Hansard, 2011-10-17

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 by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Charles Chong and Mr Seah Kian Peng be elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament.

Mr Charles Chong has been a Member of Parliament since 1988. He has sat on Select Committees, such as the House Committee and the Public Petitions Committee, and has led various Government Parliamentary Committees. He also participated actively in the work of the various parliamentary conferences.

Mr Seah Kian Peng was elected to Parliament in 2006. He, too, has contributed to parliamentary work. Last year, he moved a Private Member's Bill, resulting in significant amendments to the Maintenance of Parents Act. He also sat on the Estimates Committee and has participated in the work of the various parliamentary committees and parliamentary friendship and regional groups.

With their experience, I believe that they would make good deputies in discharging their duties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my pleasure to support the nominations.

There being no other proposals, I declare Mr Charles Chong and Mr Seah Kian Peng to have been duly elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament. [Applause].

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Work Injury Compensation Act (Chapter 354 of the 2009 Revised Edition)",

presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply honoured to move this Motion. I beg to move,

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

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'

Sir, Singapore embarked on our journey to nationhood after our separation from Malaysia on 9 August 1965. Our progress over the last 46 years has been nothing less than impressive. As the President has noted in his Opening Address, we have created the basic building blocks for the nation and are now progressing to a new phase of development. I wholeheartedly agree that our new phase of nation building takes place in a new environment – a different economic, political and social landscape, very different from what our forefathers faced when we first became independent.

Sir, the 2011 Singapore General Election was a watershed event in Singapore's political history, not because for the first time ever, an Opposition party managed to secure a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), nor was it because the PAP's popular vote had fallen by about 6% points from the previous election in 2006. Rather, it was a result of Singapore's political landscape being dramatically altered with the advent of the Internet and social media.

Although a recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) concluded that the Internet did not have a decisive effect on the 2011 General Election, there was no doubt a surge in the utilisation of new media platforms by political parties to reach out and connect with the electorate before and during the campaign period.

The take-away message from the last General Election is that these online spaces, whether they are social-media tools, online news sources or blogs, are now inevitably part of the standard tool kit for people engaged with politics. As more Singaporeans gravitate towards the social web in their daily lives, the social media will become an important space for them to share their views and interpret what is going on in the world around them.

As the President has said, the Internet and social media will be a tremendous tool for us to reach out to all Singaporeans. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has also said that the Government "can do better" in harnessing cyberspace to "explain issues, shape opinions and rally support". At the last National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee had mentioned that the Government as a whole needs to be more active and spry in engaging Singaporeans online. With this in mind, Singapore's Government agencies are also set to get more structured training in the use of social media. The use of social media will enable the Government to reach out and to engage Singaporeans. The ultimate aim of this is to foster a greater sense of shared ownership.

Sir, Singapore is one of the most wired nations in the world. The combination of high broadband penetration, heavy online engagement and the overall high digital literacy of Internet users have made Singapore one of the most advanced digital markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Technology website ZDNet reported that online research outfit Firefly Millward Brown ranked Singapore as the most evolved social media market in the world. There are currently more than two million active Facebook users among the country's five million population.

Even as the traditional media still has an important role to play, the proliferation of social media is certainly challenging many norms, and its current and future impact is and will be profound on all aspects of life. In particular, social media is slowly supplanting traditional media as news and entertainment outlets. Yet, the President's warning that while social media has its uses, it is also hard to distinguish truth from falsehood on the Internet. According to a news article in the BBC, independent think tank Demos observed that many young people did not know how to navigate the vast information available on the Internet. The social media is likened to the "Wild Wild West" on the Internet with very limited regulation and control over its content. On one hand, there may be a huge amount of very trustworthy, academic, good bits of journalism on the Internet. On the other hand, equal proportions of distortions, propaganda, lies, mistruths, half-truths and all sorts of rubbish can be found too.

As such, it can be very difficult, especially for netizens, to sort the wheat from the chaff. While we have focused thus far on increasing the IQ and EQ of Singaporeans, let us remember that there is an urgent need to enhance the DQ or Digital Quotient of Singaporeans by educating Singaporeans, especially the young, proper digital judgement in discerning what is right and what is wrong. I would urge the MOE to work with MICA on taking concrete steps to teach and inculcate our young children with sound digital literacy and judgement as part of their curriculum in schools.

Sir, the political landscape in Singapore will undergo constant evolution. The results of the last two elections held this year have shown that Singaporeans have diverse political views and wish to have a greater say in the political affairs of the country. I agree with the President that diversity in society is a good thing. Since the early 1990s, we have encouraged diversity. Mr George Yeo, then Acting Minister for Information and the Arts, had spoken about the need for the state and Government to recede its reach, to trim the branches of the banyan tree and allow society to flourish. That, I think, has seen significant transformation over the past 20 years, for our society has become more diverse and active citizenry can be said to be more vibrant, both in the real and the virtual world. This diversity should be perceived and received positively, as Singaporeans have begun to take charge of what they are passionate about and many have naturally begun to see Singapore more as a home for themselves and their families.

For those who believe in their own political views, to the cats, dogs and dolphin lovers, the nature and heritage supporters, we see in Singapore, people who root themselves to causes they believe is right and passionate about. This, I believe is good for Singapore, for the people have developed what we can call a Singapore soul. As politicians, let us continue to engage Singaporeans in the issues they believe in, with the tacit agreement that we are all moving towards a better Singapore. And with our new parliamentary colleagues from the Ruling Party, Opposition and NCMPs, I look forward to a more robust and constructive debate in this House.

While we can take pride that Singaporeans have begun to find a Singapore soul, as a small nation, there are still many external challenges Singapore has to overcome in order to maintain our lead and ensure long-term survivability. On the economic front, we have just overcome the 2008 global economic recession, sparked by the failure of many major banks in the United States, with fortunately minimal injuries. This episode has demonstrated the resilience of Singaporeans and the resolve of the Government in solving tenacious issues faced by Singapore. Our economy, guided by the sound policies of the Government, has rebounded and is growing strong. Our GDP grew by a sterling 14.5% last year, and by 5.9% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2011. Total employment grew by 24,800 in the second quarter of 2011 and unemployment rate is at 2.1%. By all measurements, our economy is healthy and our people employed.

Yet as the President warns, dark clouds are gathering in the horizon. The world is threatened with a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown, but on an even more cataclysmic scale. Just as we thought that the United States' economy is showing initial signs of a recovery, their debt situation appears to be spiraling out of control. In August 2011, major credit rating agencies downgraded the US' rating to AA+. Europe is still deep in recession and the financial storm engulfing Europe is far from over.

The worrying signs of "Japanisation" of the American and European economies have sent ripples across the globe and many Euro zone governments are still struggling to find solutions to their economic and social problems. The profligacy of PIIGS (namely Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) is one of the root causes of the financial woes faced by the Euro zone. As one sagacious Eurocrat told T he Economist: "We are speleologists (scientific explorers of caves) trapped in a tunnel. We cannot go backwards; we can only go forward." What lies ahead though is far from certain.

While Singapore has been relatively insulated from these problems, we must remember that we are an open economy. When the world economy falters, our economy will falter too. It is important that we, in Singapore, must always be alert and ready for a global economic recession in the near future. We must be ready to put through the necessary policies for Singapore to pull through tumultuous times. We must continue to look to equip Singaporeans with the right skills to enable them to survive in the competitive globalised world. As we seek to educate Singaporeans with the right skills to survive in the global economy, I would like to state that this must not only focus on knowledge but also on soft skills. I believe that many Members have heard the passing of Steve Jobs on 5 October 2011. Many of us here have used one of his creations, in one form or another. The inspiring truth about Steve Jobs is that, although he was a high school dropout, Apple Inc, which he founded in 1976 with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne, is today one of the largest and most successful companies around the world.

Let us ensure that our people are given the right support and the right conditions to succeed in life. We have today, an education system that offers opportunities for academics, sports, arts, music, technical and vocational education. But let us also ensure that this environment is conducive even for those who are academically less competitive. Let our youths be instilled with creativity, determination and strength, and with the right environment, many will still have that opportunity to build their own Singapore dreams.

Singapore is one of the most open and freest economies in the world. As a small economy, Singapore has no other choice but to embrace globalisation, open up its markets, and foster competition. It is in Singapore's vital interest to advance the global trade and investment liberalisation agenda and to ensure a strong rules-based multilateral trading system. Singapore has been a consistent champion of liberalisation on the multilateral, regional and bilateral fronts. To date, we have signed 18 FTAs with major economies and regions around the globe. These FTAs have positively contributed to Singapore's growth in recent years.

Moving forward, let us focus our attention on these FTAs and ensure that they are optimally utilised to the benefit of our economy. Let us ensure that all Singapore companies, be it SMEs or larger companies, know and can leverage on these agreements. This will allow our companies to stay competitive globally and help strengthen our economy.

With the ongoing financial woes in the United States and Europe, the Asia-Pacific region seems to have emerged as the epicentre of world economic growth in the near and medium term. We need to be cognisant that our fortunes are tied to external developments. As a small economy, Singapore can never seek to determine these developments nor can we insulate ourselves completely from these developments. Rather, we need to sharpen our responses to adapt, adjust, restructure, and transform ourselves to make the best of these developments. The pressure has been heightened due to globalisation and competition from the lower-cost manufacturing locations.

These are exciting yet treacherous times ahead in Asia. Just as the President had alluded to, we need a steady pair of hands and clear vision to steer our course cautiously and wisely. We must stay strong, cohesive and alert. To maintain our competitive position despite rising wages and overall costs of business, the Government must continue to promote higher value-added activities in the manufacturing and services sectors, and to raise productivity. We need to stay ahead of the power curve and remain competitive against our regional and worldwide competitors.

We must not cease to think out of the box and explore new ideas and innovations to strengthen our competitiveness. We have injected new life to the tourism sector, by bringing in the most coveted SingTel Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix Night race which has earned the accolade of being F1's black gemstone. In addition, the Government had also taken the bold decision in 2005 to develop the two integrated resorts which opened their doors last year with much fanfare and success. Moving forward, we must explore creative ways to ensure that our economy remains ahead of our competitors.

Sir, what struck me the most about the President's Address was his call to make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans. Thus, we must meet the challenges of the global economy head on and ensure that this growth benefits all segments of society. Yet as we pursue our goal of quality and inclusive growth, at the same time, there is a need for the Government to focus, too, on overcoming internal challenges facing Singapore. For one, the changing demographics of Singapore will pose a significant hurdle for the nation. In 2010, the fertility rate was an all time low of 1.16, way below the replacement level of 2.

