Hansard, 2011-10-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission 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:

"to amend the Customs Act (Chapter 70 of the 2004 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 2004 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17 October 2011].

€˜That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President to 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.".' – [Dr Lam Pin Min].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Sengkang West, Dr Lam Pin Min, to thank the President for his Address.

The rising cost of living is one of the chief concerns among Singaporeans, particularly among those in the 20th percentile whose real income had stagnated, rising only 0.3 per cent over the last 10 years, after taking into account inflation. This group of Singaporeans struggle with the intense competition and rapid changes brought about by globalisation. For them, it is almost as if they are running on a treadmill which has been increasing relentlessly both in speed and incline. It seems that all they can do is to keep themselves from falling off.

The Workforce Development Agency (WDA) is in the process of helping them through retraining. It is a step in the right direction but it would take time for these workers to pick up new skills and get better paying jobs. Therefore, in the meantime, there is a need for us to control the cost of living as such increases have a much larger impact on this group of Singaporeans. The Government should continue to look at reduction in charges, fees and even rental to reduce their cost burden. A good example of this was the removal of the TV licence fee after many years of lobbying by MPs and residents. This has been much appreciated.

Food expenses take up quite a significant proportion of the budgets of lower income groups. Our hawker centres have always played a key role in providing affordable food for the masses and have provided opportunities for the needy and low-income groups to make a living. Hence, I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for deciding to resume the building of hawker centres to meet the needs of the residents in new population centres. Everyone has welcomed this announcement.

The other heavyweight cost component is housing. The steep rise in property prices has caused much anxiety, particularly among young couples. Hence, I am in support of the cooling measures that have been implemented by the Ministry of National Development. The assurance to increase supply and stabilise prices will also encourage more Singaporeans to set up families and have children.

Another recent hot topic is the foreign workers quota. Businesses continue to face severe labour shortages even as the foreign workers quotas are being lowered. MOM may wish to review their foreign workers quota policy to base it upon the wages of the Singaporean workers instead of the number employed. This may better serve the needs of both Singaporeans and businesses. Doing so will incentivise businesses to upgrade the skills of their Singaporean employees and to invest in technology which enhance productivity in order to attain and justify higher salaries for Singaporean workers. Singaporean workers will get to benefit directly, unlike the present situation where the punitive policies of increasing workers' levy push up business cost. In this way, neither businesses nor Singaporean workers benefit directly.

I would like to propose that only those companies employing local full-time workers with a minimum salary of $1,500 will be considered eligible for application for work permits for foreign workers. A higher ratio can be extended to an employer whose Singaporean workers earn more than $1,500. We should also explore the possibility of linking foreign worker quotas to the number of women with children employed in the company, to the number of Singaporean workers sent for skill upgrading and to the number of re-employed older workers in the company.

On the topic of children, we should continue to encourage young Singaporeans to have more babies. The times have changed and our environment is getting increasingly competitive due to globalisation. Hence, we need to give a helping hand to our young men and women, even though they are more highly educated and affluent than their parents. They work longer hours and have to go for courses continuously to upgrade themselves. Let us do more to lessen their burden so that they will be motivated to have more children.

Firstly, we can consider a 10% to 20% discount or rebate for their HDB flat if they have children or for each child they have. HDB may also consider removing the income ceiling for first-time home buyers. Or more heavily subsidised or free infant and childcare centres run by the Government can be set up at schools and community centres to provide convenience and accessibility to parents. We should also have measures to encourage more Singaporeans to take up childcare as their profession. The Minister for Manpower may wish to consider reducing the maid levy for each child born. Another suggestion is mandatory shorter working hours for mothers at the workplace.

All these measures must be bold enough to send strong signals to young Singaporeans that we need to reproduce to ensure a minimum replacement fertility rate for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 227 for Vernacular Speeches .] Next, I would like to talk about re-employment. According to data issued by MOM in July, in 2010, 94% of workers aged 62 are still working. This is good news.

Currently, our labour market is facing a shortage of labour. To allow healthy and good-performing older workers to continue working is not only a legal obligation, but also a solution to the labour shortage problem. I hope the Government can continue to encourage employers to employ older workers and re-employ retired ones, through various measures. Although the older workers may not be as efficient or productive as the younger ones, with their experience accumulated over the years, they will definitely make meaningful contributions to the company. Hence, I suggest that MOM consider re-employment of older workers as one of the conditions to hire foreign workers, to encourage more companies to continue employing older workers.

I also appeal to the Government to help top-up employers' CPF contribution for older workers. I believe this will reduce some employers' resistance to hiring older workers.

Next, I would like to express my support for MOE's decision to put more emphasis on cultivating values in students and to launch new civic and moral education courses. Moral education is the basics of education. Our education system has all along emphasised academic performance, with students' future employment as the target. Some employers said that their staff's examination results and EQ are not in line, and they also noticed that some young people and students lack compassion, are self-centred and inconsiderate. I am not sure if our education system has neglected this aspect, or it is inevitable that every city or country is bound to have this kind of citizens. Nonetheless, I support MOE's new direction to emphasise character and values. Of course, to create the environment to promote a holistic education, besides the school, parents must also play an important role. If parents' behaviour contradicts the values that are taught in school, teachings by the school will have limited effect.

I believe most people agree with MOE's new direction of placing emphasis on character and values education. However, since parents are generally concerned with their children's academic results, to achieve a balance between character building and academic excellence will be a challenge, considering the limited time and manpower resources. In the past, we were always able to achieve what we set our mind on. Hence, I believe we can achieve this target. I am eager to see how MOE will strike a balance between character building and academic excellence.

(In English): Besides moral education and character building, the other development in education which I find very encouraging is the Government's mission "to better cater to the strengths and interests of each child, and to allow every child to find his or her own path to success". While it is impossible to ensure that every child has the same opportunities, the Ministry's commitment to provide every child with access to opportunities, regardless of family circumstances and background, is as close as we can get.

I am heartened to read about the Ministry's plan to explore how more university places and pathways can be created to allow Singaporeans to get degrees. Every Singaporean is important to us. We need to help each and everyone realise his or her potential for the benefit of our nation and society. Not only should we provide multiple pathways to success, we also have to re-define and widen our vision of success. We must be willing to give more than a second chance to those among us who stumble. If I may share a phrase which I came across recently: "Anyone can count the seeds in an apple. No one can count the apples in a seed."

It is important to give each and everyone a chance to fulfil his greatest potential even if he may not appear to have promising qualities. I understand that the author, J K Rowling, of the Harry Potter series was living on government subsidies for a while before she managed to find a publisher for her first Harry Potter book after more than 10 rejections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is our society compassionate, forgiving and accommodating enough to help the J K Rowlings amongst us while they struggle to find their footing? Many may equate compassion with handouts or donations but often what they really want are opportunities. There is a Hokkien saying: "Bo lobang, kor dei pua zi kang" (which when translated literally means that without opportunities, one would have a hole in his pocket). I have come across quite a number of residents who turn down my offer of financial assistance during MPS and house visits. What they need instead are job opportunities.

Recently, a 63-year-old resident approached me for financial assistance, which we were able to provide. However, it was more challenging to help him with his other request – that is, for a job similar to the one he last held. He had contracted polio when he was two and is wheelchair-bound. But this problem had not deterred him from playing music professionally. He played with a well-known band called "The Thunderbirds" for almost 20 years until 1987. He performed in lounges of country and community clubs, and hotels until he was retrenched in April this year. He is keen to work but the opportunities are not there.

Could this be due to the fact that our employment market is very open? Can we do more to protect the opportunities for our people, especially the elderly, the disabled and women with children? I believe it can be done without compromising our competitive edge too much. Jobs provide independence and dignity. Jobs are a fundamental right which we should guard earnestly. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President for his address in opening the session of this Parliament. The General Elections 2011 has been described as a "watershed" election. Some others went further to comment that two elections on, Singapore's fundamentals have not changed. We would ask a number of questions about Singapore's fundamentals.

Oxford dictionary defines "fundamental" as "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance". On what fundamentals did we build the modern Singapore? Are they still relevant? Is it possible to have less of the "normal", and more of the "new", in the "new normal", so to speak? Several months ago, I met with a former Asian leader. Commenting on the political culture of the day, he said, "We live in the days of pop culture. People like to see new faces in politics, like the many new pop stars on the top charts. They expect political leaders to whip up new programmes like new pop songs". He added, "But the tenets of good governance require stability, predictability and long-term planning". He sounded somewhat frustrated but I think he has a point.

Many countries in recent histories have seen frequent changes in political leadership and hence, policy directions. For instance, since year 1980, there have been five Prime Ministers in Great Britain. In the same period, Japan has seen 17 Prime Ministers. So, one Prime Minister, on the average, lasted about six years in the UK and less than two years in Japan.

Each country adopts a political model that corresponds to its circumstances. For Singapore, we benefited from an extended period of political stability and policy consistency. We were able to put national interests first and focus on nation building. We have not compromised long-term goals with short-term gains; nor traded in majority's interests for sectoral privileges. We have thrived on the basis of shared vision and unity of purpose.

Going forward, the question is whether we will be able to make progress with these same characteristics, with the help of this new Parliament. Or will we be embroiled in partisan politics, divided by sectional interests and alienated by the "they and us" segregation so commonly seen in other countries? Preserving the sound fundamentals that have kept Singapore going is therefore my key concern for Singapore in our next phase of development.

Singapore is unique. We are tiny. By world ranking in terms of land size, we are 179th amongst 196 countries in the world. In fact, Singapore is no larger than Batam and one third of the size of Bintan. The strategic location of being in the Straits of Malacca connecting to the South China Sea and Indian Ocean is not our monopoly. Batam, Bintan and many other islands along the Straits, too, enjoy the same locational advantage and deep-water access. What makes Singapore tick and become a little red dot of contrast?

Judging by the hundreds of official delegations visiting Singapore, many of them are from China, Russia, India − countries with the largest land mass or population in the world − suggests that we have done something right. Some of our firms advise foreign cities on how to establish new cities and set up the public administration system to run them.

Sir, we have done well so far. Every Singaporean is housed. Half of our primary school cohorts will finally graduate with tertiary qualifications. We have created more jobs than we can find bodies to fill. We have, by any standard, been an exceptional country that punches above its weight.

Sir, the path forward is fraught with unknowns. This is because our per capita is already on par with the top 10 in the world. To achieve incremental 3% to 5% growth today, will be harder than yesterday. Neither will there be ready-made nor off-the-shelf solutions for the problems we face. In many areas, we are at new frontiers, whether it is providing for an ageing population, or upscaling workers whose jobs have gone to low-cost countries. In all these and more, we have to devise our own policies and solutions. We have to chart our own path, learn from others, and make our own assessments the best way forward.

Yesterday, both Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Dr Amy Khor spoke much about Greece, the epicentre of the world's current economic problems. While pictures of rioters clashing with police and buildings on fire may still be vivid in our memories, Greece's financial turmoil is more than a recent phenomenon. It has been in ruins even before it joined the Euro zone in 2001. A bloated civil service, generous pension and social programmes and rampant tax evasion. Several rounds of negotiations led to the two bailout packages of US$380 billion we know today. Fresh rounds of steep austerity measures ensued. Greece needs to squeeze savings of some $38 billion through 2012 from public sector salary cuts, higher taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and tighter retirement rules. This belt tightening, however, is expected to deepen poverty and aggravate hardships in Greece. Greece's GDP in 2012 is estimated to be back to the year 2003. Economists call this Greece's "Lost Decade". However, Greece is not alone in piling up "IOU" notes.

After World War II, European welfare models were the envy of the world. The State provides for cradle-to-grave welfare to just about everyone, from free medical care, childcare, education, unemployment benefits to short work week and sometimes, six-week summer vacations. It sounds like Utopia, does it not? The reality is, as a result, most countries in the Euro zone would have, by now, accumulated sizeable national debts.

Measured by gross debt as a percentage of GDP, Greece leads the pack with 158%. Italy follows behind with 120%, Ireland 112%, Portugal 102%, Austria 102%, Belgium 97% and France 85%. The Euro area average is 88%. Even economic powerhouse Germany has a debt level of 82%. The greatest fear still is the knock-on effect these high-debt countries have on the global financial system.

Yet, Greece is not the only economy that can destabilise the world. The United States, the world's largest economy, too, faces similar intractable and deep structural problems in fiscal management and debt financing. While the downgrade of the US' credit rating by Standard and Poor's on 5 August from AAA to AA+ has sent shock waves throughout the world, what caused it and how it all happened are less apparent.

