to Thailand, he was worried, because his front was white and his back was red. Those demonstrations ruined the image of peace-loving Thais.

We treasure our National Pledge, but it can only resonate when the people and the Government have adhered to its goals and ideals. Our National Pledge will ring hollow if Singaporeans could not see and believe that we practise on a daily basis what we pledge. A set of ideals by themselves are not sufficient to ensure stability, security and progress for this nation. Singaporeans do, by their commitment, their daily attitudes, actions and key choices they make, and this is why the Prime Minister spoke about this at length in the recent National Day Rally.

In the past 50 years, Singaporeans have chosen and supported the PAP Government that has, in turn, strengthened vital institutions of state – in Parliament, the civil service, education, Home Team, defence and judiciary. We set high standards for key appointees. And through the President and the Public Service Commission, we ensure that good and able people are appointed, who can discharge their duties impartially and uphold the key elements of our Pledge – justice, equality, meritocracy, regardless of race, language or religion. Sound policies of the elected Government and a hardworking population provide stability and economic growth that allowed our people to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress.

The Nominated Member talks about substance and form. Substance comes from these key institutions which are the building blocks which enabled our progress. A nation's success depends ultimately on the quality of people who helm these key institutions and who determine that the lives of the citizens will be improved. The Pledge takes its substance and form from the realities that people experience each day.

For example, if what our citizens experience daily is very different from their ideals we pledge, we will all become cynical. But when ideals and reality match, citizens will gladly and resolutely reaffirm the Pledge and thousands in many corners of Singapore did, including the Nominated Member, at 8.22 pm on the recent National Day.

The PAP Government has had adhered to the tenets and aspirations as elected guardians from stewards of Singapore in the past 50 years. So far from compromising these ideals, as suggested by the Nominated Member, in the pursuit of economic growth, we have been defenders of these ideals in building a nation.

Indeed, the founding fathers of PAP, as recounted by Minister Mentor Lee just now, set out these ideals to ask for the mandate to govern. The people chose them on this basis and both fates became inextricably interwoven.

How do we ensure that we continue striving towards these goals and ideals? What path do they lead us to in the future?

Mr Viswa's prescription for Singapore's future sounds like this: Multiple parties; more newspapers that can print what they like so that people will think they are independent and check the Government; re-politicise our schools and universities – so in other words, let them have public rallies whenever they want on whatever topics they like; increase welfarism – first start with PA recipients, but surely you cannot stop there; when political leaders are impugned and maligned, relax, take it in your stride, do not defend yourselves. Similarly for Government policies. Be thick-skinned. Have faith in people. Because if you do not defend yourself when wronged, people would think it is because the accusations are true or policies wrong! But why would you not defend your integrity or policies if they are right?

His prescriptions have elements taken from other democratic models – predominantly those in the West, as his colleague the Nominated Member Calvin Cheng has said. And we have forms of it here too in Asia – in Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand. But before we adopt them, we need to ask critically, have these countries done better than us? Why are these countries struggling with problems which have hindered progress?

I respect the fact that the Nominated Member has stated his views clearly. And there are indeed others like him who believe that this is the way forward for Singapore, if only we had faith in this model, it will lead us upward. In fact, the Nominated Member goes further and claims that we have short-changed ourselves, or at least sold out this better future they envisioned, benefits of the true democracy for economic gains. But now that we have arrived economically, let us work at becoming a real democracy, they exhort us.

I find it difficult to square his claims and prescriptions to the reality we see each day in Singapore and the countries around the world. As the core mover or seconder of the motion Mr Michael Palmer wryly noted, Nominated Member Viswa has been free to move a motion, say what he believes even while saying freedom of speech is limited. Indeed, he has been able to do so only because we have evolved and modified our parliamentary system to introduce the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme so as to enable a wider representation of independent views in Parliament.

Indeed, in a few months' time, when our new fibre optic networks are up, the Nominated Member would be happy to note that Singaporeans will be able to post whatever they are afraid to post in super quick time – gigabyte per second speed.

What justification does the Nominated Member offer for his prescriptions for our better future? He simply calls them "conventional practices of democracy". But is it so blindly self-evident that they will work magic for us? If multiple parties and newspapers ensure stability, then how do we explain the problems of India, Philippines, Taiwan or Thailand who have abundance of them, I mean parties, newspapers and problems? They have not moved faster, often have been paralysed by the politics and factionalism of coalition or competing parties. We have progressed because we did not seek to be like others, but chose our own paths. Why is the Nominated Member so sure that if we adopted these practices and conventions, that we will continue to progress?

Let me be unequivocal about the Government's signals here. We cannot afford to stand still, rooted complacently but precariously in status quo. And we must move with the times, we must respond to changing circumstances, needs and challenges. But each time we make a move, we must not do so unthinkingly, but consider carefully each step forward, carving our own path towards a better society and a more vigorous economy. Singapore and Singaporeans cannot afford to ape any model but must choose or create a solution which is best suited for our nation. Hence, the changes we are making to the election system, as recently announced by the Prime Minister, which will provide the best of both worlds to Singaporeans. A competent Government that will take care of the needs of this country and constituencies, and a wider representation from disparate groups in this House.

The same approach in choosing what is best for us has served us well in many fields, including healthcare, CPF, education and housing. What persuades us to deviate from this path that has produced good for Singaporeans?

We cannot ignore our vulnerability as a small city state. The Nominated Member speaks of economic and socio-political progress as if they were always trade-offs – one requiring a sacrifice of the other. This divide is artificial as surely both must be judged by the ultimate test of whether it has led to the betterment of society and its citizens. They are in fact not mutually exclusive domains but linked. Let me give Members an example. If we did not have reserves which have been prudently built up in past decades of economic growth, the global financial crisis would have tripped us up. We would not have the means to provide the Resilience Package to keep businesses afloat and stave off retrenchments, to provide and maintain social good. So there were no demonstrations, no fiery speeches by unions or concerned students on campuses when workers were asked to take pay cuts or enforced leave to save jobs. Newspapers took a responsible line, they did not play up, they did not seek stories to aggravate negative sentiments. So let me ask the Nominated Member this. Would he consider these placid outcomes a sign of a dysfunctional or weak democracy even though it was good for all of us? Or are we a strong and functioning democracy?

Because of our vulnerabilities, we constantly scan the environment for uncharted threats. This is why we need and are willing to remunerate fairly for high quality people in positions of Government office and public service who can plan ahead and avoid mishaps. And indeed, we have avoided many pitfalls because we usually plan on the basis of 15 to 20 years. When we meet fellow Ministers from other governments, they laugh at us. Because very few governments plan on the basis of 10 years, let alone 15 or 20. Their usual cycle is one election cycle because, usually by then, the system resets. So this is our cardinal national strength.

We aim to become a jewel in Asia, an exciting city with a standard of living that will be the envy of many. We will provide a safe home in an active, beautiful and clean environment. We want to be a gracious and caring people. We will ensure that all our citizens can have a good education, affordable healthcare and enough for their retirement. Simply said, clearly spoke, and these are "higher order goals", to use the Nominated Member's phrase. But we do not pretend or tell Singaporeans that it will be easy to achieve these. We must do the hard work of arguing through issues, working out policies, taking tough decisions and carrying the people with us as we make the policies work and deliver results. Only then can we remain competitive and have the means to improve the lives of our citizens.

This Government has consistently presented to Singaporeans a frank accounting of our vulnerabilities and the stark reality, as we see it. We provide a clear vision of our future and what we must do to attract the best people into Government, the policies and even uncomfortable decisions that we have to make if we want to progress.

We have been transparent. The Nominated Member asks if we have been accountable. Every five years or so, Singaporeans decide if we have kept our promises and vote, and that is the greatest accountability in our system. If the PAP Government is corrupt or incompetent, I can assure the Nominated Member that re-politicisation of Singaporeans will spontaneously occur very quickly and we will be booted out. Indeed, any citizen, including the Nominated Member himself, if convinced that this Government is failing Singaporeans, is free to organise a group and form a political party, to offer Singaporeans a better alternative to the PAP.

This is how our system works. This is how it is suppose to work. Because, finally, the test of which way the country should go is through the ballot – what policies, which party would the electorate support. That way, all who claim to have a better team and plan to lead Singapore are accountable to the people. We are thankful and humbled that Singaporeans have voted us in 12 successive general elections since 1959.

We did not get re-elected in successive elections by ignoring the views of Singaporeans or by conducting unfair and undemocratic elections. Singaporeans, including the older "Merdeka generation", would not have voted the PAP Government in if we had not taken care of them. But many have seen their jobs and wages improve, their homes increase in value, their children and grandchildren going to better schools and universities here and abroad. They have witnessed the renewal and upgrading of their estates and improvements to health and other social services. And I think these are the tangible outcomes that the Nominated Member says, citizens can "live, breathe and feel" and decide for themselves if the Pledge we say each day adds real meaning to their lives. We have been open about our policies and this House has debated many times thorny or sensitive issues related to Ministerial salaries, ethnic housing quota, foreign workers policy, Malays in SAF, Internal Security Act. And the Nominated Member is free to raise questions or put up more motions if he feels that a debate is needed, and we welcome it.