1. A recent IPS study also warns that if fertility rates were to remain the same, there would be severe implications on Singapore's ability to compete in the global world. More needs to be done to address the declining TFR. Besides taking a microscopic analysis of the current procreation package, the Government will also need to have a macroscopic review of the social support required to encourage Singaporeans to have more children, which includes childcare and pre-school facilities as well as more family-friendly workplace arrangements.

Taiwan, which has the lowest TFR in the world, has seen a surge of 16% of babies being born in the first nine months of this year, after the government offered incentives to couples in a bid to boost the dismal birth rate. Maybe, we can learn from the Taiwanese, measures to reverse this worrying trend in Singapore.

This problem will be exacerbated by a rapidly ageing population or what is called the silver tsunami. With 20% of the population above the age of 65 come 2030, we need to prepare ourselves right now to ensure that those who need help are taken care of, medically and socially. With more elderly Singaporeans, the demand for healthcare services will inevitably increase and many will suffer from age-related chronic diseases. This dual-pronged danger, if not met and addressed, will leave us with an elderly population supported by fewer and fewer working adults – a high dependency ratio.

It is in this respect that I wish to turn the attention of the House to several other issues which will affect our ability to pursue quality and inclusive growth for all Singaporeans. For one, there are currently many challenges facing Singapore's healthcare system. Besides the rapidly ageing population, the affordability of healthcare, manpower and infrastructural developments are issues that will inevitably affect the lives of many Singaporeans.

Our world-class healthcare system, with our top doctors, nurses, cutting-edge techniques and equipment, and infrastructure, are well placed to keep Singaporeans healthy. However, let us remember that we need to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in our healthcare sector to deal with the impending silver tsunami. Already, our system is facing a crunch due to the increase in Singapore population over the last four to five years. We need to urgently streamline work processes, enhance productivity and also better manage existing space and facilities to alleviate this crunch. For instance, the public health sector can consider re-locating non-clinical services such as administrative offices in the hospitals elsewhere and converting the spaces to wards and clinics. There may also be a need to look at buying services from the private sector as an interim solution to help ease the crunch in the public sector. Besides the physical infrastructure, let us also look into ensuring that we have adequate trained manpower including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, in anticipation of this trend.

The expansion of our Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS) is a step taken towards addressing some of these projections and scenarios that we see. We need to ensure that the health of our citizens is well taken care of, and what better way than to ensure that optimal chronic disease management starts from the "relatively young age of 40". At the same time, we also need to ensure that healthcare remains affordable and anyone who needs medical help gets help. Let me share a story here.

This story is about a girl, featured in T he New Paper in 2009. Majorie Soh was diagnosed with bone cancer in 2003, and over the next six years, her parents raked up an estimated $400,000 in medical bills. Majorie eventually lost her fight with cancer in 2009. Her medical bills were financed through their own savings; through additional bank loans and the goodwill of friends. The family even sold their flat to help finance the medical costs.

The point I want to make is that there are those in society who find it hard to finance the medical costs in Singapore. Yes, there are already many financial schemes available to help Singaporeans such as the Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. The question I want to ask is this, should Singaporeans be subject to financial distress in seeking medical treatment for themselves or their loved ones? Should they have to borrow from banks and friends to pay their bills? Should they sell all their assets before they can qualify for medical assistance under the stringent eligibility criteria?

Sir, it is imperative to note that, globally, medical costs are growing, even in developing economies, and double-digit increases may be the norm for 2011 and beyond. Medical trend rates are not predicted to drop significantly anytime soon. In fact, in most countries, they are expected to continue to rise over the next five years.

As Singaporeans grow older, as people start living longer, as medical costs increase, we need to relook at our medical funding framework to address some of these problems in the near future. How can we ensure that Singaporeans are able to pay their medical bills or not worried about seeking the necessary medical treatment because of financial constraints? With increased longevity and rising healthcare cost, are our various schemes, like Medisave, adequate to meet the healthcare needs of Singaporeans in the future? Now, before we increase the Medisave contribution, let us remember that the medical inflation rates ranged from 6%-8% over the last three years while the wage increase ranged from 2%-4%. Clearly, the increase in the cost of healthcare is outstripping that of the rate of increase in our salaries. And this is even more stark in the case of the lower income group, whose disposable incomes are stretched more tightly today. I was speaking to a resident the other day, and he told me this in Mandarin – "the poor is better off dead than sick". With rising healthcare costs, this old adage appears to be truer than ever.

Sir, Singapore is not a welfare state. Our citizens must understand that there will not be free medical care and all Singaporeans must help to bear some costs. That I think everyone seated here would concur with. But nevertheless, as I have mentioned, Singapore has evolved its own model where subsidies are given to those who need it most. The tiered means testing system is a useful method to determine how much a person should pay for medical treatment. But with rising medical costs, it is worthwhile to think about how we can help the lower and middle income groups by increasing the quantum of subsidy for them. There is also a need to re-examine the rules governing the use of Medisave. Many Singaporeans feel that it is too restrictive and very often, there may be sufficient amount of Medisave savings but the rules do not allow its use in many instances. Many of such incidents are genuine medical expenditure, such as outpatient consultation, treatment and investigations.

The changes to our healthcare system, as announced by the Prime Minister during the National Day Rally speech, are steps towards meeting the current and future needs of Singaporeans. The expansion of the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS), Medical Assistance Fund and the increase in withdrawal limit of the Medisave for outpatient treatment will surely be welcomed by all Singaporeans. But we can do more, for instance, listing essential drugs in the standard drug list so that patients too can enjoy the subsidy. Let us remember that making healthcare more accessible to all would mean that more Singaporeans stay healthy in their older age and live an active elderly lifestyle.

Sir, all of us will grow old one day. Allow me to ask, "What will your one wish be when you grow old?" Will it be wealth, health, happiness or family support? To me, it is the right to grow old with grace and dignity.

The high cost of healthcare, especially in Singapore, has pushed many Singaporeans to move their loved ones to nursing homes in Johor Bahru. In Singapore, we have always asked our citizens to take care of their loved ones, often in homes. But for many, especially those with low incomes, this is often impossible to do so. How is one going to juggle work, earning about $2,000 to $3,000, take care of the family and look after the elderly who is frail, non-ambulant and is totally dependent on others for activities of daily living, all at the same time? It is a tough balancing act, to say the least.

In a series of articles in late July 2011, T he New Paper highlighted how some Singaporeans have sent their loved ones to Johor Bahru. In one of the stories, Mdm Kong, 90 years of age, is seemingly abandoned by her family who have stopped visiting her and paying the nursing home. These stories of our elderly admitted to nursing homes in Johor Bahru and deserted by their families are heart wrenching. And while we can say that the family is to be blamed for this, does our high healthcare cost, high cost of nursing homes, lack of nursing beds, not contribute to this phenomenon, too? Should our elderly be treated this way after all their sacrifices to build the nation, for Singapore to be what it is today?

MOH's plan to increase Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital's nursing beds capacity from 400 to 600 by 2011 is, indeed, welcomed. However, I urge MOH to keep the fees affordable, especially for the low and middle-income families.

Sir, the President has said that to make Singapore a more inclusive place, we need to make Singapore a home for all Singaporeans. Reviewing our healthcare policies and making it better for all Singaporeans, in terms of affordability, availability and accessibility, would be a good step in the right direction. In my opinion, there are many more areas where we can look towards making Singapore a better and more inclusive place for everyone. Take for instance, the Enabling Masterplan. First implemented in 2007, it has now gone on to its second five-year plan, and has achieved much in terms of early intervention, especially for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The expansion of the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children to include private sector operators has also added more vacancies to the special needs system.

But while the Enabling Masterplan has taken the right steps towards a more inclusive society, I believe that there is more in which we can do. The disabled in society, together with their families, still face various difficulties in integrating to society.

Five years ago, I had spoken about the need to look into the needs of caregivers. Today, this need still remains. Allow me to share another story here.

Mrs Koh is today 71 years old. Her husband is 82. They have three children, like most Singaporean families. Their youngest child was born in 1963. At the age of two, he had a high fever and was diagnosed with inflammation of the brain or meningitis. Hence on, Peter became totally dependent on his parents for his needs. He became intellectually and physically disabled, unable to move, unable to articulate his needs and feelings. While her husband worked, Mrs Koh took care of Peter full time, together with her other two children. As her husband did not earn huge wages, Mrs Koh had to scrimp and save to bring up her three children, Peter included. Her situation was made worse as in the 1970s and 1980s, she did not know whom to turn to for help. She had no caregiver support nor training in caregiving. She had no respite and, many a time, she would just cry to let her pent-up emotions out. Finally, in 2007, at the age of 67, she and her husband decided that they were no longer physically able to take care of Peter, and sent him to be institutionalised.

Sir, there is a need to ensure that there is an all encompassing framework for caregiver training and support as we move to face our silver tsunami. But let us not forget that the caregivers themselves, those in the present and the future, need to be taken care of, too. Today, Mrs Koh and her husband survive on a paltry $900 monthly for their daily living. Of this sum, more than $550 goes towards the upkeep of Peter. We need to think about caring for these caregivers and to make respite care more readily available or affordable. There might be people callous enough to suggest that Mrs Koh was dealt an unfortunate hand in life, but unfortunate hand or not, as a nation, as fellow citizens, as fellow Singaporeans, there is more we can do to provide a helping hand.

As the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports remarked recently at the public forum on the Mental Capacity Act, "A successful country is more than the economic success it has achieved. The hallmark of a truly developed country is the compassion that its citizens have for the needy, disadvantaged and vulnerable amongst us." I agree with this and urge the Government to look seriously into the needs of caregivers and their disabled loved ones.

Sir, besides the elderly, disabled and their caregivers, I would also like to speak briefly about another group of people in society who are often left in the lurch. This group is the single parent, either male or female. The single parent faces many difficulties in life as he or she takes care of their children. For one, the myriad of schemes and subsidies available to married Singaporeans with children are not available to them. Often than not, the single parent is faced with a double whammy of sorts. Apart from the lack of Government support, some are also cut off and "abandoned" by their families. Take for instance, the Baby Bonus is only eligible, according to the MCYS guidelines, if the mother is lawfully wedded to the father.

The case is the same for maternity leave, where marriage is one of the eligibility criteria. HDB's BTO policies are also skewed against those who are single parents. I think we should relook the way we see parents who one way or another have to raise children on their own. Let us consider them as parents and make avail to them all such schemes and subsidies that are available to married couples. We must remember that some of them are single not by choice and we should not further add to the problems they face in raising a child single-handedly.