At US$14.8 trillion, America's cumulative national debt is nearly 100% of its GDP. The forecast is for its debt level to grow by another US$8 trillion to US$10 trillion by 2021. Why does its debt keep soaring? The short answer is "entitlement spending".

Actually, annually, America's federal budget is about US$3.6 trillion. Of this, 60% goes to expenditures that are called "mandatory spending" and 40% to "discretionary". "Mandatory spending" is mainly made up of social transfers, such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, Medicare, MedicAid and interests for debt. These social programmes actually started out rather modestly and benignly at conception. Over time, they grew to the enormous sizes we know today, by successive rounds of "enhancements and expansions". Let me illustrate.

President Franklin D Roosevelt started the New Deal and Social Security programme in 1935 during the Great Depression. Fiscal trouble began in earnest with bills that increased the benefits immediately by 20% and an introduction of a cost-of-living escalator which was pegged to wage rise. Subsequent tweaks added trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities to the programme. In 1965, President Lyndon B Johnson launched the Great Society, marking the dawn of the healthcare state. When Medicare and MedicAid were launched that year, they, too, were thought to be manageable. Medicare, the social programme for the elderly, was supposed to cost only US$12 billion. It became 10 times more − US$110 billion in 1990. MedicAid, which funds healthcare for the low-income groups, gradually ballooned from US$4 billion in 1966 to US$41 billion in 1986 and US$290 billion last year. By 2010 last year, all such social transfers account for 60% of the US federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. The US now spends a staggering US$2.1 trillion on these redistribution programmes.

Sir, all these advanced economies, Europe, US and Japan incur debts that are testing their ability to repay. It makes me wonder if it is also the inevitable path that Singapore would follow as a newly-developed economy. Will we ever end up in a high debt nation's club by choice, or forced into it by circumstances? Sir, as we strive to refine our social safety net, as we consider the requests from many interest groups, as we seek to bridge the widening income gaps, as we cater to more single-parent families and their children, as we provide for more elderly care for the growing population, would we not need to spend more? Where would the funding come from?

To me, the experiences in the US and Greece provide us with the following lessons. Firstly, they reveal to us that national policies have a long tail. Any new structure, policy and formula we create today and implement tomorrow can have long term impact which will be felt throughout the decades. As seen in these examples, they can slowly chip away the strength of our society or weaken its base. The challenge for us, as legislators, is that many of the new policy designs will show no immediate side or ill effects, and can look extremely benign and harmless. When tax revenues slow – perhaps due to slower workforce growth coupled with recession for instance – or when a population greys or when we lose competitiveness, symptoms of a weak or bad policy can quickly show up. Beyond the point of no return, it will be very hard, if at all, to reverse an entrenched policy that has been set in place without causing major upheaval in the society.

Secondly, the lessons taught us the importance of living within our means. "Living within thy means" seems like a good old adage that everyone understands since young. But why is it difficult, so it seems, to be implemented at the country level? Some people think that the State's money is not their money. And, hence, if it is not mine, why do I save? People in the West have pressured politicians to spend more on them. Each sectional group has asked for increased funding for their pet projects. Soon, discretionary spending becomes mandatory and short-term projects become long-term obligations.

Small dependency groups grow large. One-off payments become entitlements. When you marry unlimited wants with a populist government, you will have a bankrupt country. Some may argue that borrowing can be harmless. After all, many countries borrow against their oil, gas, coal, rare earth or bauxites. They argue that their national balance sheet is still very strong. In Singapore, we have none of the above, what would we borrow against? If we ever borrow, it will be against our future's earnings, against the taxes we have yet to collect, and placing debt burdens on our children even before they leave school. Fortunately, we have avoided debt financing altogether so far. This is because we have been prudent as a government.

Thirdly, the lessons taught us the importance of economic independence. The fact that we operate in a highly globalised and integrated world is no longer a secret. What has become obvious is the increased frequency and magnitude of shocks this integrated system now generates. Right after the Lehman Brothers debacle was a period of severe liquidity crunch. In the next eighteen months, we had excessive liquidity chasing up asset prices and causing high inflations. The sudden entry and departure of international funds unsettle small economies. To stay afloat in such choppy waters, we need to have strong stomachs. We must continually shock-proof our economy, protect our jobs, up-skill our workers, and invest in our schools, ITEs and the universities. To accomplish all these, we must generate growth, create surpluses, and redistribute some of these to help those who are lagging behind. We must continue to save so that we have what it takes to protect our economic and financial independence in times of need.

Fourthly, let us recognise the trade-off inherent in any chosen policy. As law-makers of this land, as we debate policies and programmes to improve the lives of ordinary Singaporeans, let us be mindful of the trade-off each policy brings. However much as we desire, we cannot have our cake and eat it. We are operating with very tight parameters in an already highly optimised system. If we build more flats, we will forgo more open spaces. If we build more roads, we will have fewer parks. If we intensify building at MRT locations, it will also mean denser living. If we allow property values to appreciate, it will mean a bigger gap between the existing asset owners and the aspirants. Sir, the nature of policy-making is full of inherent trade-offs. Each policy has its mult-faceted effects. So, let us be mindful of them and make the best of it.

Fifthly, good governance is the bottom line. When downgrading the US' credit rating, Standard and Poor's (S&P) said that the "political brinkmanship" in the debate over the debt had affected the US government's ability to manage its finances. It is now "less stable, less effective and less predictable".

S&P's pronouncement is a grave reminder that the "first-world parliament", as what the US is perceived to be, has not prevented the country from spending to the point of near bankruptcy. A "first-world parliament" has not been proven to be effective in dispensing decisive and speedy solutions to contain the current debt crisis. If you look at the facts, the crisis the West and the US are in, they are struggling very hard to rein in debts, stabilise their banks and stem further job losses. This is despite the "first-world parliament" status.

Sir, it is not the form but the substance. Good governance led by competent leadership, supported by active citizenry and inspired by a shared vision, is in my view the best way to secure the future of Singapore. Sir, at the Opening of this Twelfth Parliament, I behold the future of Singapore with confidence and expectation. We have overcome many trials and tribulations in the last 46 years. Our fundamental values in discipline, thrift, unity, "nation before self" mindset, meritocracy and justice have transformed a most unlikely, diminutive island into a mega-metropolis. Sir, sound fundamentals remain the prerequisites of our continued survival and success. They are the cornerstone on which we build the best homes for everyone. Majulah Singapura.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. Sir Stamford Raffles may have founded Singapore but it was our forefathers' qualities of drive, determination, enterprise and resourcefulness that helped build Singapore to be a trading capital of the East. But it is we the descendants who have carried on the good work and made Singapore to be what it is today.

We must recognise and acknowledge the contributions of each and every member of our society towards nation building. Many of them worked very hard, earning very little and have very little savings left for rainy days, looking after its own citizens. But now with global changes, progress and competition, they are forced into early retirement, made redundant, have become obsolete in our modern fast-paced and expensive world. Many of them are struggling. Many are trying to find the money to pay for their next meal or their next bill. The progress of society has passed them by and I hope our Government will not also forget them all.

As a parliamentarian, I hope to urge our Government to think and care more for this early generation of pioneers who have now become the stragglers in our society. We can be more compassionate to our citizens and their families who are struggling to make ends meet. We are now living in a faster and shrinking world due to globalisation. Singapore will continue to evolve in order to adapt to global changes and trends.

Even as we progress, we must remember that economic growth is a means to an end. The end is inclusive growth where Singaporeans progress upwards collectively as a society. In other words, we must be mindful about the widening income gap that will create tensions in society. When creating employment, we should consider creating sustainable jobs that provide for reasonable remuneration. In the last decade, the influx of cheaper foreign labour has depressed wage growth. As we pursue growth at the top line, Singapore should consider efficiency of labour with indexes, such as value-added per worker. Besides increasing workforce in large quantities, Singapore needs to grow resourcefulness and creativity in order to compete in the global arena. This means we have to re-shape our educational system as well. We also need to embrace diversity in society, accept new-age skills, social media to be able to live and work together in harmony, respect each other's beliefs and ideas, and to be gracious and compassionate to each other's community by helping each other.

Our forefathers have evolved a shared culture and lived through a common history to give a shared meaning to this country as a nation. For Singapore to continue being a cohesive nation, we need to ensure our talented citizens, who have been born and bred here or are newly acquired, will continue to regard Singapore as their home. Younger Singaporeans, often better educated than their parents, feel that they do not have much to say in the affairs of the country. They may be comfortable materialistically, but share very little emotional attachment to Singapore. Singing National Day songs like "Majulah Singapura" or "Count on Me, Singapore" will not be enough to provide a strong cultural and historical glue to bind the younger Singaporeans. If the Government wants its citizens to participate in the affairs of the country and in order for its citizens' participation to have good meaning, there must be real freedom to generate, test and implement ideas and not to decide how, what, when and where it should be done.

In looking after our citizens, we must not forget Singapore's political exiles. I am sorry this is a very touchy subject. The Government should look into allowing political exiles and their families to come back to Singapore freely, without fear and without pre-conditions. These people with their families are also our future, our home-grown Singapore talent.

The Government should be less prescriptive when designing policies affecting citizens' lives with its social-engineering agenda. The decision to restrict the purchase of HDB flats only when Singaporeans get married or are over 35 years old may no longer be appropriate. I urge the Government to reconsider this restriction and allow Singapore-born citizens to buy their first HDB flats simply when they reach the age of 21. We understand the sky-rocketing HDB prices. By the time a citizen reaches 35 years old to obtain a flat, the price of the flat may have tripled and that would be out of the person's reach. We want to emphasise that it has become the right and aspiration of every young Singaporean to desire to own an HDB flat as soon as possible at a reasonable price. Expectedly, many divorces in our society today can be blamed on the HDB's policy on this matter.

Change and change is what we want in Singapore today with a new political landscape and a new political awakening among younger Singaporeans. Younger Singaporeans also want to have a strategic stake in the assets and growth of Singapore.

Going forward, GE 2011 is over and the composition of Parliament reflects this. There will be more diverse views and robust debates in the House but we must not forget we share the same goal − that is to serve Singaporeans by finding the right way despite different political views and preferences.

In the President's speech, the Government announced that it wants to seek inclusive growth that will benefit all its citizens in all walks of life. It is my hope that a comprehensive programme is being set up to work towards this goal over the next five years. We should also consider creating an index to track the value-added per worker for different economic sectors ranging from the manufacturing, services and financial industries. We should consider adjusting the mix of industries in Singapore to increase worker efficiency. We must also pursue more information and data points, such as the split of local and foreigners employed in every sector. The Government should focus on industries with a higher mix of local employment.

Do not fall back on the quick and easy way to bump up growth and the GDP through liberal immigration and easy work pass policies at the expense of its citizens. Seek to increase per capita income of our citizens, rather than simply increasing our GDP. In this respect, different key performance indicators can be introduced to mark the performances of our Ministers and civil servants, other than GDP growth figures alone.

The Government should not build pyramids from surpluses but must share its wealth equally among Singaporeans through sufficient spending in essential services and infrastructure. We can afford to spend more and allow our citizens some of the essential services in greater comfort like less waiting time to see doctors at our polyclinics, hospitals and shorter time for appointments at polyclinics and the National Dental Centre. We must also help to bridge the income gap between the rich and the poor, more subsidies should be disbursed to the lower income Singaporeans like the old and the elderly in 1-room rental flats, the handicapped, mentally ill, caregivers, single parents, pensioners and the jobless. There is also a need for additional health subsidies for medicines and non-standard drugs without GST and also dental care subsidies as well. There should be fixed pricing on expensive hawker food by adjusting and looking into the high rentals of newly renovated hawker centres and markets. More money should be pumped into welfare homes that rely on Government funding. There should be less red-tape for citizens applying for subsidies. Also, hawker licences for the handicapped should be waived. How much can a wheelchair-bound or handicapped person earn a day by selling tissue papers and other small items when they are being imposed a hefty fine of $150 to $170 from numerous illegal hawking summonses? The Government should improve the living conditions of the poor in their homes, with special attention to those living in 1-room rental flats. It is insufficient to beautify the facade of HDB void decks and lifts when living conditions inside such flats can be deplorable. It is where humanity and compassion must be imbued in us.