How do we maintain this commitment to our ideals in the Pledge which is what the motion asks. For the PAP Government, it means scouring the land for men and women of integrity and ability who can represent the needs of all Singaporeans to take us forward. As we have said in the past, we start preparing for the next elections the day we have won the last one. MPs and supporters serve the people continually and not only when elections are around the corner. And I am glad that Opposition parties have become more active in between election. I hope too that the Opposition parties will allow Singaporeans to examine what alternative policies and proposals they have to offer. This would be good, and this must be the level of the playing field which all political parties must prepare for if we believe that this is for the sake of Singapore and not short-change Singaporeans.

It is through this rigorous process of leadership renewal that we will continue to abide by the tenets and fulfil the aspirations which our founding fathers of Singapore and PAP crafted and implemented. We have just recently heard from one founding father who is still in this House and I can assure the Nominated Member that he has not lost the art of story telling. Indeed, the master story teller has diligently inculcated these same values that have guided this nation into the present generation of leaders, and we will do the same for the next so that Singaporeans can exercise their freedom to decide we are the best team to serve them in the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion. [Applause. ]

5.29 pm

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

First of all, I would like to thank fellow Members, my fellow Nominated Member Mr Viswa Sadasivan for moving the motion and Mr Michael Palmer for seconding the motion. It is a very timely motion as we celebrate our 44th year of independence.

Sitting here over two days and listening to the debates and the points put forward by all Members, I feel very appreciative of the fact that we can talk about race, religion, equality, debate notions on justice in this House in a very civilised manner.

I think it shows that we have achieved something in nation building. We have moved quite far along the road towards being a strong nation.

I would like to address three points related to the nation building tenets in the National Pledge – tenets which have been eloquently elucidated by Mr Viswa and by fellow Members.

The first is with respect to the call in our Pledge to abide by the ideals of "justice and equality" as we strive to build a "democratic society". We have discussed the idea of democracy at length, so I will not attempt to define that again, but I believe the basic values of democracy are to achieve a certain level of justice for all its citizens. There is equality before the law for all citizens, equality of opportunity and equal rights. Those are some of the core values.

What I believe has happened in Singapore is that as our society matures, our citizens' understanding of what is meant by the words "justice" and "equality" has also matured and changed and their interpretations of these terms are more nuanced, with slight shades of difference depending occasionally on which end of the political spectrum they stand on. To many, "equality" and "justice" also mean the right of each citizen to have his or her voice heard in a public forum, to promote or defend his or her position, as well as the right to challenge those who contest it. This, of course, presents us with the new challenge of how to manage our nation’s growing plurality and the increasingly visible differences in opinions and ideological convictions among our citizens. That has led to the perception that there are emerging ‘fault lines’ among Singaporeans, which our Prime Minister has addressed in the National Day Rally; religion being just one of the potential flashpoints.

We are also seeing passionate debate among people who hold different social values – the so-called 'progressives', the so-called 'conservatives' on opposite ends of the spectrum. These contesting voices which are most often expressed online do not demonstrate only how net-savvy Singaporeans are. I believe they are also expression of a desire to live out democracy in action, in the belief that there is a place for all of them in our society – that our society allows room for different opinions and, in particular, for minority views to be aired, at the same time the Government is accountable to those who elected them into power. Now, because of these convictions, especially among our younger generation, I believe that that is the reason why there are also more calls for more accountability and transparency when it comes to Government decision making and policy decisions although the Government has always made clear that it is accountable and is constantly convincing everyone that it is doing the right thing by all the citizens.

So my question is why are there then still criticisms and calls from the ground for more transparency and accountability? I do not have a ready answer for this, but my observation is that there seems to be a gap in perception between both sides, and I believe we should not take this lightly. Of course, efforts have been made by the Government to reach out to more Singaporeans engaging with new media, with new technology and listening to a wide range of opinions and views; for instance, through the online portal REACH. But unfortunately, online feedback portals are still limited and they are unable to facilitate reasoned and thorough public debates on sensitive matters, and much less accomplish a mediation of difference. Just take one example of the gap in perception: yesterday’s debate on this motion when Mr Viswa commented on the "climate of fear" that still persists here which holds some citizens back from expressing their honest views to Government, although he also noted that the younger generation are less constrained in expressing themselves today. This view of the climate of fear was clearly not shared by many other Members of the House, although Mr Viswa was probably reflecting the views of other Singaporeans.

With regard to the "climate of fear", I would say that it is not so much that it is gone completely. I think there is still some sense of constraint and I think that sense of constraint has taken on a different shape as our society and our political system have evolved. There is no longer a fear of reprisals, but there are still some obstacles. This is based on some anecdotal evidence suggesting that some critical voices still are disadvantaged when it comes to putting out their views or championing what they believe in public. So that is why there is a perception that the playing field is not level. That is just one example.

But moving on, I would like to draw attention to another point which Mr Viswa also made: That we should make a distinction between being "pro-Singapore" and being "anti-government". A patriotic citizen can be moved to comment if he or she perceives an injustice or something amiss, be it at the level of policy or anything else. And also he/she will comment if he/she perceives our policy-makers to be falling short of our national ideals. This is just hypothetically speaking. I am not saying that we are. Electorates do this because they assess the very people that they have voted for. This is how they make decisions when it comes to the next election. But I would like to note that citizens who criticise do not necessarily have any intention to act against national interest, or to discredit anyone, and they should be treated no differently from other voices, as long as they act within the law. Criticism can be underpinned by a love of our nation and a desire to see a better and more just Singapore, such as a desire to see better treatment of those in society who are most powerless and most in need of protection – the underprivileged, migrant workers, workers in low-skilled jobs, and so on.

The majority of Singaporeans, who include a lot of the critical voices, appreciate and respect how far we have come in 44 years of nation building, and they understand how the Government has given Singaporeans a better life in these 44 short years. We do have certain fundamentals in place as a nation, as a society; and this is what I would like to talk about next.

One of the fundamentals is of faith and commitment to a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. All I have said actually now begs some very, very practical questions: How well can we manage the plurality and differences in our society, now and in the future, so that we will remain "one united people"? Do we need to consider any fresh strategies in managing our diversity in a changing world? And in a world that will continue to change?

As I said, it was heartening to see that our senior Ministers – Minister Mentor and Prime Minister Lee – making public statements about the importance of religious harmony. As I have said, this showed how far we have come and how much we have matured. In the long run, we will need more than verbal pronouncements from our respected politicians. We need to institutionalise as well as internalise a reflex to be one united people, and it will not be easy to come up with just specific strategies to achieve this. We have already talked about how a lot of Singaporeans have decided to migrate and how more than 50% of young people in the survey said they would leave the country if they could.

We cannot legislate a value system to take root in people, but perhaps we can think more carefully about how to manage our differences. The immediate key questions: do we have all the requisite political and social mechanisms to manage the diversity of voices in public and private space? If not, can we evolve this mechanism, and how? Do we need to equip institutions, civil groups, even individuals with the tools to develop such a mechanism that will allow for the different views to be expressed and yet for differences to be mediated? Do we need a more sophisticated press and media? And how can we achieve that? That does not necessarily need to be achieved by having more newspapers or more newspapers with different points of view. I think it is a much more sophisticated issue than that.

At the core, I believe we need to go beyond just tolerance of each other; we need to aim for mutual respect, understanding, and accommodation of core ideological differences.

The second nation building tenet I would like to talk about is "Regardless of race, language and religion". The Prime Minister elucidated four basic rules for maintaining religious harmony in the National Day Rally. I would like to make a suggestion in relation to the fourth rule: to maintain the common space that all Singaporeans share.

The two common spaces identified by the Prime Minister were schools and workplaces. I would like to suggest that the arts and culture is also a common space for all Singaporeans. The enjoyment of many forms of art – music, painting, dance, for instance – is not tied to the knowledge of a particular language. Participants from different cultural, ethnic backgrounds often can collaborate successfully artistically or watch the same performances. With technology, non-English-language plays also come with subtitles. The problem is we actually do not take full advantage of these ethnic diversity and opportunities in our artistic work. It is still rare to see a non-Chinese at a Chinese play, for instance; a non-Malay at a Malay play, and so on. It is similar to how national television has split into language-specific channels; but this, I think, is an opportunity to develop cultural understanding.

Personally, I have benefited very much from working alongside artistes from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. I have learnt a great deal about different traditions, customs, histories, folk stories, legends and cultural icons. I feel a sense of fully experiencing Singapore's cultural diversity, which is a privilege and which, I know, has been hard won. The intermingling of our diverse cultures is also continually fascinating to many of my other colleagues in the arts.