Sir, during my maiden speech in 2006, I spoke of the need for the people, the private sector and the Government to work in unison to build an inclusive and a gracious society. That has not changed, and we must continue to work together as one, putting aside our political differences, in making a better Singapore for all. Over the next few days, Members of the House will be speaking on many issues, ranging from hot-button ones like housing, transport, healthcare, education and the economy to delicate concerns of security, terrorism and even Government reserves. I call on my honourable colleagues to speak candidly so that we can discuss how best we can make Singapore better for all Singaporeans. I certainly look forward to an interesting debate in the House over the next few days.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to congratulate you on your election as the eighth Speaker of the House. I look forward to your guidance and support as we air the views and concerns of our residents. I also hope not to enter history as being the first to face your guillotine.

Sir, when I sat here listening to our President on 10 October delivering his Address, I cannot help but wonder what does it really mean to my fellow Singaporeans when he said, "Our shared goal is to create a better life for all." To tell you the truth, I do not know yet. But one thing I do know, Sir, is that more and more Singaporeans are watching and they want this Parliament to continue to make Singapore better and, most importantly, to improve their lives.

Sir, there are many noble goals and objectives that our President had articulated in his opening speech. But, Sir, it is how we work towards achieving those goals for the next five years that really matters because it is how we will and can affect the lives of Singaporeans for the better. By all counts and benchmarks, either in education, housing, economy, healthcare and many more, as a young country, we can be proud to say that we have done reasonably well. Singaporeans know that they are living in much better conditions than in many other countries. The challenge then was for us to continue to do well and improve on our shortcomings. Since the early days of Singapore's independence, we have worked hard to provide for our people and we have focused on the fundamental and basics very well. The three areas of thrusts that we had single-mindedly worked on, namely, public housing, education and employment, have brought us far and forward in development. Living conditions improved, lives got better, there were good-paying jobs, and our citizens became more educated.

Our country progressed, all communities in Singapore flourished and progressed including the Malay community. Over the years, coming from the Malay community, I would say that we have made lots of leaps and bounds in progress, and this has happened unabated for many years. The Malay community made significant progress in many areas, like housing, educational achievements, employment and also businesses. The rapid development of our economy had provided an impetus for the community, which is a minority in Singapore, to advance and stand tall side by side among other fellow Singaporeans. Nevertheless, even if we have progressed, we still face many challenges that we need to overcome together. Just like many others in this country, this is a new Singapore, a new landscape where we face many common challenges. This cuts across racial and cultural boundaries.

Currently, Sir, when I talk to relatives and friends, I get the sense that people are uneasy and worried. Why is that so? They worry, they are stressed and they are concerned about many things. It ranges from job stability, job opportunity and their children's education to the future of healthcare costs. Today, I would like to just touch on two topics: first, on employment and opportunities.

Recently, I had a conversation with a former student who is working in an electronic test company. She was very concerned – she is working in the engineering department of the company – and said that she is the rare Singaporean working in that department. And she said that whenever there is a new recruitment, more often than not the new recruits are foreigners. She had many questions to ask: Is this normal? What is happening? Where are our technicians and our engineers? Are we training enough to produce them for our industry and our economy?

Similarly, Sir, I do get anecdotal stories from financial firms and friends who work in banks that employ entirely foreign workers in a department, and they ask me the same question. They are concerned because they wonder whether the jobs that have been created, and the opportunities that came about through our development in growth, are not going to Singaporeans. Where are our locally trained bankers from our universities which are renowned and reputable? Are we training them enough? Are they suitable for our own economy? So, these are some of the questions that people ask when it comes to opportunities and jobs.

Beyond just employment, my residents gave me a lot of feedback and some concerns homes. Let me just move on to an issue that is close to our hearts. Having a roof over our head is, in fact, a basic human desire. It is no surprise, therefore, that many Singaporeans are concerned about housing and whether they can afford a comfortable home for themselves and their family. To be fair, Sir, this PAP Government has done an outstanding job in housing its population. Within just 50 years, our population has moved from living in kampongs and overcrowded shop houses to modern, well appointed public housing flats. I believe many in this House went through this experience and so did I. I remember my father proudly receiving the keys to his 2-room flat in 1970 when he bought it at a price of $13,500 from Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), using his salary of about $150 per month. By no means luxurious, our HDB flat was still a great step forward, with running water, electricity, sanitary and plumbing.

For us, it was a roof over our heads, a place to go as a family and make friends with our neighbours. It seems to me that in those days, that was the basic purpose of our public housing programme − to house a growing population − and how well we have done it.

I can confidently say that Singapore's public housing programme is probably the most successful of its kind anywhere in the world. Where other public housing programmes house low-income population and often quickly reduce to slums, Singapore's public housing programme houses about 80% of our population, with options for low-income as well as high-income earners. Today, we proudly say that Singapore boasts among the highest home owners figure in the world. And this did not happen by chance. It happens because of a very conscious decision by the Government that people should own their homes and have a stake in this country.

Home ownership also promotes a certain sense of belonging in the estate and encourages residents to look after their flats and their neighbourhood. An HDB flat has also become a growing asset and, in some instances, offering a windfall of a few hundred thousand dollars to owners if they choose to sell. So it seems to me that now, from a basic purpose of housing a population, our public housing programme has taken on many more roles − that of giving Singaporeans a stake in our country, of building a community and of being a financial investment as well. Little wonder that housing issues are so complex and so emotive.

From my purely layman point of view, let me try to unravel some of the issues facing housing. First, there is the issue of demand. If demand was constant and predictable, I do not think there will be an issue. HDB will be able to plan the number and the types of flats to build enough to satisfy all the flat buyers. But demand has not been predictable for many, many reasons − a poor and volatile economy, fewer marriages and new family units, and sometimes even the fear of a "Tiger" year baby. So it seems to me that rather than trying to predict demand, HDB sought to deal with this by building to order. A very great idea because flats would be built when there were buyers for them and buyers would know when their flats would be delivered to them. This would allow them to plan, save money for payments, renovations, furniture and get on with the business of raising a family. And yet, Sir, there are people who are very dissatisfied with this solution. Some say that they cannot get a flat that they like. Others say that they wait too long. Yet, others say that the location is no good – too far from the amenities, too far from their parents. I am sure these are all valid complaints. But I cannot see how HDB can address all of them, except perhaps by building flats faster without putting too much pressure on construction resources and putting all the necessary amenities in place at the same time. If newer flats have all the necessary amenities and good public transport, I believe flat buyers in newer flats will have less cause for concern.

I recognise that some of the businesses that offered amenities may not be economically viable in the first instance because new flats only slowly build up their population and their clientele for the businesses. But this is something that creative support from Government can overcome, whether through reduced rental, small business financing schemes or manpower cost subsidies. I believe that if we want to tackle these issues, we should take the concerns of home buyers as legitimate throughout our preconceived notions and start with a fresh look for solutions.

The next thing, Sir, is the issue of cost. There is no lack of feedback that cost of housing, including public housing, is too high. One resident quipped to me that most Singaporeans are working for the HDB. He explained that many of us take a whole working lifetime to pay off our mortgage for our flat. After we have done so, we are left with little savings for our retirement and, heaven forbid, if our family members are faced with major illnesses and the expenses related to that. Looking back, as a Government that encourages home ownership, we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility of acceding to the deep desire among Singaporeans to own property. As I understand, from the feedback from the residents, there are at least two sides to the concern about the high cost of public housing. Clearly, those who aspire to buy their flats, even new flats, and after the subsidies that HDB offers, are concerned that they will be saddled with a large mortgage. A large chunk of their income will go towards paying for their flats and this is not an unreasonable concern.

I look at the HDB Annual Report of 2009/2010 and the prices of flats that were offered ranged from $72,000 for a 2-room flat in Bukit Panjang to $409,000 for a 5-room flat in Punggol. Former Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, in his article in TODAY newspaper in November 2010 dealt with this issue of whether HDB flats were affordable. Using the concept of debt service ratio, Mr Mah said that for a new HDB flat in non-mature estates and for a 30-year loan, the debt service ratio was an average of 20%. This means that, for me, when I buy an HDB flat, 20 cents of every dollar I earn goes towards paying for my flat. Sir, no wonder my resident told me that we all worked for HDB. Granted that this ratio is lower, according to Mr Mah, than the international benchmark of 30% to 35% for affordable expenditure on housing, but let us also consider that unlike other countries, a large chunk of Singapore's income is also spent on transport and education. After all the other expenses, it is no surprise that many Singaporeans live from pay cheque to pay cheque.

The other side of the issue is that no one seems to be able to tell me how much actually does an HDB flat cost. Since our private sector construction companies build our flats, I suppose we could look at their tender price for a clue to what the construction cost is. I am sure there must be other costs, including cost of land. Now, if we think about it, should land cost be included in the price of HDB flat, some may ask. I agree that we have to impute the cost for the use of land to build flats, but what would be the basis? I do not think this question has been adequately debated. Having promised home ownership for all, the Government must do its utmost to fulfil it. If a quarter of our income is used to finance our home, where would our savings for retirement come from? Is this the reason that many people hope to boost their savings by trading their biggest asset, that is, their home? Is that why many people buy their flats, take the so-called first bite of the cherry and then tempted at selling the flats five years later for profit to invest in a retirement fund, and to attempt a second bite of the cherry after that? Some may point to the Minimum Sum Scheme and the CPF LIFE Scheme for retirement. But all of us know that these will hardly be adequate and other sources of income are also needed. Of course, Sir, we could all keep working until a ripe old age, but we all know the challenges older workers face too. Again, that is another issue that would be covered.

I would like to argue that the Government should find ways to make HDB flats even more affordable. CPF grants are helpful but it seems that we are just taking money from one pocket to return it to the other. We must seriously consider the pricing formula for HDB flats and seek to make it a transparent one as much as possible. In this way, we can assure residents that the Government is not out to make profits from the sale of housing. By pricing our flats more reasonably, we can also relieve the debt service burden of our residents.

Speaking of bites of the cherry, I would also like to bring up the plight of a very particular group of residents of mine. As you may know, there are some residents who have run afoul of HDB because they are unable to pay for their flats. No doubt, HDB works hard with them to reschedule their instalment arrears but, in some cases, regardless of what is done, some residents simply are not able to pay. The reasons are many – unemployment, prolonged sickness, unstable families, prison, and the like. I am sure we all have residents who come to see us often at the Meet-the-People Sessions.

Now, the current situation is that HDB houses these residents in what is called the interim housing. In my constituency in Toa Payoh East, they are housed in flats which are earmarked to be demolished as part of the selective en-bloc redevelopment exercise. This was put off because of the demand for rental housing and also to house people who could not pay for their flats. If you were to visit these flats, you could not imagine that you are still in Singapore. The whole family is squeezed into one room, sometimes two different families share a 2-room flat, with one family in one room. I accept that this is a temporary situation until more permanent housing can be found. But some families I know have been living in these flats since 2009, hardly temporary. I cannot imagine how school-going children can study and how parents can keep their young safe when they are living with strangers.