National allegiance grows from a deeply ingrained sense of shared heritage and destiny, and this can only come through generations of participation in shaping one's own life in one's own country. Citizens do not satisfy their mind, body and soul simply by being mere owners of upgraded HDB flats, condominiums or private homes. If we want Singaporeans to have their hearts in Singapore, then we must give them the mental and psychological space to fulfil themselves as co-owners of this country.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 228-229 for Vernacular Speeches .] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Dr Lam Pin Min's Motion to thank the President. In his Address, the President said that Singapore is entering a new phase of development. Europe, US and Japan's economic outlook is not looking good, which will definitely impact our economy. Therefore, the Government and our people must work together to face the challenges so that our economy can continue to grow.

The General Election in May and the Presidential election in August this year demonstrated our changing political landscape. The new phase reflects Singaporeans' political awareness which could be partially attributed to our years of economic growth and high level of education attainment. Can we stay united in this diversified political environment? I believe that as long as Singaporeans have the big picture in mind and stay objective, rational and accommodating, we can still remain competitive. On the contrary, if we become polarised, the result can be devastating.

A nation's development is closely linked to the values held by its citizens. At this juncture, we need to take stock of our values so that we can cultivate the right shared values for the country to move forward. Let me cite an example. During a NTU graduation ceremony in August this year, a graduate blurted out a four-letter word at the end of her valedictory speech. Subsequently, she apologised for the inappropriate phrase and explained that she did it in a moment of euphoria. Usually, we will accept her explanation. However, the responses from the academic circle were unexpectedly polarised. From this incident, we observe the change and polarisation of our society's values.

How should we uphold our good traditional values? This is a challenge. Let me illustrate with an example of how the traditional values of the Chinese family have changed over time in China and Taiwan. According to a Lianhe Zaobao report on 3 June 2011, there were 1.2 million couples getting married in China while 1.96 million couples were divorced in 2010. This shows that divorce rate in China is fast catching up with that in the Western countries. In Taiwan, the birth rate is even lower than Singapore, with a total fertility rate (TFR) of less than 1 in 2010. According to a Straits Times' report on 10 October 2011, there was a reversal of this trend only after the Taiwanese Government offered financial incentives to encourage couples to have children. In short, the Chinese families no longer believe in the importance of procreation.

Not only do traditional values deteriorate in countries or areas with mainly ethnic Chinese, many other Asian countries also experienced disintegrating traditional values. We need to learn from these experiences and try to avoid similar problems in Singapore. We need to establish our own shared values. I am pleased that the Ministry of Education announced last month that they would re-emphasise the importance of values and character building in schools. Thus, parents, schools, clan associations and religious organisations must also play a more active role in preserving and advocating our time-tested traditional values by working closely with community organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to proceed to the next topic on housing policies. We have done well by providing affordable housing for our citizens. Home ownership is the pillar of our country's success. Many countries and the United Nations have sent representatives to study our public housing. During my weekly house visits, many older blue-collar workers, such as factory workers and taxi drivers, lamented that they used to be able to pay their 5-room HDB housing loan in less than 20 years but now, their graduate children could hardly afford a 4-room flat.

Currently, prices of new HDB flats are largely influenced by that of resale flats in the open market. In recent years, resale flat prices have risen sharply, perhaps due to the increasing housing demand of new immigrants. To ensure that more young couples and first-time flat buyers can afford their new flats, the Government could consider lowering the price of new 3- and 4-room flats or provide more subsidies. Those who want to buy flats with higher subsidies will have to meet more stringent criteria, such as longer minimum occupation period of, say, 15 years as compared to the current five years. Otherwise, buyers of such flats will have to return the additional subsidies if they sell their flats between five to 15 years of occupation. Such scheme could help to stabilise the prices of new 3-4 room HDB flats.

Many Singaporeans merely consider their HDB flat to serve as a roof over their head rather than use it as a means to encash and earn quick profit. At the same time, they also do not want to become a slave to their house and spend their entire working life paying off the housing loan. This type of highly subsidised flats with more stringent requirements can then serve their needs. Those who prefer to encash their flats after five years will have to pay the current price and accept the existing requirements. Our housing policy is the jewel of Government's policies. I hope the Government can review the housing policy so that more people can afford their new flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another issue that is close to my heart is special education. In his speech, the President said that we need to "seek inclusive growth that benefits all citizens, not just a lucky few". He also said that "we want a fair and just society that ensures the well-being of every citizen; a gracious and compassionate community whose members care for one another." I am heartened to see that Ministry of Education has increased its funding to Special Education (SPED) schools over the past five years. However, there is still a gap between what has been achieved against the expectation. The number of students who could find meaningful employment after graduating from SPED schools has not increased substantially.

Last month, I was honoured to attend a seminar on special education. The seminar was attended by more than 10 SPED school principals to discuss about the vision for special education. Most of these educators would like the Government to form a single entity to manage all the 20 SPED schools in Singapore. Other "helping hands" can still provide assistance in their areas of specialties. This is not an issue about subsidy. Special Education practitioners hope that this new entity can help to develop a standard curriculum and tighten the quality requirements for Special Education. In contrast, the current policy direction is to "let a hundred flowers bloom" and thus, different management boards of SPED schools tend to have differing visions and expectations of their students. As a result, we observe that the quality of education provided by the various SPED schools also differs significantly.

Since most special education practitioners aspire to have a single entity to manage all the SPED schools, why is the Government so reluctant to form one? We hope the Government can implement more proactive policies to improve the quality of special education so that more SPED school graduates could be meaningfully employed and become self-reliant.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to present my next topic on tertiary education in English. From my weekly house visits, many residents who are polytechnic graduates tell me that they have the desire to upgrade themselves or are already taking part-time degree courses. This is a good sign and inevitable as we encourage life-long learning.

Presently, 25% of our cohort makes it to the local universities. As reported in The Straits Times yesterday, there are about 45,000 Singaporeans pursuing undergraduate courses at the three local universities and SIT. At the same time, the Council for Private Education said that as at 31 December 2010, there were about 41,100 Singaporeans studying for undergraduate courses at private institutions. Meanwhile, we also have full, or almost full employment. This means that our current job market can sustain a significantly higher number of graduates than what the local universities can produce. As Singapore gears itself towards a knowledge-based economy, we would probably need more graduates, not less.

The degree courses offered by private institutions in Singapore are part of the Government's strategic plan to develop Singapore into a reputable regional education hub. Otherwise, many Singaporeans may be paying a substantially higher amount of money to study in overseas universities which may or may not provide better quality education.

Currently, Singaporeans taking UniSIM undergraduate programs enjoy a Government subsidy of 55% off the tuition fees as compared to about 70% to 75% subsidy in the local universities. Could we not increase the subsidies further or provide more bursaries for this group of students in UniSIM? Could we not consider extending Government subsidy to offset the tuition fees of other reputable local private universities so that more Singaporeans who embark on continuous education can enjoy similar benefits? I understand that Minister of State Mr Lawrence Wong is chairing a committee to look into expanding university places for Singaporeans. I hope he can take the above suggestions into consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my last topic is transport. Let me declare my interest in this industry as I am a Vice President in SBS Transit. Much has been said about the public transport model in and outside this House. Let me recount one experience I had in Taiwan last year about its public bus service. I was at a bus stop along a major road in Taipei at about 10 o'clock in the morning. I observed that the bus services were very frequent. Every five minutes or so, there was a bus of the same service passing by the bus stop with about five to 10 passengers on board each bus. I reckoned that the passengers on board the buses were happy as they could easily find a seat. The bus driver was probably also equally happy as he did not have to carry many passengers and risk passengers' complaints. The bus company was also probably happy if it was paid the same for the trips operated regardless of the number of passengers on board the bus like the bus operators in London.

However, the local government subsidising the bus company would unlikely be happy as it was not the best use of resources. Mother Earth is also not happy as more than necessary carbon is emitted. At the same time, we recognise that the frequency of bus services during off-peak hours cannot be too low. Otherwise, it will come with a social cost. People still need connectivity. On the other hand, we know that market forces are the best way to allocate resources efficiently based on supply and demand. What then is the balance?

In Singapore, we have public listed companies running public transport services. However, the public transport operators (PTOs) are tightly regulated. Unlike other service industries such as supermarket or telecommunication companies, the PTOs cannot fix the selling price or the public transport fare in this context. The PTOs are subjected to the strict regime of Quality of Service (QoS) to ensure that the minimum service standards are adhered to. Within such a framework, the Government and the shareholders expect the public listed PTOs to make a profit so that resources are best allocated, wastages are minimised and at the same time, the PTOs are able to pay for asset replacement. What then is the acceptable level of profit?

Fare revision is a very sensitive matter even if it means a two-cent adjustment. Maybe we can take a leaf from Hong Kong. Many consider Hong Kong's train and bus services to be very efficient and they are also provided for by public listed companies. The Hong Kong government allows PTOs to raise fare only when the rate of return on average net fixed asset falls below a pre-determined level. If the rate of return on average net fixed asset exceeds a certain rate that was determined by the government, the PTOs have to share 50% of the profit in excess of the pre-determined rate with the commuters. The PTOs are allowed to keep the remaining profit as an incentive for them to continue to improve their productivity and increase non-fare revenue such as advertising and rental revenue.

Could Singapore take a closer look at this model and adapt it to our local context? It is for this House to debate and policymakers to consider. Ultimately, we want a transport system and a transport model that works best for Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I have come to the end of my speech and I would like to re-affirm my support for the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President for his Address to this Parliament. Listening to Mr Lee Yi Shyan and Mrs Lina Chiam, Sir, is actually a study of speeches in contradiction. Mrs Chiam wanted the Government to do more and more, for example, even ensuring that the prices of meals in hawker centres are fixed, more subsidies in almost everything, and even allowing singles to purchase flats once they reach the age of 21 years. Mr Lee Yi Shyan reminded us that there are genuine trade-offs. If we put more money in one area, we have to be prepared to have less in other areas. Such is the reality of any government. He had also pointed out the problems faced by governments that had adopted the welfare state. At the end of the day, it is taxpayers who are Singaporeans who have to pay for these expenditures. But this does not mean that the Government has not been investing in social protection measures. Indeed, our investment in health care, housing, education and social assistance has increased over the years. For example, subsidies for needy families with children in kindergarten and childcare were just increased from a family with an income level of $2,000 to $3,000 to families with income levels of $3,500, allowing a significant number of families to benefit from these subsidies.

Sir, in his speech, the President also stressed that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. But he also reminded us that growth is not an end in itself. We seek quality and inclusive growth that benefits all citizens, not just a lucky few. This same point was reiterated in a report titled "Making Economic Growth More Pro-Poor: The Role of Employment and Social Protection" released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It said that sustained economic growth, in which poor women and men participate directly as both agents and beneficiaries, is essential for reducing poverty. It also said that employment and social protection are two critical avenues towards achieving Pro-Poor Growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that sustained strong economic growth is a pre-requisite and a necessity, if we want to help the poor and the needy in our society. Without growth, we will not have the means to support strong investment in education, healthcare, housing and social assistance programmes for all Singaporeans but more so for our low income so that they, too, can benefit from our growth. In other words, our growth pattern has been one where strong growth is supported by strong social protection schemes to ensure inclusive growth and a balanced development.

I thought, Sir, that our experience in the last recession was insightful. Singapore was one of the fastest countries to emerge from the 2008 crisis because we quickly put in place the Jobs Credit Scheme and the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). These were two very important programmes that helped to minimise retrenchment, also helped workers acquire better skills and companies to quickly ramp up when orders started picking up. But we could not have done all that if we did not have the reserves to tap on which were built up from previous years of good economic growth.

Having said this, Sir, I also agree with MPs that we have to be mindful of the potential divides arising among us, particularly from the widening income gap and a rapidly ageing population. On this point, I strongly welcome the President's stress on the need to create good jobs for Singaporeans. This is an important point, as there are jobs that are created specifically in the services sector, that pay little, provide poor benefits and are not quality jobs, which will continue to depress wage growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we continue to strengthen our social safety net, we should do this in a way that would strengthen the resolve of those we help and empower them. There is much that individuals and families can do to improve their situation and we have to build on these strengths. We empower those who need aid if we involve them in the solutions and help them to have control over the decisions made to help them. Often, the approach taken is as if these families are invalids and are mere passive recipients of aid. But the many cases that I have come across tell me that even those in need have something to contribute and want to do so if they have the support. We should give them that dignity and that support.