In the 2000 Renaissance City report published by Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), the arts was recognised for its potential to foster what was then called "the Singapore heartbeat". This aim of our cultural policy seems to have fallen off the radar a little bit since. Now, I am not talking about producing propagandistic art to elucidate National Education, or going back to the "Instant Asia" cultural shows of the 1970s, even though preservation of our heritage and the traditional arts is important. I am talking about the contemporary plays, drama, dances, literary works, that are being forged by Singaporeans out of our many races and many languages – not in a deliberate or conscious manner but simply because these artistes have grown up and lived in this multi-cultural, progressive society. They express our dreams, thoughts and hopes, and the public who sees their work shares in these emotions, memories and aspirations. This builds deeper ties of understanding among the people.

The arts can be a medium for fostering a deeper cultural understanding for our people, and a conduit for the transmission of historical information and memories. Mr Zainudin has mentioned the racial riots of 1960s and how we must say "never again". In order to say "never again", we have to remember what happened. Revisiting the past, helping to develop understanding of history is something the arts can do. Yet, although we celebrate our 50th year of self-Government, we see very few either high artistic work or public cultural works that discuss this. Perhaps this indicates a lack of historical awareness among our young generation; perhaps we do not have access to all the stories and tales as elucidated by Minister Mentor just now. And perhaps we simply need to look at how we are teaching History within our education system.

Some artworks and art forms actually have their own aesthetic mechanisms that accommodate difference; for example, they allow different interpretations of the same subject, or juxtapose two contrasting points of view. With these considerations, perhaps we should be less afraid of alternative or non-mainstream views being expressed in the arts. Driving alternative points of view underground might be non-productive in the long run, could foster resentment, and sidelines some of our most creative talents who might leave our country. But more importantly, it might stop Singaporeans from truly understanding how to live with difference, how to live alongside those who hold different beliefs from themselves – it impedes our progression as "one united people". United not in terms of being homogenous, but because we understand what it takes to live among and within diversity.

More importantly, good art presents us with an experience of empathy: the ability to see through another person’s eyes or to feel for someone other than ourselves, and by so doing, we begin to arrive at an understanding of why and how people are different from us, even though our core beliefs and values can remain unchanged.

Empathy is at the core of the process of enabling mutual understanding, and perhaps this is something that our people can also learn to develop.

This brings me to my final point – the happiness quotient. We have achieved progress and prosperity, but have we achieved happiness? As has been suggested, the number of Singaporeans who are migrating or thinking of leaving suggest otherwise. We know that around 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships each year. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently expressed concern over our brain drain. He asked, "how do you convince Singaporeans that their lives will get better?" We have all the economic fundamentals in place. We have a roof over our heads, we have jobs, people are enjoying a good life. Will the glowing picture of Singapore in the future painted by Prime Minister Lee in the National Day Rally make us happier? Will that be sufficient to provide a decent quality of life for all? In development economics, it is recognised that human development – the social and cultural aspects that provide fulfillment for human beings – is as important as economic progress. It is crucial for us to continue to pay attention to the human, social and cultural impact of our policies, and it is here that empathy plays a part too, so that we strive to ensure that all Singaporeans have a place in society – in fact, to ensure that all Singaporeans feel that they have a place in society, ie, to equipping us all with a sense of self-worth – as an example, the integration of lower-wage workers into the future economy.

We talk about redesigning their jobs, we talk about adding value. But we should also look at how we can boost the social value of these jobs, so that the workers feel valued, respected, have pride in their work, and their sense of self-worth is enhanced. And what about our national sense of worth with respect to our own culture? It is not enough just to build more parks, integrated resorts, and palaces of entertainment – what about cultural pride? We can import the world’s top cultural and entertainment products, but without pride and respect for our own evolving local and indigenous cultures, the buildings and parks will be empty shells for an alienated people, unable to provide Singaporeans with a sense of rootedness and cultural identity.

It is true that we cannot legislate cultural identity into being – it is something that evolves from the people. However, we can set in place the conditions for cultural identity to take root and flourish. In this respect, our cultural policy plays a significant role in building a Singapore of the future; and in considering our future development, I believe we should move beyond the assessment of arts and culture based solely on economic indicators, and pay more attention to the intangible aspects of culture, which in some ways are the nation-building aspects, and that involves the development of depth, quality and respect for our own cultural expressions, institutions, artists and artworks.

Sir, I hope that we can develop better indicators for measuring the intangible but necessary qualities of arts and culture. We could more accurately measure our cultural capital. Our cultural institutions, including smaller organisations 'on the ground' as well as individual artists, need to be properly resourced. Our artistic institutions need to be continually strengthened and staffed by visionary and innovative leadership who are unafraid to take risks, in the same way as our economic institutions are. The grooming of future leadership for our national institutions must be a priority.

I would also like to suggest that resources are put into two areas. One, a more prominent highlighting and showcase of our national treasures and artistic works, both locally and abroad, by our diplomatic missions and national institutions working jointly with the ground. This would demonstrate pride and belief in our own talent, and a real growth of talent and competencies that can be achieved and harnessed to create real 'soul food' for our people well into the future.

Second, we need to resource our artists on the ground, so that our unique cultural make-up enjoys fuller expression and we can produce top quality local art which reaches out to the people. We should value art for its intrinsic value rather than solely for their efficacy in attracting economic investments to Singapore. Only then can we start to build a sense of self-worth in our own culture and in ourselves.

We have come a long way towards building a national identity. When I was in school, I remember many debates about what is a Singaporean, what is our identity. Today, when I teach young people, they confidently and clearly identify themselves as Singaporeans. And I think that is an indication of progress. But what is next for Singapore? Another Member has mentioned self-actualisation, and I believe that is our next step in going beyond the economic needs which have been met to develop a sense of self-worth, pride and identity in our people.

With that, I support the motion.

Sir, this is perhaps the most difficult speech I have had to make because the audience is so tired!

I rise in support of this motion because I love my country. If I had known what I was getting into, maybe I would not have opted to speak.

Minister Ng is right. Unless we find resonance with the ideals in our Pledge, we would not be able to identify with and champion the very ideals it holds. So I see in this motion an opportunity to affirm what our Government has done right – to build a strong and stable Singapore. It has taken us 50 short years to transform a sleepy fishing village into a first world cosmopolitan city state – but it was 50 short years and a lot of sacrifice by many who put love for country above all. For this strong foundation, we must thank the pioneer leaders of Singapore.

I could have left Singapore and lived in the US when I married my husband, but I chose to come home. I chose to come home to grow my family. Why is that so?

We have in place an awesome infrastructure that facilitates a standard of living that is envied by many around us. In yesterday’s debates and today's debates, we are reminded of the comprehensive social policies that have been designed to meet the needs of Singaporeans. But perhaps the most important ingredient in the recipe for successful nation building is the people.

We "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". This is perhaps the most significant tenet that we need to safeguard as we advance and mature as a nation.

My esteemed colleague has urged us to address the issue of rootedness and commitment to the nation, especially among younger Singaporeans.

This evening, I would like to speak on two key points as we debate on challenges we face in our quest to strengthen commitment to nation building. The first is on how we can encourage diversity as we strive forward as one nation. And the second, how to grow active stakeholders among all groups. That everyday life in contemporary Singapore runs so smoothly must surely be credited to the hard work of this Government and the solid foundation set by your predecessors.

The social complexities that arise from housing so many diverse groups under one roof was discussed at length by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. It takes a confident, strong and courageous leader to highlight the sensitivities involved in managing race relations and religious harmony. So Singapore is indeed blessed to have such a leader as our Prime Minister.

Diversity is an extremely difficult state to manage, particularly so when the basic needs of the population have been met, and we now have to meet aspirations of a much higher level. We can think of it as fragmentation and thus, we can look at the uphill struggle as we strive to seal the joints. But I think to advance, we must think of this special diversity we enjoy in Singapore as an awesome strength. It is with the collective contributions from such diverse groups that makes Singapore unique, strong and stable.

So the challenge ahead is on engaging these diverse groups to showcase their unique contributions to nation building, and yet at the same time, focus their heart on one nation. How can we do this?

A one-size-fits-all message will not work – it attempts to address everyone's interest, but ends up with very few actually identifying with it. Instead, we must first recognise the different groups so that we can appreciate the concerns and constraints that may be unique to those groups. In addition to the demarcation by race and religious groupings, we must also be keenly aware of the demographic divides along age – the youth, the elderly and the big middle group. They all have important and irreplaceable roles.

Of these, I would like to highlight the concerns of our youth. We train our eyes on the youth as they are the future of Singapore. The youth of contemporary Singapore are quite different from their predecessors. They are more educated, they grew up in an era marked by peace and affluence. And as parents, we have freed them from concerns of the mundane, and encouraged them to dream. Are we able to meet their aspirations?