I am disappointed that we are slow at resolving this issue. We should try to provide a stable home for them. I am sure many will say that this group of residents put themselves into the situation and have themselves to be blamed. I would say that we all share the blame. Let me explain. In the first place, why should we encourage people who simply cannot afford to buy a flat to aspire towards home ownership? I personally have seen a scenario where a resident defaults on his housing instalments, has his flat sold or repossessed. He is put in an interim housing for a period and then he is encouraged to again buy another flat. I think we cannot see residents as simply statistics or numbers, to be channelled from one place to another. I think the Government must think of a longer term sustainable solution for this group. Perhaps, HDB can think of expanding this rental scheme and work out meaningful subsidy scheme so that families can live together safely, children can have a conducive environment to study and play and, over time, hold up hope that they can improve their lives and break out from the poverty cycle.

In addition to setting maximum income ceilings on purchase of new 3-room flats, as it does now, HDB might consider restricting the resale of 3-room flats to only low-income Singaporeans. HDB could consider being the sole agency that sells and buys back 3-room flats at a price that is predetermined, for example, at the original sale price plus the annual inflation rate, because these small flats are meant for low income as its original intent. In this way, the price of 3-room flats can be managed and low-income families can aspire to own flats without undue burden on their incomes. Once the price is controlled, we can also exclude people who want to buy 3-room flats as an investment or for even speculation. We have a duty to our residents, to understand their needs, recognise their circumstances and offer solutions to improve their lives, as we have said in the speech, and not to put them in situations where they end up worse than they were before.

Still on the subject of housing, we should also recognise that the home is more than just some bricks and tiles. It is a place where families grow, memories are made, neighbourly ties are forged. And home is also where the seeds of rootedness to the community and country are sown. Yet, sometimes, these seedlings were uprooted in the name of national progress. I have a group of residents whose freehold homes will be taken away from them by the Government for redevelopment works. We all agree, and we all agree in many ways, that the greater national interests must come first and that, from time to time, even those residents who own freehold flats or properties will have their homes acquired by the Government. In such instances, I am told that the Government would offer compensation to owners based on the valuation on the day that their property is gazetted –

Mr Zainudin, your time approaches. May I ask you to please wrap up?

This could be many months prior to the actual acquisition of the property. So my residents who live in a row of 29 houses near Marymount will be required to vacate their houses and hope to find something similar. These residents bought their houses and grew their families. Many have two and three generations living together, some even four generations with children living together with them. Given how the property market has moved, they are now hopeful to find properties which they can keep their families. While the Government has gone by the book, I think we cannot just follow by the book.

Sir, these are real concerns of Singaporeans. I am sure that the Government will make every effort to come up with programmes and policies to look after the needs of all Singaporeans. All I ask is that, as Members of Parliament, we recognise our residents for who they are, what they aspire to and help shape Government policies to help them achieve their dreams as we have hoped for. Then, we would have forged a new social compact where we all can work hand-in-hand for a better tomorrow for our Singaporeans. Sir, I support the Motion.

May I remind Members that we have many speakers to get through. Please watch the time of your speeches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to be speaking here today. As a new MP, I must say that speaking in this Chamber is truly a humbling experience. Seeing the pictures of past parliamentarians along the hallway is a reminder of all the people who played a part in legislating for this country over the last 46 years during our remarkable growth through Third World to First. It also reminds me of the burden of responsibility we bear as new MPs. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but there is an expectation that we will be able to bring this country to greater heights, just as our predecessors had done.

Over the past six months, like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I have been busy meeting people and understanding what is on their mind. While I received warm reception from many, there were also those who told me quite openly they did not support "my party". When I asked them for more details, some of them expressed the angst that Mr Zainudin Nordin expressed earlier; others also explained to me that it was because they felt that our Party no longer cares for ordinary Singaporeans. This was a little hurtful for me and also for many of the volunteers who were assisting me at that time. For the volunteers, they get nothing in this except the gratitude of serving people. So, in that sense, I think the President's first message, to make life better for all Singaporeans, is an important one, and one that I am sure will be supported by all.

I would like to make two points on this goal. The first is in trying to make life better for all Singaporeans, I think it is important to build a consensus first. There is an old Tamil proverb by a wise old lady named Avvaiyar that goes like this கற்றது கையளவு கல்லாதது உலகளவு. Now, that translates into saying that the sum of your knowledge can be captured in the palm of a hand, whereas the things you do not know is the size of the world. Essentially, what that means is that when we approach people to build this consensus, we have to approach it with an open mind. We have to be prepared to learn as well. So, if our opinions are different, we have to change those opinions.

One example of a policy that I think was seriously misunderstood was the decision to open the door to foreigners quite widely in the last few years. I think the reasoning for that was sound. It was to capture the economic growth in the wake of the global recession. But, unfortunately, I think the way it played out was most Singaporeans did not really understand what all these foreigners were suddenly doing in our country. We just had a recession the year before and at the same time we now see a lot more foreigners in our trains, in our housing estates, perhaps even working with us. I think this added to some of the angst that people were feeling.

For myself, I work in an international law firm, so I experience first-hand the jobs created by foreigners. I think people working in multi-national companies would probably share the same experience too. But not everyone works with foreigners. Others benefit indirectly from it, say, for example, the construction industry which builds houses for every one of us. That industry is sustained largely also by foreigners. So, broadly speaking, foreigners do play an important role in our economy but I think it is necessary for us to build a consensus on how many we need before opening the door.

Going forward, I think the declining birth rate, as was already mentioned, is a problem that we all accept. One solution obviously is to keep foreigners coming in. But I think in doing that we have to manage the process very carefully and make sure that Singaporeans are behind us as we do it.

The second issue that I would like to deal with is the external environment. Because Singapore is a small country, we do not exist in isolation and there are at least four points in the external environment that I think we have to bear in mind when making any policy going forward.

The first is the trend of capitalism and globalisation in general. When the Berlin Wall came down in the 1990s, there was a view that liberal democracy was the right way forward, and capitalism was the best way to govern. This was also coupled with the fall of communism which was at that time the only alternative. The last 20 years has seen the unleashing of global capitalism, but this also has some downsides. The first is the movement of capital to the lowest cost locations. Now, what this means is that capital will always go to where the cost production is lowest. So, the First World, for example, that had the highest wages was also amongst the first to suffer as manufacturing and so on, moved to developing parts of the world. The First World, at the moment, has unemployment rates close to 10%, along with the low cost jobs that have moved abroad, and there are no clear alternatives for the people who are at the very bottom. The other effect of globalisation is at the very top. The companies in these countries have also become global corporations. And this has actually permitted the CEOs of these companies to earn phenomenal salaries because they commanded much a larger corporation. But the impact this has created within the countries is a tremendous divide in income. The lowest income workers face unemployment at the worst or stagnating on low wages because they compete with low-wage workers in other countries. On the other hand, the people at the top enjoy a tremendous amount of wealth because they are leveraging on everyone else.

Singapore has not quite reached that stage yet. But as we strive to get higher wages for all our workers, we have to make sure that we do not fall into that trap because that is the direction that we are going into. Is there another way out? I do not have the answer at the moment but I think that is a problem that we have to be aware of as we move forward.

The second issue that we face in the external environment is what I call a sea of money. Now, a sea of money is a good thing except that it does not really wind up in the pockets of the people who need it most. In fact, what has happened in a lot of the developed world is that in order to stimulate the economy, the Central Banks have kept interest rates at very low rates. This money has flowed not necessarily into their own economies but to other parts of the world. And while this has not stimulated the economies, it has created rising prices all around. In Singapore, we feel this too. Our young people are afraid of the rising price of buying a house; our old people are afraid that they do not have enough for retirement and medical expenses. All around, I think we feel the prices of rising food and oil. But this is created by the fact that Central Banks around the world are printing money. Our own Singapore dollar is strong and that limits the effects somewhat, but there is a limit to how much we can let the Singapore dollar rise as well because that would kill our manufacturing sector. So, again, this is another complex problem we face.

The third issue − and this is something that came up in the last few months − is somewhat the reverse of the sea of money but it may co-exist, and that is, a risk that capital may actually fly from Singapore. Over the past year or so, the flight to quality had been to places like Asia but the last one or two months when the financial markets crashed, what we noticed was that some of the money was going back to US treasuries. Even though the US government is in trouble, for some reason money always goes back to its home base. Although the money that was coming out in the first place was from the developed world, it tends to run back there. Now, the issue we face when capital flight takes place is a little bit different. Capital flight would be similar to what happened during the Asian economic crisis. In 1997, when economies in Asia started collapsing one after the other, capital ran away from Asia. And when capital ran away from Asia, Singapore faced its worst recession in history up to that point in time. I do not think we are getting close to that scenario at the moment but that is a risk we have to bear in mind, at least on account of events the last one or two months.

The fourth issue is what would happen if there is a protracted crisis in the West and the developed world. As we know it, during the last crisis in 2008, much of the developed world managed to get its way out of the crisis because governments helped to bail out banks that were in trouble. They took on the distressed debts. The trouble we face right now is that the governments themselves are the ones in crisis. Fiscal policy, which was a tool that permitted governments to spend more than their budget in times of crisis, is no longer available to any of these governments because they do not have the ability to run budget deficits any longer. The weakest economies, like Greece, are in danger of default, but even the strongest economies like the US have faced credit downgrades and parts of their governments have shut down every now and then. So, the reality is that the West seems to have protracted crisis and one of the tools that they used to get out of crisis in the past was fiscal policy, which is not available to them.

The other tool that these countries used to use in the past was what we call monetary policy, and that was to keep interest rates low to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, this policy also seems to have reached its limits because interest rates have already been floored and yet the economy does not seem to be reviving. So, in a sense, the economic stimulus almost seems to be at full force but the economies are still flagging. Now, a crisis in the West is not something that we should be celebrating or in any way be happy about because it would have profound impact on the world. A lot of global demand comes from the West, a lot of our exports are going there. So, if the West is hit hard, then Singapore cannot expect to prosper and it would be very difficult to do that.

The other big challenge we face, of course, is the risk of contagion, as happened with the Lehman crisis. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, it was not just Lehman that was in trouble but every bank that lent to them was also in trouble. Right now, Greece may be the weakest link, but if Greece collapses, it is not just Greece that is in trouble, the banks that lent to them are in trouble. If those banks get into trouble, the banks that are counter-parties or involved in other bank transactions could also be in trouble. The risk of contagion is another one that could spread here. So, this is the fourth risk that I think we face in the external environment.