We support families through our ComCare network which provides a very strong foundation to assist families who are in need. But to be effective in helping the needy, we must constantly review our social assistance policies and delivery methods. For example, we had recently enhanced the Public Assistance Scheme and ComCare Financial Assistance schemes for childcare and kindergarten. But needs are never constant. New challenges and circumstances develop and we need to ensure that our outreach and assistance schemes are relevant and useful in meeting these new needs. We need to look at three areas.

First, like many MPs, I, too, feel that it is important for us to ensure that those who need help receive them. We also cannot ignore the needs of emerging groups and those at the margins. Greater flexibility in providing assistance, including supporting initiatives at the local level, which can be more easily tailored and customised to local needs, are some of the ways to address these needs.

Second, in providing assistance for the needy, we should also strive for a no-wrong-door policy, meaning that those in need will get the help regardless of which door they go through. We recognise that our needy sometimes do not know where to turn to for help, and it is often frustrating to be referred to multiple agencies, or worse, to fall through the cracks. We need better coordination among the various touchpoint agencies that are serving our needy. The focus is to better integrate the service delivery, placing the needy at the heart of our policy design and service delivery. To do this, we will continue to leverage on existing platforms, such as the ComCare Local Network. Such networks encourage social service agencies to deliver complementary services and share ideas and experiences to serve the needy more holistically and effectively. We will better synchronise our assistance to the needy through closer partnership with key touchpoints agencies, such as the CDCs, FSCs, CCCs, as well as the larger community. Our grassroots leaders and volunteers play a critical role in this regard, through their knowledge of and ties with their residents. Together, those efforts will help us move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to one which is more family-centric and flexible, to better serve the needs of at-risk families.

Sir, third, we need to look at how better to measure our outcomes beyond just the numbers, so that we have a more comprehensive indication of how we have helped families. We should also start measuring how families have managed to stand on their own two feet as indicators. We will work closely with our agencies delivering the services to the needy to develop these indicators to ensure the outcome that we want to achieve. We will also need more research and data to assist us in such strategic planning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we review our social safety net in the longer term, our concern is also over the short-term challenges that may arise from the deteriorating global economy. From our experience during the previous downturn, we understand the serious impact brought about by an economic recession on low-income and needy families. Let me share with the House what we will be doing to step up assistance where needed.

First, we will refine our ComCare schemes to help those affected by the downturn. For example, for families that need more time to get back on their feet, we can be flexible in providing a longer period of assistance. Second, we will allocate more resources to the CDCs, which interact directly with and also provide other forms of local assistance to the needy on the ground. Like the last recession, we can provide assistance packages to Singaporeans through the CDCs to help them tide over the difficult times. Third, Sir, we can give more funding and support to social service agencies such as the FSCs to cope with the potential increase in workload and potential drop in charity dollars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, many MPs also spoke about the important role of families, particularly in providing support to the frail elderly in our community. I agree with them that our families are and should always remain a core pillar of support. But I have also seen how families struggle to take care of their frail elderly or disabled members. With an ageing population and smaller families, the pressures on caregivers will escalate and the Government should provide more support to families, otherwise we will need more hospitals and nursing homes or we will see more neglected elderly. I also agree with other hon. MPs that this is not the way to treat our elderly who have given so much to build up Singapore. We do not want to see them spend the twilight years of their lives in institutions cared for by strangers and away from their loved ones.

So, our caregivers need more holistic support to reduce the financial, emotional and physical stress on them. One critical area that we need to look at is how to provide more accessible home-care and community-based services for the elderly. This is one sector that is under-developed and under-resourced. We need a seamless continuum of health and social home and community support services to help our elderly age in place.

Let me just come to the next point. Well, Sir, to do so, it would be useful for us to look at the subsidies for home-based care, something that I have also spoken on in previous sessions of Parliament. The way our health care subsidies are structured today encourages families to put their frail elderly in institutions, as they get a higher level of subsidy. Therefore, it is important that we take a closer look at this and explore providing more subsidies for home-based care, if we truly want to ensure ageing in place for our elderly. We also need more accessible and affordable medical, nursing and physiotherapy services at home.

Another important area that is not well-provided for today is respite care for caregivers, which seeks to relieve the stresses of caregiving and support their well-being. Often we focus so much on the frail elderly that we forgot about the needs and well-being of those taking care of them. Increasingly, these caregivers are also ageing and are in need of medical care themselves. I am glad to say, Sir, that this is one area in MCYS that I am working on, in partnership with the Ministry of Health and we are exploring a range of solutions to support care at home and in the community. This includes assistive technology and home modification. We will also look into expanding the range of structured caregiver training programmes to meet the diverse needs of families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, increasingly I feel that there is a gap between what our Government is doing and the perceptions on the ground. The Government feels that it is doing a lot and indeed it is doing so much more than other governments in taking care of its people, a positive feedback which I get all the time when I meet people at the International Labour Organization (ILO). Yet, Singaporeans feel that we are not doing enough or do not care enough. This gap has arisen not only because of the social media. It has been building up for some time and I feel that one of the problems could be because of the way we are communicating with the people.

The Government knows very well why certain options cannot work because it has thought through the issues thoroughly and this Government does not believe in making promises that it cannot fulfil. But to the public, the Government's message may come across as dismissive and uncaring. The public today is also asking for more information and greater transparency. The step taken by the Ministry of Manpower recently in sharing some labour-related information that was not previously released is a step in the right direction. Previously, when such information is not revealed, for example, the unemployment rate of citizens, it led to all kinds of bizarre speculations, which over time people began to believe is the truth. I feel that we need to find a better way to communicate, and be prepared to share more information so that in this way we could also help people to understand issues better, and to debate in a rational, informed and balanced manner. Overall, this would result in a positive outcome of a more mature and engaged relationship between the Government and the people.

Sir, with your permission, I would now like to address Parliament in Malay, where I will be elaborating on our efforts to strengthen support for families.

(In Malay): [For Malay speech, please refer to Pg 230-231 for Vernacular Speeches .] I would like to present three matters concerning Malay families. First, we should not regard Malay families as weak or brittle. In fact, to me, Malay families are now in a stronger and better position compared to the past. Family ties are also strong. For example, there are Malay families who rent buses just for the purpose of visiting one another during the Hari Raya season. Many parents are now putting emphasis on their children's education and make the necessary provisions to meet their children's education needs. In addition, the number of Malay families who send their elderly parents to nursing homes is small. This is because they believe that the responsibility of taking care of parents will bring blessings to the family.

Mr Speaker, Malay families are also increasingly aware of the initiatives being done by Malay/Muslim bodies through the Community Leaders' Forum. They truly appreciate these noble efforts. I daresay that every week, Malay MPs are usually invited to attend events organised by Malay/Muslim bodies or attend to show support to specific programmes especially for the Malay community.

MCYS also implements many programmes to assist and empower Malay families through Marriage Central or the National Family Council. There are also programmes for Malay families like the marriage preparation courses called Bersama Mu. The programmes at the Inspiration Hub aims to help young couples who wish to get married, while Vista Sakinah provides a comprehensive service to couples who wish to re-marry, as well as those with step-children.

Overall, these efforts have contributed to family stability for the past few years. We will continue these efforts. I would like to share an example that can be an inspiration to everyone. I was invited to attend a scholarship presentation ceremony at the Darul Ihsan Orphanage two weeks ago. For the first time, Darul Ihsan provided a scholarship worth $6,000 to an engineering undergraduate from NUS, Mr Ahmad Haider Bagesher. His father was a taxi driver who passed away. Both his sisters are studying in NIE. I asked Ahmad Haider what was the main factor for his success. He said that the factor is family support. Ahmed Haider's mother is a housewife.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, even though we have achieved so much, we can still continue the efforts to empower families − with the support of the Government and strong cooperation from each member of our community. One major area is early education for the first five years of a child.

Recently, I visited a childcare centre in San Francisco and an agency that promotes early childhood development. What this agency does is to identify children from at-risk families and work together with the community and respective families to monitor the child's development. The development of that child is monitored by a paediatrician or other experts so that the child will grow up in a stimulating environment.

I would like to focus on this area and am interested to work with community organisations to develop a similar project for at-risk families in our community. I am confident that this project has potential to help children of a similar profile here.

Mr Speaker, allow me to end by giving an example of an individual, Mr Abdul Rahman Mahmood, who managed to overcome many obstacles to improve his family's fate. Mr Abdul Rahman sought help as he faced difficulties to pay for basic necessities that are in arrears as he did not have a stable job. With the help of the North East Community Development Council, he was registered under the Work Support Programme while his five- year-old son received the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme. Through these programmes, he was able to upgrade his skills while the needs of his children were given attention. I am pleased to share with Members that Mr Abdul Rahman now has a stable job as a technician and is able to take home a salary of about $1,800 a month. I praise the resilience of Mr Abdul Rahman and his determination to stand on his own feet. His commitment to fulfil the needs of the present day and the future of his family should be an example to the community.

Mr Speaker, a strong family institution is key to our efforts to improve the achievements of our community. This can be attained with everybody's cooperation. A strong and stable family will ensure that our family will move towards prosperity and progress in line with the nation's progress. With this, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in resounding support of the Motion of thanks to the President for his speech. The President has called for us to work together to give all Singaporeans a better life and a brighter tomorrow, and notes that this vision is predicated on continued economic growth but equally he warns us that growth is not an end in itself and that furthermore this growth that we strive for should be of a high quality and it should be inclusive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to many of us, inclusive growth may simply mean an equitable share by all citizens in the country's prosperity but inclusive growth is really much more than that. It also denotes a model of economic growth that favours the creation of equal opportunities for employment rather than just a system of wealth redistribution. This is achieved by the provision of an adequate framework of enablers such as quality education, housing, healthcare that is accessible to each and every one of us. Wealth redistribution alone will ultimately fail to equalise incomes and reduce inequality. The Government in its wisdom has been pursuing such a policy for many years and our people have benefited from this vision of economic development, a vision which some less than enlightened governments are now beginning to embrace. However, in a rapidly changing and growing economy like ours, despite our best efforts to equalise the playing field, the more nimble amongst us will sprint ahead and some of us may be left breathless.

Do we then slow the pace of the race so that everyone can keep up? That would seem ideal but other teams in this global foot race may rush ahead of us and falling down the finishing order may not be very pleasant for us at all. The villain of the piece it seems to me is not economic growth in itself but rather how it reaches different segments of our society. I welcome the recent remarks by my Parliamentary and GRC colleague Mr Chan Chun Sing who spoke on wide-ranging measures that his Ministry intends to introduce to strengthen our social safety net and, in particular, the renewed focus on families who are at risk and the efforts to champion the family man. I was further heartened by Dr Amy Khor's remarks yesterday about the need to beef up welfare assistance. However, we are all well aware of this. There are still many families who continued to struggle financially in spite of the many helping hands that are available to them.

For my work with financially troubled families, both within my constituency of Queenstown and elsewhere, I sense that in our country many families fall into economic difficulties not because the system has denied them the opportunity to provide for themselves but often because of a specific catastrophic and often unexpected trigger such as business failure, indebtedness of various causes, debilitating illnesses, incarceration or divorce. Various assistance schemes, whether governmental or voluntary, mainly help to keep the families or the heads of these families above water rather than to propel them gently towards the shore. The risk with this mainly supportive approach is that many families may, in fact, become entangled in a poverty trap that may slowly spiral into a cycle of poverty which succeeding generations will find themselves difficult to extricate themselves from.

Medical professionals have long recognised that for most illnesses early and aggressive intervention is often the best way to effect a complete cure, reduce complications or the very least facilitate good long-term control of the condition. I think that some military strategists and business leaders will also expound a similar philosophy. Similarly, I hope that this Government in all its wisdom would consider implementing even more targeted, even more aggressive but yet calibrated measures to assist this group of highly vulnerable families that have fallen on hard times.

Sir, there is a constant debate about what should be the ideal size of Government. How big or how small should Government be. Meaning to what extent should the State directly intervene and provide for its citizens. The arguments for and against big government are well known to us. Big government provides greater security for its citizens from all manner of traps, be it economic or social. But they come at a high cost, not only physically but also in regard to a perceived diminution in active citizenship. Many governments that have advocated smaller governments in the past have often ended with the contrary, due to political pressures and they are now finding it increasingly difficult to afford such largesse as we are now witnessing in the physical tribulations of many Western economies.