While there are now more platforms for them to showcase and nurture their talent and passion, we must be cognisant that we do not set goals that are achievable only by a few and, in the process, inevitably marginalise and alienate the masses.

It is undeniable that we are now more demanding of our children in the academic arena. As Singapore families capitalised on the tremendous achievements of the state in the past 50 years, we have levelled up in terms of social class standing. As a result, we now place a lot more emphasis on our children to achieve academically so that they too can enjoy upward social mobility. So much so that even participation in co-curricular activities (CCAs) in schools has taken on a keen competitive stance.

Competition is healthy up to a certain level. But if the ultimate goal of competition is actualised in limited coveted accolades, I think we might stand to lose more than we gain.

In terms of growing roots and nation building, it is hard to expect that our youth would be able to identify strongly with an entity if they perceive themselves to be on the fringe. Instead, we must actively engage them, and nurture them to be active citizens that we can rely on to lead this nation in the next lap.

I strongly believe this younger generation really want to give of themselves to the state. They just do not know how. So we must ensure that there are effective mentors who can guide them along and sufficient channels that facilitate contributions from all levels.

Moving ahead, we must be cognisant of two important factors: that in the quest to groom talent, we do not inevitably marginalise the masses, and that we must continue to broaden the platform on which young Singaporeans can raise their concerns to policy-makers.

Here, the schools have an important role to play, and the teachers are instrumental. If I may share an observation I made at my sons’ school. Fairfield has the traditional annual prize giving ceremony which honours top students who achieved academically. But one year, when Miss Elaine Lim was Principal, we were invited to a second awards ceremony, one that recognised CCA achievements. At that ceremony, students who excelled in their CCAs were given awards. Miss Elaine Lim had broadened the definition of "excellence" to include achievements at various levels. Each time she named a group, she invited the students involved to stand. By the time she was done, almost the entire student body was on their feet. And the applause was thunderous. I recall her telling her students that they must be so proud of themselves because each of those standing had contributed significantly to Fairfield’s achievements.

As we reflect on our own strong ties to our home Singapore, I suspect in every one of our life stories, there will be credit attributed to a special teacher who believed in us, taught us to dream big and gave us the courage to reach for the stars. The role of the teacher-mentor is critical in the nurture of Singapore’s youth.

I commend the efforts of MOE in raising the status of the teaching profession. As we move forward, in addition to equipping our teachers with the best skills for imparting knowledge, we must give teachers the time and space to be effective mentors. To facilitate this, may I posit that MOE considers reducing class sizes in secondary schools. Teens, in their formative years, will surely benefit from the mentorship they will receive in an environment with smaller staff-student ratio.

As we reflect on our promise, to pledge ourselves as 'one united people', a key facilitator of this is in our social ties - to our family, to our friends and to our community.

I attended my secondary school reunion last Saturday. It has been 30 years since I left CHIJ at Victoria Street. I came from a working class background and my parents never had the privilege of tertiary education. But I went to a truly great school. And there, in my formative years, under the guidance of awesome teachers, I learned to dream – the middle class dream. Conducive school environments are so important. I felt a strong attachment to my school community. I was not the top student, but back then, we were not so fixated on grades. Instead, I found a niche for myself in sports, and enjoyed the limelight there.

I was not that good at sports either but, back then, it was not too difficult to get into the school team, and CCA was great fun. You did not have to be good to get into a CCA. You just had to like it.

For our youth today, I hope we can continue to give them the space and time to grow social ties. To engage in school-based activities where competition and scoring well are not overly emphasised.

My school mates from CHIJ – they are truly awesome women. Many of my classmates are now practising medicine or law. Amongst the group, I found top bankers, finance professionals, civil servants and even a few altruistic homemakers. There was one common trend – they seemed to be a very fertile group!

This brings me to my second and last point: the importance of family in the discourse of nationhood.

Marriage and family formation grow active stakeholders. In a letter to the Straits Times that was printed on 11th August, a Ms Cindy Tan wrote, and I quote:

"Our attitude changed this year when I saw my son, aged 2 1/2, dressed in red and white overalls for his playschool's National Day party. In the past, I had regarded Singapore as my homeland, but I did not feel a sense of belonging because of the hectic pace of life. But, as a mother, I realised how stable and secure Singapore is: no riots, no chaos, no racial discrimination, no natural disasters, no corruption."

And Ms Tan ends off with an affirmation of her strong commitment to Singapore.

Parents have long-term goals as we try to proactively prepare the way for our children. Parents value stability. We tend to be less geographically mobile and, therefore, we grow roots where we are situated. We tend to see ourselves raising our children here and growing old here.

The Prime Minister has been standing solidly behind the Singapore Family through his enhanced pro-family policies. Every time the Prime Minister mentions family, marriage and parenthood in his speeches, the family gains several notches in social prestige.

Though one might naively think that these pro-family stances have a muted effect just by observing the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), I firmly believe that the state has a critical role in upholding social ideals. That the state supports family work is a necessary condition for encouraging marriage and parenthood.

While there is still much work to be done to facilitate family formation and raise the status of marriage in the face of contesting demands on younger Singaporeans, we have certainly come a long way in terms of repositioning the family. It will take time for norms to shift, and for family work to regain a cool status.

As more women enter the labour force and dual-income families dominate household structures, work-life balance remains a critical concern. Here, I urge all employers to adopt a long-term perceptive on human resource investment.

In particular, working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence in the workplace have an important role to play. We must play our part in shifting norms at the workplace. Do not expect our younger colleagues to adhere to the traditional rigid parameters that we might have been subjected to when we were struggling with career commitments and family demands.

Instead, I urge all working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence to reflect on what we would have appreciated – the flexibility that is essential, and trust that in spite of our need to run in and out of the office, we can still deliver and make significant contributions to the organisation. We must give this flexibility and trust to our employees and supervisees.

Young parents need flexibility in work schedules as they tend to the needs of younger children. Help them raise their children well, and when the children become independent, these mothers will be free to focus primarily on work demands. And they will be loyal and reliable employees.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and his Government for listening to the concerns raised by parents, especially those by working mothers. And I want to tell the Prime Minister that he must not give up – and to press on in his quest to get young Singaporeans married and have kids.

As a mother, I am truly appreciative of Singapore – this is my home, where I raise my children in a safe, stable and peaceful environment. We will do our part as we pledge our allegiance to the nation building tenets enshrined in the National Pledge.

6.06 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me a chance to say a few words. Fortunately, I am not the last speaker, and I will give my comments in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *. ] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on the motion by the Nominated Member of Parliament. In 1964, we had very serious racial riots in Singapore. We must always remember this painful experience. Today, we want to ensure that the younger generation as well as the older generation accept the values of the Pledge. This is done in our schools, where students recite the Pledge every day. At the National Day Parade this year, at 8.22 pm, people all over Singapore as well as those on the floating platform repeated the Pledge in unison, and this was to allow the older, middle-aged and the younger generation to remember the objectives of our country. I was fortunate to be present that night, and I believe it was the first time after leaving Pre-University in 1972 that I had the chance to recite the Pledge again. Like the Nominated Member, Mr Viswa, I was very moved and proud to be a Singaporean.

Since 1965, the Government has used the fundamental principles set out in the Pledge to implement various policies to promote national development and uphold social cohesion. In order to realise the spirit of the Pledge, we need all Singaporeans to stand united and to strive hard as one people. This is not something that only concerns the Government. It is something that concerns all of us – every Singaporean.

Within the Cabinet, and in Parliament, the Government has put in place an effective system to ensure that there are multi-racial representatives. It has, through multiple channels, gathered meaningful feedback from the people. It has explained the policies to the people and implemented meritocracy to allow equal opportunities for people at all levels. So, today, in Parliament, including Nominated Members of Parliament like myself, who come from various racial backgrounds and religious persuasions, all of us can give our views freely. It is not sufficient to depend solely on the Government to uphold the spirit of the Pledge. While we hope the Government would continue to understand Singaporeans’ needs and concerns in order to implement even more effective policies, we also need all community groups, all civic organisations to work together in support of various policies so that these policies could reach their maximum effect.

In the past, the various community groups in the grassroots organisations, cultural and religious groupings, have all done their part to uphold racial harmony and social stability of Singapore. Since Singapore achieved nationhood, we have indeed overcome many crises, including the current financial crisis, through this important bonding. The social groups and the community organisations are the bridge between the Government and the people, and they play a central role in bringing about social cohesion and racial harmony. Through the useful channel of civic organisations, the Government can achieve a better understanding of the sentiments of the people, explore constructive solutions and consider making suitable changes to Government policies when necessary.

We look forward to strengthened ties between the Government and civic organisations, and hope that the Government would enhance its support and assistance to these civic organisations, enabling them to play an even more effective role. In terms of media reporting, I also hope that the different television channels or language dailies could report on the activities of other community groups. For example, I hope the Straits Times could include more reports of the activities of the Chinese community groups. Similarly, Zaobao could also report on the activities of other racial groups.