In a sense, my objective in this speech was not so much to paint a picture of doom and gloom but rather to highlight the fact that we face some real challenges up ahead going forward. In moving from Third World to First, we followed a path that I think no other colony has done. In moving forward, in trying to build a better life for Singaporeans, we have to find a path that even most developed countries have not done. I do not think that is an easy task. It is a daunting one and we have to stay together as a nation.

May I just remind Members in the second and third rows that you can speak from the rostrum closest to you and you need not approach the front table. Only Members in the front row need to speak from the rostrum at the table.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 134-139 for Vernacular Speeches .] Sir, since independence, Singapore has maintained constant economic growth, social harmony and political stability. In spite of its limited land area and resources, and dependence on the world economy, Singapore attained remarkable achievements. Many describe this as €˜The Singapore Economic Miracle'. Since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, global economic cycles have become shorter and shorter, to the extent that it experiences one cycle every three years. From September 11 in 2008, to SARS, to economic recession, to the global food crisis, to the global financial crisis in 2009, in a span of 15 years, our country experienced the impact of an economic crisis every three years. However, we were able to tide over these crises. This little red dot was able to race against the tide, not only was it able to stay afloat, it even emerged stronger. During this period, when the unemployment rate of many countries had been on the rise, we were able to sustain full employment with low jobless rate. In many countries, real wages have stopped increasing. But with the tripartite partnership between the government, unions and employers, we were able to achieve wage growth. Although the increment is not great, we were still able to achieve real wage growth. We cannot take these achievements for granted. Our €˜miracle' is, in fact, the result of our nation's stability, every Singaporean's hard work and the spirit of working together to overcome difficulties.

Looking ahead, the challenges that lie ahead are relentless. We have to face not only fierce competition from neighbouring countries of various regions, but also turmoil brought about by rapid economic growth. This includes socio-humanities changes, as well as the impact of economic uncertainties in Europe and the rest of the world. All these will have a continuous impact on us.

The reality that we face is, with the climate of complex changes in the world economy, we will inevitably be affected. The Europe debt crisis, recession in the United States, global inflation and the potential of China's bubble bursting, will have lasting impact on us. Every Singaporean will feel the pressure, as everyone has to deal with the stress of high cost brought about by economic uncertainties. In Singapore, we also face challenges brought about by the problem of an ageing population, low fertility rate, limited manpower resources and inflation, as Singapore imports almost all essential supplies. The stress we experience due to global and local challenges is evident. Many people wonder, will Singapore be able to continue to create miracles as in the past, and overcome crisis?

I always communicate with grassroots and youth to listen to their views. I notice, recently, that many young people are uncertain and worried about their future. This anxiety is not only experienced by recent graduates but also working professionals and their family members, as well as the elderly. They are worried that their children will not be able to enjoy the stability and prosperity that they have experienced. Two weeks ago, the characters portrayed by actor Huang Wenyong and his son in the 9.00 pm Channel 8 drama serial expressed such sentiments.

The younger generation are worried about their future, and they are anxious about what kind of role they can play in the development of our nation. Even more Singaporeans strive for not only economic success but a role for themselves in the society, and they want to be a contributor and creator. This desire can be seen from their participation in non-governmental organisations, social enterprises and welfare organisations. In terms of the economy, with the increased turbulence in the world economy, they face increasing uncertainties and competitive pressure. In my opinion, the Government needs to create more avenues for young Singaporeans to better understand and take part in our policies, to strengthen their self-confidence in dealing with future challenges.

I believe that for our country to maintain stability and prosperity, the Government needs to continue to get its fundamentals right, to ensure our country's stable development, that Singapore continues to be a land of opportunities for all, and that every Singaporean enjoys equal opportunity in education, employment, housing and healthcare. For years, our tripartite partnership achieved many benefits and came up with many good policies for our workers, for example, the Re-employment Act for older workers, recommendations by the National Wages Council, etc. The Government should further strengthen this tripartite arrangement, which is a platform that is admired by many countries. Singaporeans should give this tripartite partnership strong support, so that this effective platform can continue to create benefits for working Singaporeans under the cooperation of the unions, employers and the Government.

To achieve inclusive growth, I believe education is an important cornerstone. Singapore has one of the world's most highly educated population. I am happy to note that our Government-funded universities will be admitting 12,000 students this year, a record high. From next year, our Government-funded universities will admit 2,000 more Singaporeans every year, and total admission for universities will reach 14,000 annually by 2015. To ensure that all Singaporeans can afford to attend Government-funded universities, the Government has continued to subsidise 70% of university tuition fees. I remember during the first year of my university education, I had to collect a cheque from the Government at the university office, to pay for my tuition fees, together with my own portion of the fees. This helped us to understand how much the Government's subsidy was. Nowadays, very few people know about the amount of subsidy.

Since education is an important investment, I hope that the Ministry of Education will consider raising the subsidy level to 80%, similar to the subsidy level for C Class wards in hospitals.

Our nation does not have natural resources and we are reliant on our manpower resources for development. I hope the Government will make greater investments in tertiary education, to allow Singaporeans to further realise their potential. As the little red dot in the region, our young generation faces even greater challenges. The Ministry of Education should consider creating a better learning environment for our local undergraduates and give them more opportunities to realise their potential. The Ministry of Manpower should also ensure fairness in the employment conditions of our tertiary graduates, and that they are given a fair starting point in their careers.

In effect, Singapore enjoys full employment, our jobless rate is only 2%-3%. Currently, Singapore's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the world. Last year, 77% of Singaporeans between the age of 25 to 64 were employed, this is way above the numbers in other similar Asian economies like Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

Looking ahead, we need to take note of the unemployment rate among young people. In the second quarter this year, 6.8% of Singaporeans under the age of 30 are jobless. Of course, this is not the actual jobless rate, as many are still waiting to further their studies. Although this figure is lower than other developed nations, we must ensure that it does not continue to rise. In Spain, the jobless rate of young people between the age of 16-29 is 45%, this has led to discontentment and anger within the country. In the United Kingdom, 20% of young Britons between the age of 16-24 are jobless. We must ensure that our education system, employment policies and labour market have the mechanisms that nurtures competitiveness for the future, so that Singaporeans do not have to worry about employment in the future.

In terms of promoting employment, I hope that the Government can consider expanding the Enterprise Internship Programme and Management Associate Programme by SPRING Singapore – to introduce university and polytechnic graduates to companies – so as to provide more internship and apprenticeship opportunities for them. This will help local graduates face unfair competition from more experienced foreign competitors. We must ensure that our young graduates possess the competitive advantage, so that they will have a fair chance for employment in our labour market which is open to competition.

Most Singaporeans will agree that our bilingual policy contributed to the success of Singapore, and laid the foundation for the future development of Singapore. Our education system should further emphasise the importance of learning English and Mother Tongue, and to inculcate traditional values more effectively. Singaporeans' bilingual ability is one of our advantages. In China and many other Asian countries, as more and more people now realise the importance of a bilingual education, we should not allow Singaporeans to become monolingual. We have to further strengthen our bilingual education system, so that our next generation will continue to have this competitive advantage, to face greater challenges in the future. Not only must we give our future generation a good education, we must also give them the correct education. And the correct education is to prepare them for our nation's development, for living in the future and to tackle the challenges of the future.

I think the views expressed by journalist Hong Yiting in the opinion section of Sunday's Zaobao is worthy of our serious consideration. She wrote:

"Currently, in Singapore's education arena, we are reaching greater heights in the academic domain, and have produced many young people with outstanding academic achievements. However, we must be clearly aware that values education deserves more emphasis and attention. I personally feel that values education in school must focus on three areas – one, to be responsible for oneself. It is not uncommon to find that youngsters, who are constantly influenced by Western culture, view traditional values as feudalistic and not in tune with the changing times. However, these are often assumptions. We should shape an individual's moral values from the roots, to allow youngsters to think about and explore the nature of moral values under the guidance of teachers, so that young people understand the true significance of these moral values from their schooling days, to create their own values structure according to their self-identity and put these into practice.

Secondly, to be responsible for others. Besides learning to be responsible for oneself, values education should also teaches young people to consider how their actions affect others. Through discussions of case studies and sharing of personal experiences, students can better understand the damage caused by inappropriate behaviour, understand what it means to be responsible for others and the trade-offs. Teaching them to face the consequences will have a deterrent effect to some extent.

Thirdly is to be responsible to the society. As a member of society, values education should also nurture young people to become good citizens who are socially responsible. This include, taking care of social hardware like the environment and public amenities, and also respect for social "software" like our nation's multi-culturalism."

I hope that the Ministry of Education will further enhance bilingual and values education of our next generation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the country's economy and the development of the society, the employer plays a crucial role. Their employment practices must not only be fair, they must also be responsible for the social cost and impact arising from their employment practices.

More and more companies are now aware and have adopted the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. This is good. More importantly, Corporate Social Responsibility should be viewed holistically. I believe that to be socially responsible, businessmen should employ according to the principles of meritocracy in a fair and just manner. In other words, they should give all job seekers equal opportunity, regardless of their age, gender and physical handicap. That is the social responsibility of employers.

In this aspect, the Ministry of Manpower has implemented anti-discrimination regulations. The new Re-employment Act even ensures that elderly Singaporeans who wish to continue working, will have the opportunity to do so. Companies who employ them would also benefit from their experience. I urge employers to abide by fair employment practices when they employ foreign workers. I also hope that employers will treat local job seekers more fairly when they make employment decisions. The Ministry of Manpower should strengthen legal measures to ensure employers are fair in their recruitment and employment process, to make sure that employers share their profits with employees.

The National Trade Union Congress passed the "Singaporeans First" resolution recently. I am disappointed to read from media reports that employers are resistant to this. For our labour policy to be sustainable, there must be a balance of interests. Currently, the ratio of foreign labour and local labour is close to 1:2. Our future policies must be more cautiously deliberated, we must be more selective in bringing in foreign labour. I suggest the Ministry of Manpower consider the WSQ skills accreditation scheme as a pre-condition for the renewal and application of work permit, employment pass. The Ministry of Manpower can also consider tying the application for work permit to the employment of older workers, to reduce employers' over-reliance on foreign labour. The Ministry of Manpower should also strengthen legal measures and impose harsher penalties for employment agencies and employers who are involved in exploitative practices when employing foreign workers, for example, receiving kick-backs, giving loans to foreign workers, charging exorbitant agency fees and other unreasonable exploits. We cannot allow employers to transfer the social cost to us in their bid to cut down business costs.