In Singapore, we encourage a partnership between the Government and citizens to address a whole spectrum of social challenges. We, as a country, have always been mindful of the trap of welfare but in an increasing globalised world with ever more capricious economic cycles, perhaps this Government will have to be big wherever and whenever it needs to be. For those stricken families I spoke about earlier, a more direct, perhaps more comprehensive, and a more generous aid package should be offered as early as possible and continue until they are out of harm's way. But the Government need not be alone in this and neither does assistance always have to be in the form of a handout. In fact, many of these families have indicated to me that they were willing to and able to pay back the sum of money that they needed to get back on their feet, only that there was nowhere to turn to for this sort of financial aid. Just to give some examples, one elderly couple whose son has just gone to prison was trying to save their son's flat. The husband was still working but needed a short-term loan to pay off some debts and arrears, a loan that they needed and could well pay back given time but which they could not get. Another young woman has just delivered a beautiful baby girl when her husband suddenly left and despite maximum assistance from the various agencies, she was still unable to provide optimally for herself and her children. She would have appreciated a small loan to get herself and her family back more quickly on their feet and she intended to go back to work as soon as her baby was a little bit older. Hopefully, in the new hawker centre that I am hoping the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will strongly consider building at the Strathmore-Dawson areas in Queenstown.

Members of this House had previously called for micro-finance schemes to be considered, with the support of Government, and I would urge this Government to consider a similar approach not just to start businesses but rather for community support and social enterprises. The concept of a community social bank is not new and has met with some success in other countries. Such a community bank could either directly help needy families by providing short-term and small loans above what our social safety net can normally provide or indirectly by funding social enterprises that perform such functions. Commercial banks can help to capitalise such a community bank and also provide volunteer staff to ensure that it is run efficiently and professionally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will please allow me the indulgence of continuing the next segment of my discourse in healthcare in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 232 for Vernacular Speeches .] Sir, I now move on to another area that I believe would benefit from further calibration, and that is healthcare. As both a provider and consumer of healthcare, I can honestly say we have a world-class system in most respects. The challenge as always is to maintain quality without sacrificing affordability.

I have been much encouraged by the recent measures announced by the Ministry of Health which will further improve the delivery of quality and affordable healthcare to our people, focusing on health promotion, disease prevention and out-of-hospital care. Our "3Ms" of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund provide comprehensive financial cover for most Singaporeans while still encouraging individual responsibility for healthcare costs, but some vulnerable groups remain.

Many elderly remain very worried about the cost of medical care, and this worry grows as they grow older. Studies show that the majority of our lifetime healthcare expenditure occurs in the last decade or so of our life, and the very elderly in particular consume a disproportionately high quantity of medical care. Many of my residents and patients have asked me, "Dr Chia, the elderly get a special discount when taking the bus or MRT, why not for medical care?"

I think this is a reasonable request. Presently, the elderly receive the same amount of healthcare subsidies as younger patients in most areas. I hope that further provisions can be made to help buffer the elderly and their carers from healthcare costs, above and beyond the "3Ms". For instance, above and beyond existing subsidies, certain treatments and investigations could be given a stepped level of additional rebates according to the patient's age.

Such measures would signal an appreciation of the unique and increased healthcare needs of the more elderly. It would also be a way of respectfully acknowledging the contributions of our more elderly Singaporeans to the building of our nation.

(In English): We as a nation, since our inception, have always been focused on the search for future drivers of economic growth, the next big thing, and with good reason. I would also urge that we pay equal attention to the search for drivers of social growth. I put to this House that the search for engines of social growth is as challenging, if not more so, than our quest for economic expansion. Where and what are these engines of social and community development that will crystalise our identity as one people, diverse yet united, pragmatic yet aspirational? This is a critical question that we, as a country, have to answer.

Once again, harking back to yesterday's debate which I enjoyed very much, I myself have also read with some amusement about how some countries have been trying to measure the happiness of their people, which is an entirely honourable pursuit, I am sure. But, perhaps, what it says is that modern societies find that the present language of expressing national well-being is inadequate. Still, as a young nation, we ourselves are trying hard to define ourselves, but the vocabulary remains a little offbeat. But, surely, we do not need just words or an elaborately constructed index to tell us who we are or what we want. Perhaps, once we have food on our tables and a roof over our heads, what defines us a nation becomes more about how we care for each other, how we relate to each other, how we look after the less fortunate, and generally how we decide to lead our lives. Just as the relationship between the people and the Government should not become merely a transactional one, so too must our relationship to each other to avoid the trap of mere civility and disinterest. We have to constantly find ways to grow our social capital, to strengthen our resolve, to work together towards a shared understanding of what our country means to us.

It has been said of us by many people that, unlike other countries, our independence was marked not so much by cheering but by tears from our leaders, since the challenges faced by our young nation then would have been seen insurmountable to most. The challenges facing us today seem equally fluid, told of a different complexion. Some countries are lamenting that entire generations have become lost due to missed opportunities and a lack of a shared purpose. We must avoid this at all cost and be resolute that our generation finds itself and embraces the wealth of opportunities available to build a better life and a better future for each and every one of us. On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reaffirm my steadfast support of the Motion of thanks.

Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this, my maiden speech to this House. In his address to Parliament, the President gave a broad outline of this Government's goals for the next five years. The Government says it wants "every Singaporean worker to hold a skilled, well-paid job; every family to live in an affordable, comfortable home; every young person to develop himself fully and pursue his dreams; every senior citizen to stay active and to live with dignity". These are bold goals which my colleagues and I in the Workers' Party will hold the Government accountable for over the next five years.

Sir, today, I would like to focus on three areas that many senior citizens, families and workers have pressing concerns about. They are healthcare, public housing and public transport.

Mr Speaker, the axiom, "it's better to die than to fall ill in Singapore" has been heard time and again, I believe, at least twice in this debate. Many Singaporeans, especially the poor, worry greatly about falling ill. They are concerned not just about the painful treatment they will have to go through but more often about the high costs involved, and the financial burden that may place on their already struggling children. In Singapore, Government subsidies make up only a quarter of total health expenditure. Out-of-pocket expenses, employer benefits and private insurance make up most of the remainder. The much-vaunted "3Ms" of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund pay for less than 10% of total healthcare expenses, the lion's share of which comes from Medisave, which is really patients' own savings. MediShield is a self-funding insurance scheme, which members pay premiums to join. These premiums rise as they grow older. They also have to fork out large deductibles and co-insurance before receiving pay-outs, and the coverage ends at age 85.

The Government will say that we have Medifund. But Medifund is subject to extremely stringent means testing and disbursements are not exactly generous. In 2009, an average of $1,029 was given to less than 24,000 inpatient Medifund applicants. This represented just 5% of total hospital admissions that year.

For seniors with no income and little savings, the burden of healthcare is shifted to their children. In 2005, 60% of the elderly had their medical bills paid from their adult children's Medisave accounts. This is a very high percentage and is, in fact, a departure from the principle of "self-reliance". If these patients' children are also low-income earners − as is often the case − the Government is merely shifting the burden of poverty within the pool of the poor. Basically, we are asking one disadvantaged group to pay for another.

The Government seems very reluctant to take on a larger financial burden for caring of our senior citizens. Instead, it hides behind the mantras of self-reliance and filial piety to justify its relatively low expenditure on healthcare for the elderly. Self-reliance is good in principle, but when a patient has exhausted his own savings and has to rely on his own struggling family members, then we, as a society, are not being fair to both the patient and his family.

The Ministry of Health claims to provide universal health coverage to citizens, but I believe we are still some way from that. The World Health Organization defines universal health coverage as having a healthcare financing system that provides all people with access to adequate healthcare services without suffering financial hardship paying for them.

If we are to achieve this goal, we need to expand the coverage of MediShield and reduce the over-reliance on direct payments by patients at the time they need the care. To fund this, we need to strengthen the current forms of pre-payments and risk-pooling, and provide assistance to those who cannot afford the premiums, like housewives and the elderly. All these point to a need to perform major surgery on MediShield.

Mr Speaker, for some time now, our public hospitals have been running at near full capacity, with bed occupancy rates often exceeding 90% for Tan Tock Seng Hospital and over 85% for National University Hospital. Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, which opened just last year, was supposed to ease the crunch. But it too has been running at almost 85% capacity for the past months. The Royal College of Surgeons in the United Kingdom has advised that bed occupancy rates above 82% put patients at an increased risk of infection.

It was reported in The Straits Times on 20 August this year that hospitals in Singapore are facing such a severe crunch in beds that some are "borrowing" space from other nearby organisations to house their patients. How did we get into such a situation? Between the year 2000 and 2010, our population has seen an increase of 26%, mostly through immigration. The number of hospital admissions has seen an increase of 15% in the same period. However, not only has the number of hospital beds not kept pace with population growth, but it has actually decreased during this period. In the past decade, there had been a 7% drop in the number of public sector hospital beds, according to the Department of Statistics.

Two years ago, the then Health Minister admitted that, on hindsight, his Ministry made a mistake by not building a new hospital two years earlier. Recently, the Health Minister floated the idea of bringing forward the opening of Sengkang Hospital, currently scheduled for 2020. I support this move, but this is still a long time to wait, and by that time, our population would have increased even more.

What is left unanswered is why this self-proclaimed "far-sighted" Government failed in the last 10 years to build our healthcare infrastructure to keep pace with population growth and an ageing population. Was the Government instead fixated on the near-sighted goals of boosting economic growth by increasing our population?

Mr Speaker, I would now like to address many Singaporeans' concerns about the public housing situation in Singapore. In the past 10 years, the HDB had grossly under-supplied new housing units to the market. According to figures from the HDB, between 2001 and 2009, an average of just 7,700 new flats was built each year. This was far short of the average annual resident household growth figure of 24,280 since 2005. Even when the population surged from 2007 onwards, because of the liberalisation of our immigration policies, the Government failed to react by building more flats for our people. Instead, they permitted more cash-rich foreigners to purchase almost any types of private property, which increased their prices and pulled up the HDB flat prices, since the two are linked. This combination of low supply and high demand resulted in a severe housing shortage, causing a sharp and sustained rise in property prices. HDB resale flat prices are now 92% higher than they were 10 years ago. This has not only caused much distress for many Singaporean families but has also created potential asset bubble which could severely damage Singapore's economy in a downturn.

The Government finally woke from its slumber this year and ramped up the supply of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats to an expected 25,000 this year and another 25,000 next year. This is a move in the right direction. However, BTO flats do not solve the immediate housing problem, because it takes up to two to three years before the new flat owners get their keys. In the meantime, many are still without a home of their own.

Despite the bumper launches of BTO and Sale of Balance Flats this year, we still saw the third-quarter HDB Retail Price Index shoot up 3.8% over the previous quarter. The cooling measures that the Ministry of National Development put in place earlier this year do not seem to be having their intended effects on the resale flat market.

The Government has gone some way in reducing the housing problem for first-timer couples, but not for singles, divorcees and those who need to downgrade to smaller flats because of financial difficulty. We need to find a way to help these people who are caught in between the policies. In particular, more measures need to be put in place to cool down the resale HDB flat market. The HDB market, whether direct or resale, cannot simply be left to market forces. As a provider of this public good, the Government must step in to ensure that the welfare of its citizens comes first.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to share some longstanding concerns about public transport in Singapore. In March this year, just before the General Election was announced, SMRT and SBS Transit said they would add 590 additional MRT train trips. This was expected to ease the squeeze on trains. However, many regular commuters will testify that the trains now seem even more crowded than ever. The recently-opened Circle Line may improve the situation nearer the city, but for those commuting from the suburbs like Sembawang and Simei, finding room to board the trains will still be a challenge.

One key factor that affects the train loads is the waiting time. I understand that the current signalling systems on the ageing North-South and East-West lines allow for maximum train arrival intervals of about two minutes without compromising commuter safety. But if the trains really arrive once every two minutes, the overcrowding problem would not be so severe. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. Outside of the narrow window of about half an hour on weekday mornings and evenings, the frequency drops to three to five minutes, or even more. This results in trains arriving packed with passengers, making it impossible for many of those on the platform to board. As a daily commuter myself, I often have to wait two, sometimes three, trains to pass by before I can board, during the morning and evening rush hours.

Sir, if the Government is serious about encouraging our people to drive less and use more public transport, it must give priority to tackling the overcrowding problem on trains. The solution lies not only in building more lines but making better use of existing lines by increasing train frequency and maintaining that frequency for longer periods, especially during peak periods. Why can the MRT operators not maintain a train interval of two minutes from, let us say, 7.00 am to 9.00 am, and from 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm? Is it because of technical constraints, or is it because it would increase their costs and reduce their profits?