The mutual cooperation amongst different racial groups is a most effective platform. As an example, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry provides Mandarin language courses for Malay and Indian citizens, to improve their employability. We have joined hands with MENDAKI to provide career fairs for Malay-Muslim Singaporeans, and mobilised our corporate members to provide 2,300 job openings for fellow Malay citizens. Last year, we organised a business mission to Zhejiang to explore the China market together with members of the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We have also maintained close networking ties with new immigrants to Singapore. All these activities have achieved good results. So I hope that the civic organisations of various groups could jointly organise more of such activities to articulate the spirit of the Pledge. Rather than engaging in rhetoric, we must take more practical action. As the Chinese saying goes, if all the people are united, we can move mountains.

Hence, I would like to encourage more people to make full use of these civic organisations to build rapport with the Government and contribute towards Singapore’s racial harmony and social development. Unified strength knows no bounds!

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amended motion.

*Cols. 1257-1260.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

6.12 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for your patience and to Members of the House too. Given that I am the last speaker, I will try to keep it as short as I can. But this is an important subject.

Like Mr Viswa, I google quite a bit and know that not all net sources are reliable. But, recently, I was surprised to read from a 'aneki.com' that Singapore surfaced as the most googled nation in the world. I paused and asked, "Is 'aneki.com' reliable?", or "What do people google Singapore for?" But I soon realised that these are not the right questions to ask. The right question is: how did a tiny island state in a developing region, deprived of any resources, be of interest to anyone? How did we, against all odds, evolve a model of growth that is now adopted and adapted by countries as near as Vietnam and as far as Kenya?

Putting things in perspective, just a mere 0.5% of the people with the highest intelligence quotient (IQ) in China or India would be more than the total population in Singapore. What the US consumes in a month is probably more than the total consumption of Singaporeans in a year. So with no natural resources, no market size and insufficient people, what did this little red dot do right in the last 44 years to defy gravity, contradict the law of large numbers and become amongst one of the most admired nations in the world?

Then, during this year’s National Day Parade (NDP), as I said our Pledge at 8.22 pm on 9th August 2009, the answer became clear. Indeed, the answer is found in the first sentence of our Pledge: "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people." One united people – this is what makes us stand out from the rest, and indeed from the world. Look no further than ASEAN. Whereas at one time before the Asian financial crisis, economies were booming, cities were thriving and people, I think, were happier. But, today, there are much uncertainties in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and even Malaysia. People are divided along political, racial and religious cracklines, economies stalled and with fewer jobs, many have no choice but to leave their families to become manual labour in foreign land. They remit the money home.

Many of them, quite possibly, could have been amongst the many who have chanted for democracy, freedom, fairness, without fully understanding the context and responsibilities of these words; and they could be asking for change without insight into what change really means to the man-in-the-street. Streets have become unsafe and families are broken down. Are they happy? Hardly.

Every country I go to these days, I try to spend at least half a day visiting some of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the locals. It is a humbling experience to know that many of them ask if they can come to Singapore for a better life.

So, what is our secret weapon? One united people – this is difficult to replicate. Change that, and we will change for the worse, and there will be no easy turning back. Given the anecdotal evidence around the world, this unity is not a natural state. It takes very enlightened and determined leadership, one that is closely connected to the heartbeat of the heartlanders as much as it is connected to the global trends and one that is non-corrupt, to be able to forge a united people.

The secret weapon – sharpen the secret weapon. So our other secret weapon is that we act, we do not just talk. And we walk our talk.

Yesterday, Nominated Member Viswa and earlier on, Nominated Member Calvin Cheng lamented about our high Gini co-efficient. I think they were not in this House, when a few years ago, Prime Minister Lee painstakingly explained the need to attract top talents that can continue to create wealth and bring jobs to Singaporeans. Top wages attract top talents, and the inadvertent outcome is that of a higher Gini co-efficient. This House then debated at length on how we can, through policy implementations, self-help and mutual help, mitigate the income gap via rebates, upgrading community amenities (for example, instead of country clubs build community clubs), ComCare schemes, revamps in the 3Ms in healthcare, lifelong learning and massive upgrading of an entire nation through the SPUR programme, and the list goes on. These measures are not taken into consideration in the calculation of Gini co-efficient, are they? This re-distribution of wealth to reduce the gaps and improve outcomes is the result of the understanding that the people – residents, in fact, of Singapore – have a shared destiny.

Nominated Member Calvin Cheng also shared the story about the runners. He said that if the fast runners stop to help the foreign runners, the team will be slowed down; but if the fast runners ignore the foreign runners, it implies that they may neglect their foreign team mates. Both appear to be lose-lose options. I think we can think out-of-the-box for a win-win outcome.

First, the team can understand that no matter what happens, the fast, the slow or foreign runners are all part of the team with shared destiny. Give space to the best to be the best, while continuously build the physique and technique of the slower runners. We run as a team, and whatever price won by any team-mates will be shared by the nation. In other words, we are better off with this social contract. It is a win-win solution.

Yesterday, Nominated Member Viswa also mentioned that Singapore scored the second lowest in terms of trust amongst the people. Indeed this finding somewhat contradicts the finding of Transparency International – which is a global organisation that measures corruption around the world. And corruption is often used as a proxy for measuring trust, as corruption lowers confidence and reliability. In the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer which polled 69 countries and 73,132 individuals, Singapore emerged as the least corrupt country in the world. What is even remarkable is that the scores related to our political parties, parliament legislature, judiciary, public service and civil servants, also top the chart of being the least corrupt in the world. This trust, confidence and reliability of our institutions have contributed greatly to the premium Singapore brand, giving Singaporeans and Singapore brands a headstart when we go overseas. This high trust even has an unwanted side effect – that the Singapore passport sells at a premium price tag in the black market.

Sir, selective data without a holistic approach and understanding can at best be persuasive, but perhaps unrealistic. This House comprises of Elected Members with full accountability to its constituents. We listen to our constituents, we celebrate the weddings and festivities with our residents, we grief with our residents when ill fate bestow, not on a yearly basis, not on a monthly basis, but on a weekly and even daily basis. In fact, most of us – we jokingly say – are married to our constituency and we call it our second home. We grow old with the elderly qigong group while the toddler in the pram is now taller than me. Can we not hear them? Can we not share their joy and challenges? Can we not represent their woes, their needs, their wants in this House and not translate it into apt policies? It is in fact this very close relationship between policy-makers, PAP MPs and the people, and the faith that we have in each other, that helps us move non-populist policies in the last 44 years. It is the faith, and of course this social contract, this unwritten duty and code of honour, that prevents us from scoring short-term political brownie points but instead, go for long-term gains in national interest. Unity in diversity and solidarity together is what moves us ahead and gives us this unique Singapore edge.

To reiterate: This unity did not happen by chance, and will always be work-in-progress. The moment at 8.22 pm on 9th August 2009 was a carefully thought out, meticulously well-planned event that leverages on modern ICT (InfoCom Technology), resource mobilisation and goodwill on the ground to unite Singaporeans near and far into one united chorus.

Just days before the parade, I received a letter from the Chairman of the NDP '09 Executive Committee (Exco), BG Tan Chuan-Jin. In it, he tried to explain what NDP is this year, and I quote what he said: "Given that most Singaporeans will not be at the NDP itself, we want to reach out and engage as many people as possible. We have a wide range of activities aimed at the heartlands. There is also an important social outreach effort where we bring in voluntary welfare organisations, Institute of Mental Health and the Yellow Ribbon project to help in the packing of our fun packs, with each pack being tagged by the person who packed it. We hope that Singaporeans can appreciate how the marginalised and less privileged also play a part in our national efforts."

And for the first time, new media is used extensively to engage Singaporeans and the response has been encouraging. He said: "We have over six million views on our official website and over a million on our various interactive platforms like Facebook, YouTube and the like. Singaporeans have also shared more than 60,000 thoughts and reflections online and at least 40,000 wishes on cards. We have also worked with the grassroots, schools, self-help groups, and many other agencies to pool our various national efforts. Our National Day is a natural rallying point and it makes sense to coordinate our many activities."

And then he said: "The highlight of the evening will be our 8.22 pm Pledge moment. As we take the Pledge at the float at Marina, Singaporeans at over 640 locations in Singapore and up to 10 overseas points will also join in as we pledge ourselves in unison. This will be our equivalent of Earth Hour and promises to be a memorable experience as we bring new meaning to the line "Pledge ourselves as one united people".