While we strive to achieve economic growth and remain strong, we must strengthen our social security system, to ensure that no one is left behind. I urge the tripartite partners consisting of employers, unions and the Government to support President Tony Tan's emphasis on inclusive growth. This will allow all Singaporeans, including the low-income, the elderly and the needy a chance to experience a vibrant life. Being inclusive does not apply just to the economic aspects, but also in terms of family, income, education, social and individual development.

Looking ahead, what worries me more is how our social security system can ensure that every Singaporean will be able to receive medical care. As our population ages, families become smaller, this problem will become more acute. I believe that strengthening and improving the 3M (MediShield, Medisave and Medifund), as well as Portable Medical Benefits for workers, is of immediate urgency. At the same time, the Government should further educate the public about medical insurance, so that they know and understand that they need to have enough medical insurance coverage, to cover the cost of their individual medical needs. On the basis of the 3M framework, the Ministry of Health should ensure that all Singaporeans have enough medical insurance coverage to deal with their healthcare needs.

In the area of social development, we should be better prepared to deal with the changes in demographics. The ageing population means that we need to have relevant facilities and policies in place to ensure that the elderly is able to receive adequate medical care, social assistance and other relevant amenities. The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS), should assist families in supporting their elderly, and give more support to the family caregiver. The emergence of immigrants in our country, as a new component of our demographics, means that Singapore is becoming a global, more diverse country. We must strengthen social ties, and continue to promote the harmonious society and multi-cultural characteristics of our country that we are proud of.

Sir, economic and population growth, and social development are inevitable. Singaporeans are worried about the future, I can feel their sentiments. However, we cannot just dwell on arguments, but must do what we say. We must strive for the welfare of Singaporeans, be pragmatic, and look for long-lasting solutions. Many of the measures have been put into practice and have stood the test of time.

In his memoir, Professor Chew Cheng Hai wrote that former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, in an email written to him in 2009, told him that his memoir should educate the younger generation that Singapore needs to have a disciplined, peaceful and harmonious society, incorruptible, capable and dedicated leaders, in order to continue to succeed.

And with this Government which is formed by people who "strive to take action for the people", I believe that the Government must uphold the spirit of being clean, efficient and dedicated, and implement pragmatic policies that will bring benefits to our people, create a harmonious society with full employment. We must not be like some politicians, who claim to be patriotic, who speak well, but are mainly concerned with their personal political gain. We do not sweet talk, instead, we serve the people with genuine and effective actions, turn our vision of creating wealth and sharing the fruits of labour together into reality, and create a society that sticks together.

At the same time, as what Lianhe Zaobao commentator Chen Hua Biao wrote, "From this year's General Elections and Presidential Elections, we can see that our country's political scene has undergone changes. The new generation voters' desire to be involved in politics is stronger than before, and after the elections, the ruling party has responded to demands made by the electorate during the campaign period, reiterating that it is willing to listen to the voices of the electorate more effectively and respond to them." The willingness of any government to listen to the people is a good thing. However, the Government must also ensure that they do not over do it, they should not suggest policies that will reap short- term political gains for themselves, in order to gain the support of voters. I believe that if voters were to ask to give examples, they can list the policies that they dislike. With the new political situation, the Government, with an eye on the next general elections, may consider doing away with some unpopular policies. However, if the policies to be scrapped are "good medicine", this would not be considered as effective, instead, it just shows that they are only concerned with pleasing the voters.

The President's Address emphasised that the Government must allow for more avenues for Singaporeans to voice their opinion. Of course, we hope that everyone will use their real identity when they express their views. After all, if one has many views but no solutions, it is of no use. Whatever our views, ultimately, we still need to come up with pragmatic and efficient solutions and policies that is in line with reality. When we have the solutions, we must strive to agree while recognising our differences, work together with one heart to serve the masses.

Lastly, I would like to share with you the current reality. Just as what former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said when he attended the Australia-New Zealand Policy Institute World Leaders Forum in 2008 – "Singapore's success as a nation, lies in being clean, highly efficient and having a nation of people who are able to respond swiftly to changes in the world. If we can continue to strive to do better, continue to catch up with or surpass others, we will succeed."

"Without country, there will not be home. Without soil, there will not be flowers." What we have now was not achieved easily, we have to treasure it. Let us continue to strive to do better, move forward together, ensure that all Singaporeans not only achieve success, but also share the fruits of their success. This is home, truly! Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank the President for his Address and the Government for making the promises contained in the Address? The Workers' Party welcomes and supports the statement that Singapore's success is defined not just by material progress but by our values and ideals. The Workers' Party is ready to work with the Government towards a better life for all. However, it is important to point out that over the last few years many Singaporeans have faced harsh realities that do not match the sentiments contained in the Address. A country's headline figures such as GDP growth mask the realities of life for certain groups. Thus, to have segmented updates such as the recent joint report by the Ministry of Manpower and Department of Statistics released on 11 October is helpful.

One disturbing fact from that report is that after accounting for inflation, wages of Singaporeans at the 20th percentile of income have stagnated over the last decade. In other words the real incomes of the bottom 20% of working Singaporeans have not increased in 10 years.

On the ground, we see that there are Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated vis-Ã-vis the foreign workforce. Divorces leave many families homeless. The demand for rental flats has risen. Seniors worry about healthcare costs. There are chronically ill patients who have even sold their homes to pay medical bills. As Dr Lam Pin Min said earlier, there are Singaporeans who believe that one is better off dead than sick. These issues and the fact that they have been around for years may lead some Singaporeans to question whether the vision in the President's Address will be translated to reality.

The Address is titled "A home we share, a future we build together". With such a vast divide between the haves and have-nots, how do we nurture such a shared home and future together? At the opening of the Twelfth Parliament, I believe that the Government is seriously pondering over how to alleviate the ill effects of certain policies, but moving forward, how should the Government assess whether it is going in the correct direction and making a positive impact on people's lives?

Sir, the Bhutan royal wedding hogged headlines over the weekend. As many of us know, the Kingdom of Bhutan has an unusual way of measuring the country's development. It is called GNH or Gross National Happiness. This indicator is garnering international attention even among developed countries. In July this year, Bhutan initiated a resolution at the UN General Assembly titled "Happiness towards a holistic approach to development". There were a total of 66 co-sponsors of the resolution and the General Assembly adopted it without a vote. The resolution's preamble states that and I quote, "The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal", and that "the gross domestic product indicator, by nature, was not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country." Member states have been invited to "pursue the elaborations of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies".

With such international interest, is it now time for Singapore's Government to conspicuously focus on happiness as a national goal? Should policies be articulated to show how they will ultimately achieve happiness for Singaporeans as a whole? This may sound too warm and fuzzy for some but, in fact, our Government supported the resolution at the UN. Indeed, Singapore was one of the 66 countries that co-sponsored the draft resolution. Since Singapore was a co-sponsor, may I ask the Government to specify what the practical effect of the resolution is for Singapore? What indicators does it intend to put in place to measure whether Singaporeans, as a whole, are achieving happiness and well-being? Might the Government also tell us how its policies, over the next five years, will be guided by such indicators?

In fact, the concept of happiness at the national level is not new. The American Declaration of Independence states that among the unalienable rights of men are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Back home, our children pledge everyday to "achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". Since Independence, Singapore has focused on achieving prosperity and progress. Has happiness been forgotten despite the words in our pledge? Or maybe it has been assumed that once there is prosperity and progress, happiness will ultimately follow. But has it?

Does prosperity and progress come sometimes at the expense of happiness? Prosperity and progress are certainly important but they cannot be ends in themselves. Surely, they should be the means to an end, the happiness of Singaporeans as a whole. What difference can this make to our policy approach? Let me give an example of an issue that might need to be dealt with very differently by the Government if it pursues happiness rather than high GDP growth as the overarching goal – Singapore's low fertility rate. Dr Lam Pin Min spoke about this earlier as well. Singapore's total fertility rate or TFR should concern us greatly if we are worried about preserving our culture and identity for future generations. I note that surprisingly low emphasis was placed on this in the PMO's Addenda. In recent years, home prices have risen sharply. For couples who want children, one of the factors they consider in deciding when to have children and how many to have is the affordability of housing. A young couple who wants children but who is stretched by high housing payments over a long repayment period may delay having them and may even have fewer children than they will ideally like to have.

In Hong Kong, a study by the Chinese University of Hong Kong suggests that housing price inflation could account for up to 65% of their decrease in fertility over the past 40 years. In Singapore, analyses by local economists show a similar link. Assoc Prof Tilak Abeysinghea, Deputy Director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics at NUS, has been studying the issue of housing affordability for some time.

He notes in an article in The Straits Times on 1 September this year, that in Singapore, the data showed that between 1977 and 2010, there were generally "fewer children when house prices headed north". He notes that the total fertility rate of Singapore has a close link with how affordable housing had been two years earlier. When housing was more affordable, the fertility rate in Singapore actually rose two years later. He concludes the article by saying "although the fertility rate is stubbornly less responsive to many factors, it is possible that sustaining housing affordability may help at least in arresting the decline in the fertility rate".

Sir, improving the TFR is a critical issue if Singaporeans are to remain the core of our society. If economic growth is overwhelmingly the Government's goal, then achieving higher housing prices at the expense of fertility may not be considered a problem. But if the happiness and sustainability of Singapore society is the overarching goal, then there is a need to unravel the exact relationship between high property prices and fertility and what responses might arrest or even reverse the decline in fertility rates. We will have to look beyond immediate procreation incentives to the bigger picture. My point, Sir, is to ask: since the Government had co-sponsored the draft UN resolution to stress the importance of happiness and well-being in guiding policies, what tangible changes can we expect in the Government's general approach? Will Government policies from now on be framed to focus on whether they will lead to happiness and contentment for Singaporeans as a whole? Will we be coming up with our own national index of happiness and well-being?

Sir, our founding elected leaders believed that happiness is important to be included in our national pledge. Let us continue to put these beliefs to action. We have been achieving progress and prosperity. Let us give happiness the rightful place in our pledge for this Parliament, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I add to the congratulations on your election as the Eighth Speaker of Singapore. Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. In my speech, I will cover two broad points: the shaping of a new social compact in this new political environment, and some thoughts on holistic education for our children.

Sir, the President has delivered an all-embracing, broad-ranging speech which covered many different facets of life in Singapore. He has outlined his views on how this Parliament can take Singapore forward. In his speech, he has also re-affirmed the vision for Singapore, in creating and maintaining a better life for all – a job, a home and a multi-pathway education system with many opportunities and options waiting at the end of each path.