Under the current profit-maximising model, operators are incentivised to cut costs and service levels just to maintain their high margins. Their duopoly position in the local market reinforces this behaviour. It is time for the Government to demand that these operators provide a higher level of service to commuters, even if it reduces their profit margins.

Mr Speaker, whether in healthcare, public housing or public transport, the Government has gone too far down the road of pursuing free market efficiency, often to the detriment of the elderly and low-wage workers. At the time when our citizens are exposed to heightened risks in the form of global competition, increased economic volatility, rising inequality and wage stagnation, the Government is exposing them to more competition from foreigners. Our workers are told to be "cheaper, better, faster", more self-reliant and less selective about their jobs. This regressive transfer of risks from Government to citizens must count as one of the PAP Government's biggest policy failures in the last decade.

The demographics, social and economic changes of the 21st Century demand a rethink of how much a government should provide for its people, and how much we can reasonably ask our citizens to provide for themselves.

Mr Speaker, we are at the dawn of a new era in the history of our nation. The phrase "new normal" has been used to describe this new political reality. Now with more Workers' Party members in Parliament, some pundits wonder if we will be a constructive or disruptive Party in Parliament. Will we help to build our country, or be obsessed with tearing down our political opponents? I believe this is related to a concern raised by Mr Lee Yi Shyan just now. I believe our Party's track record in Parliament answers these questions.

Having more Workers' Party MPs does not change our rational and responsible approach to politics. We want to be a force for good in this country − to help uncover solutions, not to add to the problems. However, it takes two hands to clap. The responsibility for ensuring fair and constructive debates, in and out of this House, rests not only on the Opposition but also on the Government. I hope the debates in this House will not just be about winning the argument or scoring political points, but leveraging on the arguments, and counter-arguments, to elicit better policy outcomes. This will ultimately benefit Singaporeans who put us here to serve them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to make a point of clarification on Mrs Lina Chiam's point about the old lady selling tissue papers. She mentioned about different locations, which could be the hawker centres or public places.

As the Mayor of the North East CDC, and also on behalf of other Mayors, I would say that these are the cases that we probably have to deal with or engage with on a daily basis. The point to clarify is that the Government is not out there to put fines on these individuals. The policy as regards hawking is to make sure that there are no unlicensed hawkers out there and to make sure that the public places are orderly and not chaotic.

But for individuals, like the old lady selling tissue papers, we have seen such cases and for some of them, they have their personal options and they made a choice. But I do agree that for others, they may need help. And I am always very delighted, or I would say heartened, that people can send us messages to highlight certain individuals − old lady or old man − who are hawking around with tissue papers. How do we approach it? We do not give them a fine. We send officers down to talk to them, and see what they need. In fact, just last week, I received another message through Facebook that highlighted that there was this lady selling tissue papers and needed help. Immediately, we sent our officers there, talk to the lady and see what she needs. And it turned out that she needed some financial assistance and so, we helped her.

So, it is with that compassionate approach that we deal with the issue. If not, organisations like CDC would not have been set up. We are really set up to build this safety net for every individual that needs help.

I think Mr Gerald Giam raised some daily issues – healthcare, transport, housing. While there could be planning and forecasting in the past, but who can predict the right number between demand and supply so accurately? And it is always a challenge to always find the optimal balance. And as the Member Mr Lee Yi Shyan has also mentioned, there are a lot of trade-offs. But, nevertheless, with the issues that we face today, there are a lot of different policy announcements that have come out after the 2011 General Elections. Most notably, one of those that really interests me is healthcare. That is because in my own constituency, I do have a polyclinic and I do understand it is crowded. But I think the Ministry of Health has also made certain announcements. There were three major ones: community health centre which actually deals with partnering the community to provide health screening efforts, Primary Care Partnership Schemes, family medicine clinics. I think all these are policies and measures to help bring healthcare nearer to the community to ensure that they do not crowd into a centralised area. Personally for me, within my constituency and district, we have the intent to set up community health screening centres to help our constituency out there. So, these are policies put in place to help the situation. It is not that the Government has done nothing about it. There are things being done right now. I would suggest that we be patient, and I agree with the Member, Mr Gerald Giam, that we have to be constructive and, hopefully, with all these robust debates we can come up with a good solution for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me come back to what I had wanted to speak on. I believe the President's Address touches on inclusiveness and realising dreams for ourselves, our family and our country. It was also especially inspiring when the President set the direction for Singapore to be a place where "we dare to dream, because dreams can come true". The President's Address really is quite similar to the story of Singapore and the journey ahead for Singapore itself. And this journey ahead for Singapore is really quite close to what I want to speak about today because this journey has more similarities than differences for entrepreneurship and businesses in Singapore. And these words cannot be more true and encouraging for anyone taking that leap of faith into business through unchartered waters as an entrepreneur. As encouraging as it may sound, there is much to be done for local businesses and tackling head-on the difficult task of changing mindsets and culture on entrepreneurship. So, today, my speech will revolve around realising the dreams in a risk-adverse culture through the journey of an entrepreneur.

Singapore started as an entrepot for entrepreneurs. So, you see skyscrapers, large buildings, big companies. These are businesses started years before Singapore€˜s Independence and, in recent years, we have also done much to develop the entrepreneurial spirit. And I think I should give the credit to some of the individuals here, the office-holders, like the founding chairman of ACE (Action Community for Entreprenuers), Mr Raymond Lim; Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Lee Yi Shyan. We all know more can be done even with their efforts. In many ways, this is a mountain we are trying to surmount although we have made a good start and are steadily progressing.

I would like to stress that as in any climb, we cannot let up. We must keep up the momentum and, in fact, the incline could get steeper as we climb higher. This is like the story of Singapore. We are always climbing and it does get harder. But if our foundations are strong, it can overcome challenges and carry us to the destination. If we want to make it to the summit, we must continue to tackle issues, and some very fundamental and basic issues. One of which I have identified is the risk-adverse culture that resides in Singapore.

I have lived and worked overseas for a few years – China, Hong Kong. When I came back, the comfort level of Singapore made me rather uncomfortable in the areas of entrepreneurship or business. Because, sometimes, I wonder if we can give up just testing the waters and just take the risk ourselves. Sometimes, I do wonder as well − has the comfort of Singapore made it less than conducive for taking risks, and even less so to set up a business?

Over the past decade, the Government has committed a lot of resources to fostering an environment that encourages and nurtures entrepreneurship. The result? There are some changes from 10 years ago. And the change which is most obvious is probably the number of young people who now desire more to become entrepreneurs and more are also expanding their choices in this area. But even then, I would like to point out that having the desire and actually doing it, stepping forward, are entirely two different things. They can be dreamers but we will still fail if they are not doers. So we need to make sure that we can inspire them to make that leap of faith as well as encouraging a broader base of entrepreneurs, regardless of age. The fact remains that the number of actual entrepreneurs is still much smaller than what we hoped for. I believe there is still a gap that we should try to close and maybe we can do more.

If I may clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many reasons for this. But I would like to focus on two key points in my speech today, on how we can chart our route forward. First, we need to take a fresh new look at our current approach while taking into this recent backdrop of new expectations from a changing electorate; and, second, Singaporeans need to reflect about coming forward and taking the best of what has been created for them.

Since the 2009 financial crisis, socio-economic changes have drastically changed the way companies conduct their business. Take employment practices, for example, many now prefer to hire on contract and short-term basis. Even in the area of entrepreneurship, a growing trend is social and green entrepreneurship which was unheard of 10 years ago, has now become something of a buzz and in-thing. We need to be mindful that such socio-economic changes are taking place, and we should also reconsider our current practices and focus. Entrepreneurship itself is not age biased. In fact, increasingly we read media reports about Singaporeans leaving corporate jobs to strike out on their own. Neither are entrepreneurs one hit wonders and many may fold and come back, rising again. There is great potential in tapping this wisdom of this growing segment of Singaporeans who are now seeking, possibly, a second career in their lives and for those who were burnt during the crisis, it may be a second chance for them to start up again.

A rising segment of Singaporeans are becoming entrepreneurs also later in their age; some maybe late bloomers, some in their late 30s, 40s or even older. And we hear famous stories like McDonalds' founder, Ray Kroc, started McDonalds in his 50s. So some may be trying to rise from a business failure and decided to start up a new business to ride the upturn, say, post-2009 after the crisis. Our present entrepreneur environment may have covered a lot of the key bases but there are many who still fall through the cracks. I believe the systems still need some tweaking and refinement.

Let me share a story that illustrates my point. Just recently, I got to know this two-man web design company that has been in operation for six years. Business was not that great but they made enough for the two to get by. It helped that they have some good clients, notable list of clients – some Government-linked and some MNCs. What happened was one of the business owners decided to have a second child and the revenue he was earning from his set-up was no longer sufficient. Times were bad and the family struggled to make ends meet. And the business owner could no longer get any access to loans because his company was, in a way, a sole-proprietorship. He could not get grants either because in order to make any claim under the scheme, they have to spend first and then get reimbursed later. That is tough on the cash-flow. As his business was not a new invention, he could not get any start-up funds nor were any VCs interested. The point is that he did not want to give up his dreams of being a business owner. But he had to. And the funny thing was that he was also not allowed to renew his sole-proprietor licence because he could not top-up his Medisave. Neither his client list nor track record helped.

But just to clarify that for start-up grants, they cannot be seen as a welfare fund. That is an important point for entrepreneurs or aspiring ones to note. Grants should not be the top priority to decide if they will start a business. As long as their business can be differentiated from their competitors and to be able to differentiate themselves within the industry, there is a possibility that it can be supported, and should be supported.

Now, I know that this would not have been the first hard luck story my fellow colleagues in this House would have heard of. Many of you may have heard of other similar stories. The point I would like to make is that the social stigma of a business failure in Singapore can sometimes be as bad as that of a HIV carrier's or an ex-convict's. So, more can and should be done to change these societal attitudes and reverse this risk-averse culture. But it is going to take time.

This attitudinal change should also start with some of our Government agencies. Someone recently related to me the story of a start-up trying to secure a major project in a developing country. The company went to one of our Government agencies for advice, but only to be frowned upon and asked to answer why an "unheard of" company like them was trying to secure such a large project. The company, incidentally, was a newbie in the new eco-business with in-house R&D specialists and employees with the right experience. But it was just that it was a start-up, so with very little track record. Needless to say, nothing came out of that conversation.

But then there are good agencies. And for this same company, another Government agency took a completely different approach, and introduced them to other relevant Government agencies and let them showcase their credentials. This, in turn, led the company to the right contacts. And in just a few months, the company managed to secure a test pilot project technology here and overseas too. Currently, the company still does not qualify for any R&D grants because it is still too new. And the fact is that we want to bet on companies that have a clear track record, and it will always be difficult. So we have to broaden the outreach to identify companies and not just bet on winners because in business there is no sure winner anyway.

This episode highlights the importance of a two-way relationship, the trust and the confidence between private and public sectors. We can do more than just infrastructure and funding support. Similarly, the private sector must also be ready to step forward and work with the Government. It is all about a change of mindset on both sides towards supporting each other. It cannot be more true between the Government and the people itself. As the President has said in his Address, "The Government will reach out to all Singaporeans to help them get good jobs, own their homes, and see their children gain confidence and blossom. But the Government cannot, and should not, try to do everything by itself. Singaporeans play an equally important role."

Yes, the Government will reach out to all Singaporeans and do its part. We must constantly review feedback and work hand-in-hand with the private sector to improve the administration of funding, grants and loans to SMEs or even early business start-ups. We did not over-engineer and we may not need huge stacks of forms for the application. In fact, this complexity of grant application has also created a new consultancy industry. So, that helps create jobs.

So, we have done and will continue to do more to inspire this entrepreneurship culture in Singapore. But we need to also give due consideration to a growing segment of Singaporeans who do want to make an entrepreneurial switch later in their lives and supporting changes in attitudes to help entrepreneurs to make that "come back". And I know there is no lack of ideas out there, young or old, those in career − we just need to inspire and encourage them to take that step forward as long as they can show that their business can differentiate, not just innovate, but can differentiate their business, I think they deserve support.