Sir, I have taken time to read what he has written to us. It is unusual. I have not received a letter like that from a BG before but I think it is a very good reminder that even the BG – someone perceived as operational-minded and civil servant – is mindful of our Pledge and does his part in his call of duty to align himself, his policies, and his implementations to the Pledge. So I am glad that we have enlightened civil servants like BG Tan. We have to understand that it is not just building a united and inclusive society regardless of race, language and religion, but also regardless of background, abilities or age. Home is, after all, made up of two words, "hope" and "shared memories". Singapore is ours to build.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has come a long way in both economic and social terms. We should be proud of it, but not rest on our laurels. We are not perfect, much needs to be done, and we will always be work-in-progress. The competition is not just within Singapore. It is global and the fittest survive. Lest we throw the baby out with the bath water, we better anchor ourselves on what we did right in the past 44 years, while adapting furiously to changing circumstances. The nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge are applicable, of course, to all policies – social, political, and not just economics. Our secret weapon – one united people; and the other secret weapon, the ability to walk the talk – requires not just the public sector and the legislators in this House, but also the private sector and the people sector to step up. It is not just a "many hands" approach but a "many hearts", "many heads", and "many hands and legs" approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I call on this House and our nation to journey on, as Minister Mentor says "step-by-step" with vigilance, hard work, compassion and cohesion – so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Sir, I support the amended motion.

There are two amendments before the House. I shall put the amendment proposed by Minister Mentor first, followed by the amendment by Mr Zainudin Nordin.

I shall now put the question on Minister Mentor's amendment to Mr Zainudin's amendment.

Question, "That after the words "achieving the" in line three of Mr Zainudin Nordin's amendment, the words "aspirations and" be inserted", put and agreed to.

I now come to the amendment of Mr Zainudin Nordin as amended by Minister Mentor. It has been proposed as an amendment by Mr Zainudin Nordin that the words "from House" in line 1 to the end be left out and there to insert the words "as amended".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and agreed to.

The Original Motion, as amended, is now before the House. The Question is:

"That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.".

6.30 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to move the motion and conclude at this point. My sincere thanks to the many Members who rose to share the views and insights pertaining to the motion, and the amended motions.

It is not important that Members agree with the points I raised. What is important is that there has been active discussion and thought. Where we can persuade each other, that is great. Where we cannot, let us agree to disagree. This, after all, is the democratic process. What is important is for us to feel free and empowered to express our points of view without fear or favour in the best interests of our country.

I do not intend to respond to all the points made by the Members. I will keep it brief, as advised by my good friend, Mr Sam Tan, yesterday.

Minister of State Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon – in an inimitable, non-confrontational and persuasive style – reassured the House that no one will go hungry or be left behind as Singapore progresses. Thank you, Mdm Yu-Foo, especially for taking pains to highlight the constellation of help available for the needy. This is indeed comforting but my suggestion to Mdm Yu-Foo as well as to the Ministry is that it would be most useful to publicise some of these benefits a lot more. Not just to the beneficiaries but to people like me who obviously are not aware of them, because it does inspire much-needed confidence.

Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Sam Tan, most eloquently fired a series of salvos at me, adding much colour to my speech. In the process, there appears to be some misconceptions – perhaps I was not clear in my speech. For example, I did not say categorically that the democratic process is flouted by Government. I said there is a perception that it is not a level playing field on the ground. I did not say economic process is less important. I merely said that deeper, longer term challenges for us are issues of rootedness, commitment and happiness. What I stated in my speech are my honest sense of the perceptions and sentiments on the ground based on my interactions both formal and informal. We can debate whether this is accurate, whether this is true or false but the best way to ascertain the sense of the ground is by doing a qualitative independent survey which perhaps the Government can consider doing.

Mr Sam Tan, all the same – the many points of disagreement notwithstanding – has, I am pleased, accepted one of my suggestions. It seems to have passed his stringent test that the vernacular TV channels should carry more content on each other’s culture and happenings.

Mr Zainudin Nordin, I am glad, agreed that racial and religious harmony is a journey and not to be taken for granted even though we have put in place good structures and learnt important lessons from the 1964 riots. I have no issues with the amendment the Member proposed to my motion, essentially because in my speech, I did take pains to acknowledge the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-Government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. The key words, for me, in my original wording of the motion are "re-affirm our commitment to the key tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge". I am glad that the Member acknowledged that we can do better which is my key argument. So we are in agreement in essence.

Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen gave what I consider a thought-provoking speech. And the manner and tone he adopted is something that is highly appreciated. Not only is it thought-provoking, it is also delivered with dignity and therefore a lot more persuasive. He said power and resonance come when actions match words. I could not have put it better. I could not have agreed more which is why, in my speech, I not only acknowledged the positive actions of this Government and the people, in getting here, what I have recommended are also specific actions to help us move towards the aspirations as enshrined in the Pledge. I am heartened that the Minister does see economic goals and our aspirations as not being mutually exclusive. That is precisely what I am asking for, to move towards, to pay even more attention to the tenets of the Pledge when striving for economic progress. I never saw the two as mutually exclusive. I agree that we should not implement change for the sake of change and especially if we know it is going to cost undue distress on the ground. When I called for re-politicisation of our people, for example, I did not envisage a situation where there are riots or rallies at every corner on every subject. Even if you wanted this, I am afraid it is an unlikely scenario because of our current political culture.

What I really ask for is about getting people to get more interested, more connected with what is happening politically, because I do sincerely believe that this is going to help Singapore as we move forward.

My final comment is on the contribution made by Minister Mentor Lee just now. I thank Minister Mentor for giving us perspective at a point when we needed it, all of us; perspective that can only come from a person of his wisdom and his experience. He said the Pledge is not an ideology but an aspiration. A timely reminder. I completely agree with the amendment he has proposed because it is in keeping with my own objectives in moving this motion. While Minister Mentor Lee highlights the realities that we have to be cognisant of, I am sure he would agree with me that the day we stop believing in the aspirations and working towards them, is the day we cease to make real progress. So while reality sometimes will bog us down, will frustrate us, I think we must continue to believe that we can strive towards these aspirations which could appear extremely distant at this present moment.

It was precisely this commitment to the aspirations of equality that drove our Government to ensure that ethnic minority groups and their needs would be given special attention. It may sound paradoxical but moves like affirmative action are indeed motivated to attain the aspirations of equality – an aspiration that is captured in our Pledge.

To conclude, let me briefly clarify three key points I made in my speech that appears to have been misunderstood. Firstly, ethnic self-help groups. I am not at any point advocating doing away with them. On the contrary, I did highlight the good work done by Mendaki, Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), CDAC and the Eurasian Association. I also highlighted that I have served on the Executive Committee of SINDA for the past 12 years and am very committed to what SINDA is doing because firsthand I have seen the good work it has done on the ground and the way the Indian community has benefited. All I am asking for was for us to find more ways for us to address the inadvertent signal we could be sending to the ground which I have sensed that the creation of these ethnic-based self-help groups could go contrary to the spirit of the Pledge insofar as wanting a multi-racial society. That is all I am asking for. To rationalise and deal with some of the contradictions that may be perceived on the ground.

Democracy and justice – I am not saying that the Government is stuffing ballot boxes or doing things that are non-Constitutional. I was highlighting a lingering perception that I sensed on the ground that politically, it is not a level playing field and if we do not address this, there will be growing cynicism especially amongst our youth who will choose to express their displeasure through angry postings in the Net which is not useful.

Thirdly, on economic progress and happiness. I did not say economic prosperity is not important and that it should be put on the back burner. It would be naive to promote an argument of that nature. What I was highlighting was that national economic progress must result in happiness for the individual and this may not always be the case.

My intention in moving this motion was not to take shots at the Government or its policies. It must be evident in my speech that I have a healthy regard for the Government and appreciation for what we have achieved, and that we should not take that for granted. My motivation is simple. As a citizen of this country, I am deeply concerned about the level of rootedness and the latent threats to harmony that if these two issues are not adequately addressed, we may not succeed as a nation, a people. For this, we need an emotional anchor or a collective reflex for which I am confident our National Pledge would serve as a reference point.

I am glad that we have had a chance to have this discussion. I do believe it is useful and I do believe it would provoke further discussion on the Pledge and the importance of some of the tenets of the Pledge on the ground. I think it is important for us to move away from hardline positions and look a lot more at shared interests, and there are plenty of shared interests even as we discussed and debated the various points.

We can disagree on the substantive issues I raised but I would find it very hard if Members cannot accept that we as Members of this House do see and should see the importance of re-affirming our commitment to the key tenets of the National Pledge.

I am confident that the House will support the amended version of the motion and once again my sincere thanks to Members for actively participating in the debate on this motion, and provoking thought and discussion on the National Pledge in society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.

Resolved,

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

Adjourned accordingly at

Fifteen minutes to Seven o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM

asked the Minister for Transport in view of the tightening of the "No eating/drinking" rule in the MRT stations, (a) how many people were fined for eating and drinking in the MRT stations since May this year; (b) what is the guideline for the definition of "eating"; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing passengers to put sweets in their mouth as some elderly people have to do this to overcome motion sickness.

asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent case where a commuter was caught eating a sweet in an MRT train (a) what were the circumstances that led to the issuance of a fine; (b) why was the commuter’s explanation not accepted and the commuter not let off with a warning; (c) how serious is the problem of eating/drinking in MRT trains; and (d) whether there is a public education campaign to raise awareness about this regulation.