There is, however, a new environment in which we will have to operate in order to make good on this vision. Singapore has a rapidly changing landscape on several fronts:-

After an excellent economic rebound in 2010, with a 14.5% growth, we are now moving into more difficult and uncertain economic times.

Our societal needs have also evolved. Our basic needs in food, education, security, housing and healthcare have been met. But Singaporeans have newer demands, demands which sit higher on the hierarchy of needs and these present greater difficulties.

At the same time, the political landscape has also evolved with great pace and in several ways, and continues to do so. As Dr Lam Pin Min mentioned, there is now greater political awareness and a heightened subscription to political ideology and idealism. We are seeing more vocal, diverse and liberal expressions of desire and a keener interest in Government policies and laws.

The challenge for us lies in being able to unite all Singaporeans, foster a shared sense of purpose and goal and drive Singapore forward in such an evolving political landscape.

In the last few months, straddling both the General and Presidential Elections, we saw an outpouring of unhappiness, resentment even, at the implementation of some policies. As a new Member of Parliament, I must confess I was somewhat taken aback. But when analysed to a greater or lesser extent, I think that those sentiments of unhappiness were probably an accurate reflection of matters on the ground. It was felt that the Government did not listen, or did not want to listen, or simply decided on policies and laws regardless of what the ground sentiment was. As a result, Singaporeans sent a message through the Elections and the Ruling party was returned to power with its lowest margin, and lost a GRC for the first time.

It has certainly been more difficult for the Government to navigate and operate in this new landscape. But more difficult does not mean it is bad. In fact, I see political maturity as a good thing for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is good for Singapore that its citizens want to be engaged with the Government, to understand and challenge its policies in open and honest debate, and to be very much a part of the decision making process.

Hence, rather than allow this new awareness and idealism to grow into a tension and divide us, we should harness this growing political awareness and interest and use it as capital to build a new compact between the Government and its people for whom its policies are designed.

Indeed the Government has resolved to be much more open and seek out alternative ways in which to reach out to citizens. Active citizenry was something that was promoted at the National Day Rally by the Prime Minister. I read over the weekend that the Government will also deploy civil servants to gain a better sense of ground reaction and sentiment.

Sir, in many ways we are already shaping this new compact. Singaporeans now expect that the Government must not only have strong and effective leaders, it must operate in an environment where the policy-making is an inclusive process. As this new compact takes shape, there are, Sir, to my mind, three important considerations.

First, we have to learn to deepen and broaden our engagement with Singaporeans from all parts of society. There must also be an emotional connection. While we rationalise and explain policies and law to Singaporeans, sometimes unfavourable ones, we can do more, not only to reason by logic but also to connect better with the hearts of Singaporeans and, perhaps even learn to understand what some Singaporeans sometimes find difficult to articulate. It goes without saying that not all laws and not all policies will find favour, even after the most open of consultations and engagement. But it would help if Singaporeans understand, if not necessarily agree with, the rationale behind a policy decision.

Sir, I think the Government needs to spend some time to change several perceptions, that dealings with the Government is a one-way street, that the Government does not listen, that feedback is notionally gathered when the Government has already made up its mind by the time it consults with the public. I believe we need to cultivate a better understanding and foster a spirit of partnership to make all Singaporeans feel that they are engaging the Government on a dynamic, interactive platform. Only then can we foster a shared ownership of matters which affect the lives of Singaporeans.

Secondly, the Government must proactively review and constantly re-consider the rationale and applicability of policies and update them. It is only if we do so that we can earn and cultivate the trust which Singaporeans invest in the Government. We are now beyond even the P-65 generation. Singaporeans in this generation are not only more educated but also cynical to an extent and naturally inquisitive. They want to know how a policy decision is reached and what has been considered in reaching that decision.

Sir, the political compact of today requires more than just a belief that the Government is good and that it would always make the right decisions. In the past, when you see a doctor and get a diagnosis and a prescription from the doctor, it would almost always be religiously adhered to. Today, you are more likely to find that the same patient will look up the Internet to verify both the diagnosis and the prescription just to check if indeed the doctor knows what he is talking about.

We must accept that we are now operating in this sphere. A sphere which will accord process and accountability with as much if not greater weight than the decision itself. It is not a generation that will invest trust just on blind faith.

In the last few months, there have been a number of policy revisions which have been fairly well received. The Government has revised the income ceiling for HDB applications. It was a move that was greeted with widespread cheer. The reasons given for revising the ceiling were that income levels were going up, and couples were marrying later. And a combination of these factors meant that unless the income ceilings were raised, a significant number of our people would not make it within the HDB fold.

But there was also some circumspection, and perhaps some scepticism. It was felt that the revisions came at a time when it was viewed as a knee-jerk reaction in response to rising sentiments against the Government. Rising income levels and later marriages have been a trend for some years now, even prior to the revisions, and there have been previous calls made to relook and revise the income ceilings. Why is it only now that the Government is responding to these calls?

The same could perhaps be said of the review of Ministerial salaries, an issue which had occupied this House several times in the past. Why was it not necessary to review previously, but had to be done so now? In my view, Sir, the greater accountability and access to the basis for making those decisions, especially those which affect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans are needed.

Thirdly, we should always, despite what I have said, be careful about not allowing the deeper and broader engagement to become a situation where the Government bows to all demands and becomes populist. We have been fortunate to have had a strong and decisive Government, highly competent, well capable of looking after Singapore both in the short and long term. It is an advantage which not many governments in the world, if indeed there are, would have. That has meant that our Government did not shirk from making unpopular decisions, if indeed those decisions are believed to be in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans, even if it comes with the prospect of losing some amount of political capital. Singaporeans must accept that not every demand can be met.

I therefore urge Singaporeans to meet the Government half way. They need to be rational and practical as to the limits within which the ideals are pushed. The compact will need to balance idealism with real-world complexities and practical limitations. It would be irresponsible to expect the Government to embark on popular policies which might well have short-term gains and political mileage but which have longer term adverse consequences for Singapore.

Sir, I believe that these three factors, collectively, will anchor the new socio-political compact between the Government and the people of Singapore. The President has called on all Singaporeans to build our future together. It is my respectful view that, before we do that, we must first settle on this new equilibrium in the relationship between the Government and its people.

Sir, allow me now to move onto my next point, in relation to the Government's renewed emphasis on attaining a holistic education for our children. In Singapore, it goes without saying: land and other natural resources are scarce, our people capital represents our most valuable resource. In his Address to this House, the President had noted that heavy investments have been and continue to be made in education for the young; and that we should maximise their pathways, give them options, help them gain confidence and blossom. Sir, to my mind, this is absolutely vital. There is no doubt that the future of Singapore lies in our children.

One of the best ways to invest in our children is to continually improve and transform the education system to meet the needs of new generations of children. When Minister of Education Heng Swee Keat delivered his speech at the Annual Work Plan Seminar, he said that education has to be a long-term endeavour. A child entering Primary 1 next year will contribute to our workforce only around the year 2030. This point resonated with me because it graphically illustrates why it is that we must be long term in our vision and planning. If we get our policies wrong, then the impact will be felt by a whole new generation of citizens.

Over the years, progressive changes have indeed been made to our system. The most recent ones have been very well received. The focus has shifted to quality and diversity, with the goal being to develop the potential of every child to the maximum, particularly in terms of character development and the inculcation of a good value system in our children. In addition, more choices are being introduced to our students so that they can develop their strengths and interests not only at a different pace, but also on different paths.

I recently organised a forum in my constituency to invite ideas and comments to get a better sense of the areas of concern in Singapore's education policies. I found that my residents' desire to be involved in and to be heard on Government policies, which I spoke of earlier, was very evident during this forum. It was very well attended, and we had grassroots leaders and residents representing parents, teachers and students take part in the debate. We had a very lively debate and this has helped shaped some of the points which I would now make.

First, the Ministry has in its Addendum made clear that the values and character development will be placed at the front and centre of our education system. Our policies will be designed to build a sense of shared values and respect so that we can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in our country. Sir, this re-affirmation is timely. But it is also not a new policy.

In 2006, the "Teach Less, Learn More" movement was started. This movement introduced a focus on helping teachers and students focus on the fundamentals of effective teaching, so that our students would be, and I quote from the 2010 Parliamentary response, "engaged, learn with understanding and are developed holistically, beyond preparing for tests and examinations". That was the objective of the 2006 movement.

I believe most if not all parents and teachers will agree that values and character development should be placed at the core of any good education system. But the question is how is it different from our earlier initiatives, and how is this going to be introduced and implemented in our classrooms? In my view, it would be wholly counter-intuitive to make values and character development a teaching module on which tutorials can be had.

In considering this question, I came across a paper. In 2008, the Ontario government launched a Character Development Initiative for their schools. They grappled with the same difficulties as we have – coming from a system which tended to put academic excellence ahead of everything else. In the end, they settled on a few key principles, and I found the report to be instructive.

We cannot just set aside some time to teach core values and character development. Instead, these concepts have to be woven into the fabric of our education system; it has to permeate all that happens in schools. It cannot be taught like any other content-based subjects.

Good values and strong character traits have to be experienced. It has to be lived and imparted by example. It has to be demonstrated and exemplified by our school principals and our teachers on a daily basis, and reinforced by the community and parents at home. At the end of the day, character is built and values instilled by giving the child an opportunity to live life's experiences – such as when they fail a school exam, or lose a football match, or work with peers in a group project or simply resolve a dispute in the school courtyard.

The Ontario paper also prescribes that, and I quote, "Character development must be integrated into the curricular experiences of students and embedded into the culture of the school and classroom in an explicit and intentional manner." Sir, I hope we can consider this approach and realign the focus in our school curriculum so that the relevant measure of our students is not just the academic grades achieved, but also in that student's fundamental moral precepts and value system. We might well need to have a mindset shift to reinforce the message that a quality education is a whole lot more than just academic development, but it would be worth that shift if our children emerge from the system as children who will think critically, feel deeply and act wisely.

Secondly, Sir, the topic of pre-school education. I know that this is not a new debate at all and there have been previous calls to nationalise early pre-school education. The Ministry has resisted this system because it did not want the pre-school system to become merely an extension of the formal school system, where numeracy and literacy skills get emphasised at the expense of other developmental goals.

I agree with that, and I am not advocating an extension to formal schooling. But I do believe that more could be done to start the process of inculcating core values and character development from an early age. It has long been recognised that children between the ages of three and seven have a strong cognitive ability and that this can best be nurtured through play at that age. The pre-school years are a critical period for the development of our children. They lay the foundation for our children's education prior to formal schooling.