More proactive steps need to be taken by both parties − the Government and the private sector. And this will involve taking new risks to narrow the gap, but a meeting of minds will certainly help to close ranks and ensure we reach that summit. Now, when we do that, it is up to you to take that step forward, take that leap of faith, to build the dream for yourselves, your family and for this country. With that, I support the Motion.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.38 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a point of clarification from Mr Teo Ser Luck in regard to the selling of tissue papers. This is a real case involving a Potong Pasir resident. He was given two summonses, I think last year, for illegal hawking. He was a wheelchair-bound resident and he was given two summonses, with fines ranging from $550 to $700, and I personally saw the fines. I did try to help him to settle the case, but I do not know what happened after that. So, I just like to point out to him that I have seen it personally myself. As regards Mdm Halimah Yacob's point about subsidies, I would like to make a clarification that those subsidies that she mentioned were from Government funding. What I would like to see is more Government funding in this respect.

Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to a point of clarification from Mr Teo Ser Luck. He asked who can predict the right number, the right figure between supply and demand in the area of transport, healthcare and housing capacity. Did the MOM and ICA not know we were letting in this huge influx of foreigners? Did they inform MOH, MOT and MND? And was the left hand not talking to the right hand, or was it because the imperative of economic growth took precedence over the welfare and the comfort of our people?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join fellow MPs in thanking the President for setting out the directions of this Government in the coming years. Since Independence, three fundamentals have underpinned our survival and success − a disciplined and cohesive society that is able to move ahead together; pragmatic policies to grow our economy for us to be able to share the fruits of our labour with all sectors of society; and steady investments in ensuring a safe and secure environment. These same fundamentals will continue to underpin our future. However, new forces have emerged or evolved to impact our social cohesion. We must take proactive steps to address these challenges.

I will touch on three challenges to our social cohesion – possible socio-economic divide; socio-stratification or immobility; and greater diversity, including differences in aspirations and expectations.

Every rapidly developing society has to deal with widening social inequity. Every society, over time, may stratify and risk losing its social mobility. In each society, some will make it through their own efforts and some will not, no matter how hard they try. The majority will benefit from a system that allows them to maximise their potential for success. By and large, we have done well. Our system enables the majority of our people to succeed through their own efforts. For those who are unable to keep up, despite their best efforts, our society must find a way to bring them along. These include those with disabilities, the chronically-ill, vulnerable seniors with no family support, families who need guiding hands beyond financial help, children without positive home environments and other examples.

Our society must work together to prevent a permanent underclass from emerging, be it social or economic. Even if the current generation cannot do as well, we must endeavour to help their next generation do better. Social mobility provides hope. Hope and shared vision underpins social cohesion. A country divided will collapse even without external challenges.

To better manage social inequities and improve social mobility, MCYS is committed to doing more and doing better in the following areas:

First, to not only help the "in-risk" groups but also to carefully watch the "at-risk" groups to prevent them from joining the in-risk groups. Prevention is better than cure. This is also the reason why we enhanced accessibility to pre-school among low-income families, fund programmes for at-risk youth and promote active ageing amongst seniors.

Second, to continue improving our social support and service delivery model in a more holistic and client-centric manner. We will always put the person needing help rather than our schemes at the centre of our focus. We are also prepared to exercise greater flexibility at the margins and at the local levels and extend more support, where needed. This is so that those who genuinely need help do not fall through the cracks. Members of Parliament, the media and members of public have at times highlighted to us individuals who may have fallen through the cracks. We welcome the partnership to work with like-minded people and organisations to reach out to them.

Every case highlighted can point us in the direction where we can possibly do more or better. Every individual or family whose life we can touch is one small step towards a more inclusive and cohesive society. Yet in every effort to help, there is also a delicate balance between preserving individual motivation and extending assistance and between family responsibility, community outreach and Government support to ensure the best outcome possible. In my encounters with many needy, I am proud that many of them have told me that they are not asking for handouts but that they would like us to help them stand tall and proud on their own two feet again.

Third, we will work towards better integration, integration across different help agencies within the public, private and people sectors, integration of our efforts to reach out to at-risk groups across the time dimension with greater emphasis on upstream measures. Let me elaborate on what I mean by the above. An example of integration across agencies working closely includes working closely with MOH as well as VWOs and private sector providers to provide a better continuum of care options for the elderly from home care to community care and institutional care. Examples of integration across time dimension include working closely with MOF and MOE to invest more in preventive measures. These include helping children from at-risk families to stay the course in schools, enhancing intervention programmes for children with special needs and ensuring that low-income families have access to affordable and quality pre-school.

In response to Mr Ang Wei Neng:

(In Mandarin): We do not have to worry about the gap between the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS). This is because the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports have chosen the right path to ensure that everybody will be taken care of.

(In English): Examples of integration of the public, private and people sector efforts include encouraging individuals and corporations who have done well to play a part to help those who have not done as well. Each of us is able to be where we are not entirely through our own efforts. We are able to come this far because of the opportunities afforded to us by society. It is thus incumbent upon the more successful to help the less successful. To paraphrase Spiderman, "to those with great accomplishments come great responsibilities". Our forefathers understood this well. We must bring forth the next generation of Tan Kah Kee, Alsagoff and Govindasamy Pillai.

To cite a personal example. I have benefited from various Government scholarships and bursaries. But I have also benefited from the help of the community and individuals like the Tung On Wui Jun, Kwong Wai Shiu Peck San Teng, and the Old Rafflesian Association. As you can see, I was someone from the at-risk group, but was supported by helping hands from the public, private and people sectors which I am eternally grateful for. We must grow this partnership for the benefit of many more who may need help. We must continue to pay it forward.

Giving need not only be in financial means. Giving can also be extending a hand to those who need help. Through volunteering and community participation, we also strengthen our community safety net, and extend care and compassion to our fellow Singaporeans.

Our effort to care for the less fortunate is not just about doing more. Of course, we appreciate any additional resources from Government, charitable private organisations and philanthropic individuals. But it is also about doing better with the resources that we have. To this end, my Ministry will strengthen the social service sector to bring out its potential and to build the caring community.

At the individual level, we want to help each player in the sector to be stronger. Some may grow in size; others may remain small but have the ability to fill a niche or specialisation. Collectively, as a sector, we hope to develop enough capacity to meet increased demand, capability to meet complex needs and dynamism to innovate in response to changing needs. There is no magic formula to this. Different things have to be done in concert.

First, we must invest more in the care and professional development of our social service professionals. I am particularly touched by their passion. As they play the critical frontline role in our social service delivery model, the least that we can do is to provide a better route of advancement for them. Indeed, my colleague, Dr Maliki, had alluded to this yesterday when he highlighted the importance of providing support to help social workers to do their part well. This is also a means for us to attract more much-needed talent. We also nurture stronger administrative and professional leadership in the sector to drive change and innovation. We should also promote good HR practices − so crucial to attracting and retaining talent, and getting the best out of them.

Second, we will work with VWOs to improve their management capability and to facilitate social innovation. We want to see more experimentation in this sector. It is only with constant experimentation that we can achieve more service innovation and productivity enhancement in the sector. There is scope to learn from other societies, such as Japan's technological applications in eldercare, as mentioned by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin yesterday. We will also work with those who have the capacity to scale up their operations and others to specialise in niche areas of needs.

Third, we will examine new models of service delivery, encouraging pooling of resources for higher efficiency and impact, and help redesign jobs to improve productivity. I have asked my MCYS colleagues to examine how we can widen the coverage of the VWO Capability Development Fund to also encourage and support this.

Enhancing the social service sector will require resources. We will systematically review where else we need to provide more resources and better support essential social services. Over the last month, I had announced increased funding for community-based eldercare services as well as new initiatives for childcare professionals working with younger children. We have started reviewing the funding norms for social services as well as our investment in the VWO Capability Development Fund. We hope to complete these by early next year.

Not only do we aim to improve social services, we also aim to provide better care for the family and informal caregivers. When caregivers are well cared for and supported, our people who need help will also be well cared for. The converse is equally true.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the choices we make as a society will affect future generations of Singaporeans. As a rapidly ageing society, we bear responsibility to plan for our old age and care for our parents and grandparents. To take the easy way out is to transfer the burden to future generations. This will jeopardise the future of Singapore.

Let me now touch on the third challenge to our social cohesion – greater diversity. We are familiar with the traditional forms of diversity − in race, language and religion. In recent years, as we welcome more foreigners and immigrants, we will have to manage the associated opportunities and challenges. When well integrated, "new immigrants and their children" will join "old immigrants and our children" to play a constructive partnership for our country. We cannot take for granted that integration will happen naturally. We have to work on it − all of us.

There are, however, also other emerging forms of diversity. As technology opens up more opportunities for people to access information and entertainment, we will have greater diversity in our perspectives, values system and aspirations. The ease of access and connection means that people can form new groupings and find alternative identities. These new groupings and identities may no longer be geographically bounded. This is both a challenge and an opportunity − opportunity to grow our network and be a node in the global network; challenge to maintain our identity as a people and as a nation.

Taking a leaf from nature, we know that diversity can strengthen our resilience as a nation. Diversity need not mean wider division within our society. We should strive for, and we can achieve, "unity in diversity". To this end, how we engage our people, young and old; how we share the challenges of governance; how we imbue ourselves with our shared values, will determine if diversity in perspectives will lead to a stronger or weaker society. MCYS will work closely with all stakeholders in our society to ensure that as we become more diverse in the sea of change, we do not lose our shared and common values that serve as our anchor.

Beyond academic pursuits, it is equally important for us to share with and imbue in the next generation the very fundamentals that make Singapore possible and survive the odds of history against small states without much natural resources. Sports has an important role in this. We will use sports as a strategy to develop our people to be future-ready for tomorrow's challenges, to bond our increasingly diverse communities, and to ignite our passion and pride for our nation. A few months back, I convened a committee from different walks of lives − called Vision2030 − and together with all our sporting partners, to chart the future of sports as a strategy for our nation. They will present their recommendations in due course.

Our youth also play a critical role. They will shape and steer the future for this country. We will support and empower our youth to define and take charge of their ideas and aspirations for themselves, for our community and for our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I started off highlighting how our disciplined and cohesive society has helped secure our survival and success thus far. I have also shared the challenges ahead, our thinking and actions to address these. Just as we have invested much resources and talent in our security, defence and economic development, we will similarly need to invest in our social cohesion. Social cohesion comes from shared responsibility and shared vision. The mark of a great society is not just how well we do economically, but also how well we care for our weak and less fortunate. Shared vision requires engaged citizenry. Engaged citizenry requires shared understanding of our fundamentals, constraints and options. But most of all, we require passion − passion to build a better future for our families and children. We may never be perfect, but we must all endeavour to leave behind something less imperfect for our future generations to have the option and desire to want to be called Singaporeans.

While we face tough choices and difficult trade-offs ahead, I am confident that as long as we stay cohesive, we will remain resilient and we will continue to be exceptional. We will overcome the challenges and share a common destiny and continue to beat the odds of history.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, Mdm Halimah Yacob, has shared on our plans to help the needy. Mr Sam Tan will share more about our plans to help the elderly and the disabled. With that, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion and thank the President for his Address. The opening of the Twelfth Parliament portends new aspirations and challenges for Singapore as it enters her next phase of development. That part of Mr Gerald Giam's speech, I agree with. Mr Gerald Giam says he agrees with the Government's bold measures laid out in the President's Address. So, he agrees they are "bold". In other words, measures of conviction, and then adds, "The Workers' Party will hold the Government accountable to achieve these measures." I am afraid that displays a misunderstanding of the process. The Government is not accountable to the Workers' Party. The Government is accountable to the people of Singapore. I, as an elected Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, am accountable to all my Singaporean residents. Therefore, it is the people of Singapore to whom we are and must remain accountable as a government.

Mr Giam then talks about housing and transport, and I would like to ask him not to "throw the baby out with the bath water". Housing in Singapore − 80% of the people are housed in public housing – good quality flats, good neighbourhoods. And a large amount of Singaporeans − about 80% or more − own their own homes. Our housing is the envy of many First World countries. Therefore, to suggest we have failed in housing, I think that is unfair. Finetune housing, yes, I think we can agree. Everybody in this House can agree. Finetuning housing, as Mr Gerald Giam, I think, intends to do, is a tacit concession that the PAP foundations in housing are correct. Finetuning is always an admission that the foundations, to start with, were good, long-lasting and should be preserved. So finetuning, together with Mr Giam, we can do.

Similarly with transport, I ask Mr Giam not to "throw the baby out with the bath water". In major cities proximate to Singapore, like Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, gridlock is the characteristic when you are on public roads; in Singapore, less so. So what Mr Giam is subconsciously doing is finetuning PAP policies, which is a tacit concession, that the foundations are correct.