Under the Rapid Transit Systems (RTS) Regulations, passengers who consume or attempt to consume any food, drinks, chewing or bubble gum in the MRT stations and trains are liable to a fine of up to $500. Offences may be compounded by the LTA to lesser amounts such as $30. This Regulation has been in place since the start of MRT services in 1987, to ensure cleanliness and hygiene in the stations and trains.

Most passengers comply with the Regulation of not eating and drinking in stations and trains. However, there is a small but growing group of passengers who do not. The number of Notices of Offences issued in 2006 was 301. This had increased to 581 in 2007 and 646 in 2008. In the first six months of 2009, there were 281 offences. To put these numbers in perspective, there are nearly 1.5 million trips a day made on our train system. The percentage of offenders is low and most Singaporeans are considerate passengers who do not inconvenience their fellow commuters.

However, the operators decided to step up enforcement recently after a surge in public complaints against eating and drinking in trains. Let me give just one example. On 9th July 2009, Mr Loke Parc Sen wrote to the Straits Times Interactive, expressing concern that when a commuter was caught eating on the train, he: "dared the SMRT officer by saying: 'Fine me; I don't care.' Seeing that these are the kind of characters they are dealing with, SMRT should show no mercy. Letting them off with a warning or a meagre fine of $30 is a slap on the wrist. I suggest they be made to feel the full consequence of their choice – a $500 fine."

Mdm Phua and Dr Lim asked whether exceptions can be considered, for instance, allowing the elderly to eat sweets to overcome motion sickness, to manage diabetes or for other reasons. My Ministry, and I am sure the operators as well, recognise that there could indeed be extenuating circumstances. However, these are exceptional situations rather than the norm. Practically, it would be impossible to comprehensively define such circumstances upfront – they are, by definition, exceptional and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

As I mentioned earlier, our principal aim is to ensure cleanliness and hygiene on the trains and stations for the benefit of all passengers. Thus, passengers should finish eating or drinking before entering the MRT station. If they really need to eat or drink for medical or other special reasons, they should approach the MRT station staff. The MRT station staff are trained to exercise flexibility and judgment. Sometimes, this may mean granting an exception; other times it may mean saying, no. If indeed there are genuine cases of service lapses, passengers can report them to the operators.

Dr Lim asked if there is a public education campaign to raise awareness of this Regulation against eating or drinking in stations and trains. Over the years, the rail operators have indeed undertaken several public education programmes to encourage gracious behaviour, including not eating or drinking in stations and trains. For example, SMRT and SBST engage the public through their on-going Learning Journey programmes with primary and secondary schools, the annual SMRT Courtesy and Safety Programme and SBST’s quarterly Community Engagement Programme. As recently as May this year, the Public Transport Council launched a public education programme, in partnership with the operators, to promote gracious behaviour on public transport. There are also regular audio broadcasts in MRT stations reminding passengers not to eat or drink. Through such efforts, we hope to raise awareness of the need to be considerate to other passengers. This will help provide a more pleasant travelling experience for all.

asked the Minister for Finance in light of the latest Auditor-General’s Report on lapses in the Civil Service, how can prudence and accountability in the use of public money be further nurtured.

The Auditor-General’s Report indicates the need to continually enhance prudence and accountability in the use of public monies. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) is addressing this through a Whole-of-Government framework for use of public monies. The framework comprises five main thrusts:

First, instituting controls. MOF puts in place expenditure policies, rules, procedures, limits and norms to ensure budgetary prudence and accountability. These policies and rules are issued to all Government agencies for compliance.

Second, encouraging best practices. MOF promotes Best Practices at the Whole-of-Government level to drive better usage of resources. Best Sourcing and Public-Private Partnerships are examples of such initiatives. Advisories such as on advertising and public relations expenditures are also issued to provide guidance for agencies.

Third, promoting a mindset of thrift. Efforts are made to raise awareness of public servants on the need to be prudent in expenditure and ensure value for money through the Economy Drive, and the Cut Waste Panel, which is chaired by public sector leaders.

Fourth, developing capabilities. MOF has established a competency and training framework to systematically develop officers across Government agencies with the necessary skills to undertake budgeting and procurement work proficiently.

Fifth, monitoring performance. MOF works closely with the Ministries to identify and review their strategic outcomes, outcome and performance indicators annually to ensure accountability.

In line with these five strategic thrusts, MOF has launched a number of important initiatives in recent years to further promote prudence and accountability:

A Value-for-Money (VFM) Office, established in 2007, enables MOF to systematically examine whether Government expenditures are achieving their intended outcomes and doing so in a cost-efficient way. What VFM amounts to is a selective, ex-post review of Ministries’ budgeting decisions – either for an individual Ministry or at a Whole-Of-Government level. VFM audits hence provide an important complement to the system of block budgeting, which gives Ministries autonomy over the internal allocation of their block budgets.

We are also making progress in ensuring effective land and building usage and management. Among other measures, MOF has revised the office space norms for public agencies last year to ensure more efficient use of space.

MOF will continually review our framework and will be following up with agencies identified in the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) report to further enhance prudence and accountability. Even with a rigorous framework of rules and guidelines, there will unfortunately be instances of lapses. What is important is to have such lapses picked up in time and thereafter distilled as lessons. By doing so, we minimise the chances of bigger or more systemic problems occurring.

To specifically address the lapses in Procurement and Contract Management, MOF is implementing a new Procurement Competency and Training Framework that is aimed at raising the capability of public officers in procurement and contract management. A forum would also be conducted in October 2009 to cover lessons learnt from AGO’s observations.

asked the Minister for Health in view of the rapidly ageing population and the increasing demand for home-based care, what are the Ministry's middle to long-term strategies in developing this sector of healthcare in Singapore.

As a policy, we support the idea that all seniors should age at home, and not have to rely on long-term institutional care. The vast majority of the elderly are generally healthy and are able to age at home. A small minority will however require long-term medical or nursing care. Where it is not practical to provide such professional care at home, admission to a nursing home becomes inevitable. But we should try to avoid such an outcome as far as practicable. Where it is cost-effective to bring medical or nursing care to the patients at home, we should try to facilitate it. This is also the preferred option by the seniors as they can then remain in a familiar environment, and be in the company of their family members.

Currently, home healthcare is not a big part of our healthcare sector. But as our population ages further, we can expect the demand for it to grow. Thus, an important part of our strategy for home care is to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the sector to meet the growing demand. This means an adequate supply of healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, therapists and other allied health professionals. We are ramping up their numbers through increased training and foreign recruitment. We will also need to expand the number of daycare centres, in tandem with rising demand.

Second, we will enhance the capabilities of our home care services. We will need to raise their professional skills and standards so that they are confident to care for the seniors in the community. My Ministry has now extended its support to the training and professional development of healthcare workers from the home care sector through the Health Manpower Development Programme. As the sector grows, we will increase funding for training in home care.

Third, we want to make home care more affordable through gradually extending the 3Ms framework to long-term care and home care. As a first step, we have decided to extend Medisave to cover home palliative care. As we gain more experience with this pilot, we will consider how the scheme can be further extended to other home care services.

Fourth, we will work with the home care providers to improve the coordination of the various home care services, as well as the integration of home care with primary care and hospital care. We will link up home care providers with the GPs, polyclinics and the hospitals, so that there will be less hassle as patients move from one care setting to another. Without coordination and integration, the patients and their families are often at a loss as to how to access the relevant services. The objective is to care and support the elderly with more complex care needs, so that they can stay at home for as long as possible. We have begun discussion with the Home Nursing Foundation on this idea as we think that it can play an important role in the transformation of the home healthcare sector.

Finally, we need to ensure that caregivers are well trained to cope with the physical and socio-emotional needs of the elderly. We provide a Caregiver Training Grant to help caregivers participate in such training programmes. In addition, we are currently studying the need to provide structured skills training for foreign domestic workers as they often are critical members of the caregiver team.

Home care is a focus area of MOH. There is much that we need to do to beef it up. Our population is still young, but we will have to start to put the various pieces in place to prepare for a more elderly population in the future.

asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will provide an update on the state of palliative care in Singapore and whether it is now better integrated across our healthcare system; and (b) whether there are enough trained healthcare professionals to provide effective palliative care.

Palliative care in Singapore has grown since its early days in the 1980s. There are now seven providers of inpatient hospice and home palliative care. Together, they serve more than 5,000 patients a year. Palliative care has also entered mainstream medical care and palliative medicine, a recognised sub-specialty since 2007. Patients can now use Medisave for inpatient hospice care and soon, home palliative care. There are now palliative care units in practically all the public hospitals with significant oncology or palliative patient loads. The private sector has also taken an interest in palliative care.

We are happy with the development but there is scope to go further. First, there are many more patients and their families who can benefit from palliative care. We have to continue to raise awareness through continuing public education. My Ministry is planning a major push this year.