There have already been recent movements by the Government to improve the standards of and accredit pre-school education such as SPARK, and also various recent MCYS efforts. Just last night, the 25th Anniversary of PCF was celebrated with a pledge to improve the standards of pre-school education.

Yet, pre-school education remains not compulsory nor is pre-school curriculum content currently regulated by the Government. Hence, in addition to continuing to accredit good quality pre-schools, I hope the Government could also develop a suitable programme for pre-schoolers to nurture character building and shape the inculcation of a strong moral system from an early age. I also hope that we can invest more in training and equipping pre-school teachers to be able to help our pre-school children at that age. Those are the formative years in a child's learning path and I feel we should not lose the opportunity to seed the foundation of good quality values and encouraging the development of strong moral fibre in our children.

Finally, Sir, this is a very local request. The Minister has also outlined his vision for every school in the neighbourhood to be a good school. Again, this has been very warmly received. In my constituency at Jalan Besar, however, the issue is a more fundamental one because there are no schools at all in my constituency, and I hope the Ministry can look into the possibility of building a new school in this neighbourhood. Jalan Besar is a mature estate, but there is an increasing young parent population and hence sufficient demand, particularly in the areas around City View which is a new DBSS project which has just received its first residents a few months ago. And so, the overall younger residents, young parent profile, has increased. Sir, with that, I whole-heartedly support the Motion.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address. The President spoke of changes that are occurring within our society and the challenges we face in building our shared future. His words, Sir, struck a chord with me. My own experience of serving constituents since the General Election in May has been nothing short of eventful. Doing so, with a baby on the way, has made it even more interesting. People approach me to strike up conversations about pregnancy and childbirth. They ask me how I am coping. We trade parenting tips and advice and they share their hopes and fears for their own children. This has given me ample opportunity to reflect upon the kind of society we are building for ourselves and leaving for the next generation.

I am among a new batch of MPs elected to this House after a watershed General Election (GE). We operate in what the media has taken to calling the "new normal". There is a sense that the game has changed, to the disadvantage and discomfort of those who only know how to play by the old rules. I see it differently. Whether you choose to call it the "new normal" or something else, I embrace the present. And why not? The forces that shape the political landscape as it currently stands have also shaped the perceptions and instincts of many of us here.

We are the product of our personal experiences. I was a child of the late-1970s and 1980s, a teenager of the early 1990s. The story of Singapore in the years when I was growing up was largely an upbeat one. Growth was good in most years, and indeed came to be expected. There were jobs. Incomes rose. Our parents told us how their lives have improved vastly compared to those of their parents, and they hoped, too, that our lives would represent similar quantum leaps in comfort and prosperity over theirs.

As our economy grew, we could afford to put away more and more resources for long-term goals, such as investing in our people. I, too, was a beneficiary. As an undergraduate studying Economics and Political Science overseas, I felt convinced that my country had got it right. In classes and tutorials, we argued endlessly about problems like unemployment, slow growth, no growth, bloated welfare systems, fractious labour relations, grid-locked parliaments – problems which troubled societies more developed than ours. I felt a thrill of pride every time Singapore was held up as an example of a country that had found a miracle formula to sustained success – and more than a twinge of indignation when detractors argued that our success was no more than the result of a historical fluke.

In 1998, I started work in the civil service, while the Asian Economic Crisis was in full swing. My views were quickly moderated by a new reality. Like stages in a roller coaster ride, we went from climbing a long, steep incline to a series of swoops, turns and somersaults. In quick succession, we experienced the Asian economic crisis, followed by the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the 9-11 terrorist attacks, SARS, the Flu Pandemic, and most recently, the Global Financial Crisis.

There always seemed to be a new challenge on the horizon. At the same time, major tectonic shifts are re-shaping the global landscape – most notably, the rise of China and India. With nimble steering and steadfast implementation, Singapore has stayed clear of the worst effects these challenges could bring. We have managed to avoid many of the problems that larger, more developed economies still face. I remain convinced that many of our broad policies are right. But over time and with experience, my understanding became more nuanced. I do see new challenges that will stretch our ability and put our resourcefulness to the test.

First, the trade-offs involved in our strategies are getting more stark, and the pay-offs becoming slimmer. My generation has seen improvements, but not necessarily the quantum leap that our parents' generation had enjoyed compared to our grandparents' generation. That is inevitable, as we start from ever-higher bases. Whether it is landing new investments, creating new jobs or incubating new engines of growth, we have to run fast just to stay in the same place, and faster still, if we want to get ahead of the competition.

Second, even the best conceived strategies and policies are not immune to shortcomings in implementation, gaps in communication and sometimes, human error. Meanwhile, our people are becoming better educated, and their expectations of government greater. Society is becoming more complex and diverse. People rally around a wider range of causes, and form expert opinions on issues close to their heart. Against this backdrop, the bar has risen considerably for policy implementation and communication. Representatives of government agencies who communicate policies and enforce rules on the ground find themselves having to withstand the scrutiny of an increasingly sophisticated and involved public. Residents in my constituency, for example, in their dealings with Government agencies and their representatives, do not shy away from pointing out flaws in implementation, imperfections in the application of rules, or unsuitable choices of words and phrases. They do not hesitate to tell me how they think I can improve too, for which I am grateful.

Outreach and consultation present new areas of challenge. People do want to have a say on things that concern them and I have come to learn that this could include how openings should be constructed in the lift landing or where a road divider should be positioned exactly. Not to mention less tangible but possibly more far reaching policy like education, healthcare and employment. Having gathered views – how to shape common understanding and how to formulate plans that the community can take true ownership of, also require judgement and skill. Communications, too, are a challenge because it is not just about conveying information but about fostering genuine understanding. To do all these well, requires dedicated resources, large amounts of time and the right kind of people. But there are good reasons why we should take the trouble and make the investment. In many areas, the Government does not have a monopoly on good ideas. Tapping on the community's strengths and ideas often helps us realise better outcomes for all. I have seen many examples – the teaching of Mother Tongue, the organisation and delivery of special education, or something as everyday as re-organising traffic flow in a housing estate.

Policies that are shaped and owned by the community also have better chances of retaining support and of being sustained. Improving on policy implementation, communications, outreach, and working hand-in-hand with the public – these, to me, are the demands of the "new normal".

It represents everyday challenges at many levels. For elected representatives, it means an even heavier investment in constituency work and ground presence. For Government agencies, it means a rebalancing of effort between conceptualisation and delivery, between planning and implementation. It means redefining a set of skills, and equipping our officers with them.

For volunteers in our grassroots bodies, it means higher standards of service and commitment. Some will say that these are all details. But details do not take care of themselves. Someone – and very possibly, many "someones" – have to do it. Many of the things that made Singapore great – and cleanliness comes to mind as an example – are the results of many individuals collectively looking after details, and sweating the small stuff. It is the attention to detail and robustness in delivery that makes our system greater than the sum of its parts. It is one of the hallmarks that keep Singapore unique, and a precious legacy to be handed over to the next generation.

I have said, Mr Speaker, that better implementation and outreach are the demands that stand before us. Meeting those demands, however, does not imply that the Government will be able to deliver what every single citizen wants. No amount of consultation or outreach can guarantee every single person a dream home, for instance. There may also be instances where constraints of the law prevent us from meeting every individual's request. But I think we do owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to pursue every possible opportunity to make things better.

These are the thoughts that motivate me as I carry out my constituency work. They are also the thoughts that motivate me as I work on specific issues that I have been privileged to be involved in, all of which entail working closely with the community.

One example is in strengthening the education system and the schools' outreach to parents. As Vice-Chair of Community and Parents in Support of Schools (Compass), I have the opportunity to meet and hear the views of many parents and individuals who want to better understand what they have observed in schools or in their children's learning experience, and offer concrete suggestions on how we can further strengthen our partnership with parents. On the part of the Ministry of Education, we value such interactions highly. We are actively thinking about how to scale up such interactions so as to be able to invite the insights and perspectives of more participants.

Another example close to my heart is the ongoing review of Special Education for students with special learning needs. This is an area in which many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and passionate individuals have left their mark, and with whom public sector agencies like the Ministry of Education, MCYS and the National Council of Social Services work in close partnership. My team is now actively tapping the views of many stakeholders in studying how best to improve the quality and accessibility of Special Education, enhance assistance to families who need more help, and improve support for special needs students in the mainstream schools.

In the area of Mother Tongue teaching and learning, too, community efforts have played a key role in supporting the efforts of schools and educators, and continue to do so. For example, the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee (MLLPC), chaired by my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Hawazi Daipi, has supported Malay language and literary activities put together by various Malay community organisations, for example debates and video-making competitions. Likewise, the Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee (TLLPC), chaired by Minister Iswaran, had also worked extensively with various community partners to organise a wide range of programmes to promote the use of Tamil in the wider community, such as creating a radio jockey programme for students and holding a Tamil Language Festival in April this year. Mr Speaker, with your leave I shall use Mandarin for the rest of my speech.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 140-141 for Vernacular Speeches .] Mr Speaker, after being elected as a MP, I was appointed as the Head of the Bi-cultural Working Group and took over the work of Committee to Promote Chinese Language Learning. I am honoured to join in the family of promoting Chinese learning, and discuss this important topic with many seniors, experts and community leaders who are the in the Chinese teaching circle.

There are many changes over the years in our Chinese learning environment. My parents are both Chinese educated and I have some thoughts about this. I have consulted many people in the cultural and education sector. Overall, we are all concerned about the level of the language and the learning environment.

I think I should be considered a product of the bilingual education system in the 1980s. Looking back at my time, I actually envy today's students because both the condition and drive of learning Chinese are better today.

First, as China rises economically and exerts more influence in the world, Chinese parents, and even some non-Chinese parents, are realising the importance of learning Chinese. Although some still feel it is difficult to learn, fewer and fewer people think that Chinese has nothing to do with them or their children's future.

Second, the Internet and the fast flow of information have enabled Chinese learning more interesting and diversified, and further proved the vitality of the Chinese language. I think many people still remember that, before computer and the Internet became popular, some questioned whether Chinese would be rendered redundant in the digital era. Now time has proven that Chinese not only has strong vitality but can also generate new content and new vocabulary. What we can learn and use has increased.

MOE is conducting reforms in Mother Tongue education, including Chinese, to cater to the strength and interests of each student and to make Chinese learning more enjoyable and practical. We hope each student can learn Mother Tongue to the fullest of his potential and reach the highest level that he can manage.

With the support of the community, schools and teachers, MOE has come up with many new ideas, organising activities such as writing and speaking competitions. Meanwhile, they also use traditional textbooks such as Dizigui to inspire students to learn Chinese and create conducive Chinese-learning environment. Many efforts have been made.