Second, there is now better coordination of care between hospitals and hospice providers. The hospice service providers can receive direct referrals from the hospitals. We would like to extend this to nursing homes where some patients may benefit from palliative care. Tan Tock Seng Hospital has started a pilot programme to provide end-of-life planning and palliative care to some nursing homes.

Third, we need to further strengthen community palliative care so that they can cope with rising demand for their service. My Ministry is working with hospice service providers on this. An important area is availability of professional staff with interest in palliative medicine. We are still short of palliative care doctors, nurses and social workers. We will recruit and train more. We must also leverage on the large number of family physicians out there. We will help them upgrade their skills in palliative care approaches to enable their terminally ill patients to receive good care towards the end of life. Some training in palliative care is already part of their basic training. But we hope some of them will subsequently take up more advanced training in this field.

And we must not neglect the nurses. My Ministry’s Healthcare Manpower Development Programme has been extended to provide training in palliative care nursing. For example, we are supporting Dover Park Hospice to train up to 100 nurses in basic palliative care nursing within the next 12 months. We will also encourage more nurses to take up the Advanced Diploma in Nursing (Palliative Care) programme at the Nanyang Polytechnic.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Singaporeans have benefited from the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) since its introduction in 2007; (b) what is the amount of WIS which has been paid so far; (c) of those not paying CPF previously, how many have contributed to their CPF in order to benefit from WIS; and (d) what is the estimated number of workers who have not yet benefited from WIS due to non-contribution to CPF.

21. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower if he will reconsider allowing workers whose basic pay is less than $1,500 but whose total pay exceeds $1,500 (due to overtime) to be eligible for Workfare Income Supplement (WIS).

The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme was introduced in 2007 to encourage older low-wage workers to work and improve their retirement adequacy. For work done in 2007, 311,000 low-wage workers benefited from Workfare totalling $305 million. This works out to an average of $982 per worker. For work done in 2008, so far 328,000 low-wage workers have received Workfare benefits totalling $386 million, including $55 million in the Workfare Special Payment announced as part of this year’s Resilience Package. This works out to an average of $1,176 per worker.

To ensure employers contribute CPF for their workers, the CPF Board has been stepping up its enforcement efforts against errant employers. For example, the CPF Board has identified certain industries as being more prone to non-contribution, and has proactively conducted audit inspections. Between January 2007 and January 2009, these audits have led to more than 57,000 informal workers being converted to formal employment, enabling them to receive CPF contributions regularly. About 10,000 of these employees meet the conditions for Workfare, and have since received Workfare benefits.

It is difficult to estimate the number of informal workers who have not received Workfare due to non-contribution of CPF due to the informal nature of their work. However, the CPF Board’s data show that in addition to the 310,000 recipients for work done in 2007, there are about 24,000 self-employed persons and informal workers who have registered with the CPF Board, but have not fulfilled their Medisave liabilities to receive Workfare.

On the Member’s suggestion to exclude overtime pay in assessing the eligibility for Workfare, whether a worker’s pay is in the form of basic salary, overtime pay or bonus, they are all income that helps to support the worker and his family. Given that the aim of Workfare is to help low-wage workers by supplementing their incomes, it is fair to consider all forms of income earned by the worker.

The Workfare scheme has also been designed such that the combined Workfare payment and income is always higher, the more the worker earns. For example, a 65 year-old worker who earns $1,000 a month will have a total average income of $1,200 per month after adding Workfare. If he earns $200 a month in overtime, his Workfare will fall to $120 per month, but his total monthly income still goes up to $1,320. If he has overtime of $600, he will not get any Workfare, but his income of $1,600 will still be higher than earning $1,200 with overtime and Workfare, and $1,000 with no overtime but with Workfare.

asked the Minister for Transport with the introduction of shorter waiting times for bus services during peak hours (a) how will the Ministry ensure that transport operators comply with the new timetable; (b) how often will the Ministry be making spot checks to ensure compliance with the new Quality of Service standards; and (c) how many infringements were there in the past 12 months based on the previous Quality of Service standards.

The Public Transport Council (PTC) has tightened the Quality of Service (QoS) standards for basic bus services, effective from 1st August 2009. Eighty percent of bus services will now have to leave the bus interchanges and terminals every 10 minutes or less during weekday peak periods, from the previous 15 minutes. For feeder services, 90% of feeder services now have to do so at 10 minutes or less, up from the previous 85%. With buses leaving the bus interchanges and terminals at more frequent intervals, commuters can generally expect shorter waiting times.

The PTC monitors and assesses the bus operators' compliance with all QoS standards. The actual performance of bus services are continuously tracked by the bus operators' computerised fleet operation and management systems. Based on these databases, performance reports of all bus services are submitted to the PTC every month, and the PTC will assess the operators’ compliance with QoS standards.

To ensure that these performance reports are accurate and complete, the PTC regularly audits the operators' reporting processes and systems. The last check was conducted in August 2008 and the PTC was satisfied that all was in order. The PTC is currently conducting another round of checks on the operators' systems.

But that is not all. The PTC conducts an additional layer of checks to ascertain that the performance data actually match commuters' experience on the ground. The PTC conducts multiple on-site audits or spot checks every month. If any service lapse is identified, operators are asked to account for and, more importantly, take immediate action to rectify them, even before the PTC announces the results of its six-monthly review of the operators' performance against the QoS standards in April and October every year.

Dr Lim also asked how many instances of non-compliance against the QoS standards there have been. In the most recent six-monthly review, for the six months from 1st June to 30th November 2008, the operators largely met the standards except for 46 instances of non-compliance. These were on the standards of adherence to scheduled headways and maximum passenger loading, and resulted in the PTC penalising SBS Transit and SMRT Buses $4,500 and $100 respectively. This was an improvement over the previous six-monthly review, where there were 58 instances of non-compliance and they were fined $9,300 and $1,000 respectively. The review for the period of December 2008 to May 2009 will be released in October this year.

asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts what is the Ministry’s policy with regard to advertising by cigarette companies for national events such as the Singapore HeritageFest 2009.

Community and private sector support is an important source of funding for the promotion and development of arts and cultural activities. Such sponsorships have enabled the National Heritage Board (NHB) to enrich its programming and organise various outreach initiatives and community-bonding events such as the Singapore HeritageFest 2009.

Among the sponsors of the HeritageFest is a tobacco company. NHB has been receiving this sponsorship via exemption from the Smoking (CAST) Act. The exemption clause in the Act allows discretionary exemptions for tobacco companies to be acknowledged as sponsors for events. NHB has had to apply for such exemptions with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), which is the agency enforcing the Smoking (CAST) Act.

To ensure sponsorship acknowledgements by tobacco companies do not unduly promote smoking or tobacco, every application for exemption is assessed on its own merit, based on stringent advertising restrictions on elements such as event coverage and specifications of publicity materials used. For its part, NHB ensures that promotional materials targeted at students and children do not carry the logo of the company.

To meet the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) which Singapore ratified in 2004, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) is removing this exemption clause within the Draft Smoking (CAST) Amendment Bill 2009. This will come into effect in end 2010. NHB will abide by the guidelines that arise from this exercise.

asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current health screening parameters for foreign workers coming to work in Singapore; and (b) whether there is a need for review to make them more stringent in view of the many reports of imported diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, Chikungunya and other infectious diseases.

Foreigners coming to work in Singapore are required to have a medical examination to assess their health and fitness status. As part of this medical examination, they are screened for four infectious diseases, namely, tuberculosis (TB), malaria, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and syphilis.

Those who are found to have malaria and syphilis will be given the appropriate treatment. However, those who have HIV infection or active TB are generally not allowed to work in Singapore.

We continually review the screening parameters and put in additional measures as necessary.

For example, last year, we included an additional requirement for foreign domestic workers with scarring on their chest X-ray to undergo further evaluation for active TB disease. Scarring indicates past infection with TB, and those with scarring are at a higher risk of developing active TB disease. We have put in this additional precaution for foreign domestic workers as they work in families which may have young children or elderly people, who are more vulnerable.

Screening for malaria is currently carried out using the peripheral blood film test. This test is most useful when the patient has fever, and is less effective for screening purposes in asymptomatic individuals. We are currently reviewing this screening programme as well as increasing awareness and enhancing early detection of cases.

The disease with the highest number of imported cases last year was Chikungunya. However, the majority of the cases were imported by Singapore residents. Foreign workers accounted for only 15% of the imported cases.

Chikungunya fever is a viral disease transmitted by the bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes. As with malaria, the key to controlling Chikungunya is targeted control of the mosquito vector.

asked the Minister for Health if he will consider making it compulsory for husbands to cover their homemaker wives under MediShield.

We strongly advise all Singaporeans to subscribe to MediShield. We do so through an opt-out scheme. We have not made it mandatory as we foresee problems of enforcing subscription.