We have scaled much altitude with this Government. The Member wants to work together to scale new apexes. I can agree with that. I think everybody in this House can agree with that. But we should not chide the foundations upon which we were built.

With that, Sir, the debates which surfaced in the recent General and Presidential elections reflect a maturing electorate whose concerns span beyond typical bread-and-butter issues. Nevertheless, very practical concerns remain foremost on the minds of Singaporeans from all walks of life. The Government must address and tackle these issues in a comprehensive and calibrated manner so as to ensure that all Singaporeans are taken care of and no one is left behind.

One of the most pressing issues today is that of Singapore's growing population. Our total population hit 5.18 million as at the end of June, which is an increase of 107,000 compared to last year. According to the Department of Statistics, the total population grew by 2.1%, with the number of Singaporeans growing by 0.8%. The number of non-resident foreigners, on the other hand, grew by 6.9%.

These figures add concrete weight to the fears expressed by many Singaporeans over the adequacy of the nation's infrastructure to absorb such rapidly increasing numbers. The population issue has been linked to overcrowding on public buses and trains, soaring home prices, as well as intensified competition for jobs. Some of these ground sentiments have over time culminated in feelings of frustration.

While Singaporeans and I, too, acknowledge the vital need to keep our economy open and competitive in today's increasingly globalised and interdependent world, the Government must also do its part to formulate policies that benefit Singaporeans. It must ensure that our public infrastructures − such as transport, housing and hospitals − are able to continue to provide for Singaporeans from all classes of society. This includes reviewing employment statistics of the relevant industries to ensure that Singaporeans are not under-represented, as well as monitoring current healthcare costs to ensure they remain affordable, especially for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those in the lower-middle income class.

It is heartening to note the call to tread a balanced path in Singapore's manpower policies in the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry of Manpower's Addendum to the President's Address. While recognising that it is important for our economy to remain welcoming to both businesses and talents from abroad for the creation and sustenance of good jobs, the Ministry has assured Singaporeans that it will seek to keep the overall share of foreigners in the workforce at no higher than one-third over the long term.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having discussed manpower ratio, foreigners and public infrastructure, I would like to move on to the subject of immigration inflow. Since 2009, the Government has tightened the immigration policy to better manage the inflow and qualifications the new immigrants bring. For example, it granted only 29,625 Permanent Resident (PR) passes last year, which is fewer than half of about 60,000 passes given out the year before. This is the lowest PR intake at least for the last five years. The Government has also pledged to raise levies for foreign workers and tighten the foreign labour flow. The tangible effect of these tightening measures is reflected in the sharp drop of the number of non-residents entering Singapore, from about 130,000 in 2007 to just 51,300 last year, even when the economy recovered and grew at 14.5%.

While these measures mark a step in the right direction, many Singaporeans, among whom are my residents, have questioned whether our existing infrastructural support is adequate to handle even the present increase in numbers. In the area of transport, common concerns have to do with fare hikes, waiting times, as well as congestion and overcrowding on buses and trains. Current measures by the Government to improve the public transport infrastructure are significant and very welcomed. Some of these include expanding the bus bays, providing accurate timetables for buses and extending the MRT network. The recently opened Circle Line, which opened two stations within my ward − thank you very much, Mr Lui − for example, has significantly increased network connectivity to the benefit of commuters, businesses and residents.

Nevertheless, much more needs to be done to expand the capacity, reliability and frequency of public transport. Some 590,000 people commute by train daily, and complaints about overcrowding and long waits crop up regularly. In response to increased demand, the two train operators have rolled out a further 590 trips per week or a 5% increase since March. However, the benefit of these extra trips to commuters is questionable given that more than 400 of them are outside peak hours. What more can be done to help those travelling in peak hours? Expanding the current infrastructure will take time, and the Government could also explore creative options to provide more immediate relief, such as off-peak fare discounts to spread out demand during peak hours. In line with Singapore's aspirations to become a more inclusive society, past suggestions for transport operators to offer concessionary fares to disabled commuters should be revisited.

Sir, the issue of housing is also a contentious one among Singaporeans. Demand for homes remains high, given reports which indicated that population growth has outpaced the increase in housing stock over the past 10 years. This resulted in a housing stock shortfall of about 87,000 homes last year. Besides building infrastructure in the designated new towns, the Government's move to ramp up supply in older estates is a step in the right direction. The latter allows homes to take full advantage of the excellent amenities in mature towns.

In addition to supply side measures which will take time to filter down, demand management initiatives are also crucial in achieving stable and sustainable home prices for the populace. Although cooling measures have been introduced, rising home prices, particularly experienced by people in my generation – 35 years and younger − remain a major concern among first-time buyers. Figures show that HDB flat prices are the fastest rising across the board. According to preliminary estimates, the Housing Board Resale Price Index in the second quarter rose by 2.9% in contrast to private homes, which increased at a slower pace of 1.9%. These figures are telling as they suggest that newly-built flats may still not be affordable to younger start-up families and the working-class families.

Recent income ceiling revisions for those applying for BTO flats and executive condominiums, as well as the Government's timely intervention in the recent DBSS debacle, signify that it is indeed responsive to the needs of a wide spectrum of Singaporeans. However, more still can be done to help out target groups, such as young couples, divorcees with children and low-income families.

Another aspect to resolving the housing affordability issue requires that policies be put in place to deal with excessive property speculation. While the Government has implemented cooling measures to curb speculation in the property market and concurrently ramped up the supply of public flats, these appear to affect only Singaporeans. Prices, fuelled by foreign demand, continue to spike where private properties are concerned. Figures show that private home prices moved up close to 18%, or 17.6% to be exact, last year after rising just 1.6% the year before. Flash estimates from the Urban Redevelopment Authority may point to a softening market, but it is significant that private home prices are still 15.8% over the 2008 peak.

Although the Government has tightened restrictions on ownership of property, this and other cooling measures have not been tough enough to cool what some term as foreign speculative interest in our domestic property market. We must also aim to help our Singaporean prospective home buyers eyeing their first private property and those seeking to upgrade from HDB flats. Many countries, including land-rich Australia, have measures to limit foreign ownership of properties or at least speculative interest in property. More of such measures should be implemented or considered to be implemented, as this would place coveted ownership of private property within the reach of more Singaporeans. This is especially pertinent given that home ownership is an emotional issue for most Singaporeans. In short, while we must continue to be an open economy, we cannot allow speculative foreign ownership in private property to drive prices to a level beyond which our own genuine Singaporean home buyers can afford. It is imperative that we keep property prices affordable for our Singaporeans.

The Government has also pledged to expand healthcare facilities and manpower to keep up with the local demand for medical services. Capacity challenges cannot simply be met by building more hospitals as this is not feasible in the long term. In addressing the issue, the Government should go beyond the qualitative to a more quantitative approach, which could involve the exploration of private-public partnerships. The Eastern Regional Health System is an example of a health cluster with such links to public and private healthcare providers.

Rising healthcare costs are a pressing concern, especially for retirees and middle-income families with elderly parents and sick children to care for. A review of the existing funding framework and various financial assistance schemes is timely. While the Government has pledged to increase subsidies and extend more financial aid to the low-income and elderly poor, it must be mindful of the importance of primary and palliative care in light of Singapore's ageing population.

Indeed, while being a global city is a prerequisite to our nation's survival, Singaporeans must also feel that this is a home in which they belong. It is imperative that the Government focus on acceptance and respect as the key social cohesion amongst the various communities. Integration may well pose a challenge with the influx of immigrants and new citizens, and the Government should look to see how bonds can be forged through community-building initiatives.

My last point is that whilst we move to a diverse politics, politics must not lose its decorum. It is the hope of many Singaporeans and many residents I represent that a more diverse and open politics does not fuel divisiveness in society. Political discourse and public debate must be carried out in an honourable fashion. A case in point would be the reported jeering of Dr Tony Tan by a group aligned to Mr Tan Jee Say at the Nomination Centre in the recent presidential elections. While Mr Tan Jee Say expressed that it was not "correct" of his supporters to do so and that he would address the issue with them, he also added quickly that he could not control the crowd as it was made up of mixed groups of supporters. All Singaporeans I spoke with about this felt very disappointed about the behaviour of those who jeered.

A conducive environment is a prerequisite for effective public debate, and this cannot be achieved when participants are rude. The need for restraint is all the more pertinent in the context of our evolving political scene, where more voices clamour to be heard and more people contend to represent diverse groups and interests. The prerogatives of political participation, whether as supporters or as candidates standing for election, are not to be taken for granted and must accordingly be tempered by an appropriate sense of decorum and responsibility. Conduct that runs contrary to such standards should not be tolerated but kept in check. Only then can Singapore progress and mature politically as a nation. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify some points that Mr Christopher de Souza made. Mr de Souza said that the Government is not accountable to MPs. Parliament's role is to keep the Executive Government −

That is not what I said, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Mr Christopher de Souza said that the Government is not accountable to the Workers' Party MPs. Mr Speaker, Parliament's role is to keep the Executive Government −

Mr Speaker, that is not what I said.

Mr Giam, I think the point was he said that the Government is not accountable to the Workers' Party.

But Parliament's role is to keep the Executive Government accountable under the adoption of separation of powers. Sir, I would like to ask Mr de Souza, does he accept this constitutional principle? Secondly, he pointed out that I was throwing the baby out of the bath water. I did not say that the PAP had got everything wrong or that we had failed in housing. He had put those words in my mouth. What I did say is that there are many things that need to be corrected in housing, transport and healthcare. Some of them may be finetuning; some of them may amount to rather large overhauls of the system. And it does not mean that because we are overhauling the system, it means that we are throwing the baby out of the bath water.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that the government of the day is not accountable to MPs. I did not say that the government of the day is not accountable to the Workers' Party MPs. The government of the day is not accountable to the People's Action Party. In the same vein, the government of the day is accountable to the people of Singapore and, therefore, that is a cornerstone, a hallmark of our democratic process. On his point about throwing the baby out with the bath water: it is not throwing out the baby out of the bath water. There were tacit remarks about how the PAP Government had failed the people, especially in the last few years where housing is concerned, because the supply of housing had not met with the demand which the Member attributes to the high number of foreigners and the left hand not talking to the right hand – MOT not talking to MOM, MOM not talking to ICA, and so on. While we can agree that these policies need finetuning, what I cannot agree with the Member is that the foundations of the policy are incorrect because however you skin the cat, however you look at it, 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing and 80% of Singaporeans own their own homes. So, I beg to differ. I think I was correct to say that we should be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, given the sturdy foundations.

Mr Speaker, unless I read my text wrongly, I said that these are bold goals which my colleagues and I in the Workers' Party will hold the Government accountable over the next five years. By that, I mean my colleagues and I in the Workers' Party in Parliament. So I did mean the Workers' Party MPs. Secondly, I thank him for correcting my English. I must have been nervous when I spoke about the "bath water". I did mean throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Gentlemen, I think the point has been made. Mr Low, unless you have another point of clarification.

Mr Speaker, the Member said that the Government is not accountable to the PAP. I do not know whether I heard him wrongly. If I did not, then perhaps he may want to explain who goes into election – the Government or the PAP?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to clarify. When we take our oath, when we affirm or we swear, our duties and responsibilities focus on the people of Singapore. That relationship between the people of Singapore and an elected Member of Parliament is proximate [Interruptions] −

Mr Low, let the Member finish.

The responsibility between an elected Member of Parliament and the people whom he represents, that is the nexus, that is the relationship, and that relationship bridges the accountability mechanism, and that is something that I think cannot be diluted. Does Mr Low disagree with that?

Gentlemen, I think the point has been made. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Mr Speaker, Singapore has witnessed a period of high growth in the last two decades. The per capita GDP has increased and has given us a strong position in the league of First World nations. In response to healthcare in our city of Singapore, as a practitioner for the last 21 years practising medicine full time and having visited and worked in places such as the USA, United Kingdom, Scotland, and being an international consultant to India, and also having visited many Third World nations' healthcare systems, I have to say the following: we have a good healthcare system in place. We have strong fundamentals and we have a strong brand name. Of course, we continue to do this, but we do not always have things right but we will have to review, we will have to enhance, we will have to finetune. This is exactly what all systems in the world do. Many First World nations, many First World healthcare institutions, are grappling with the same problems that we face today. So it is not unique, it is not new. It is something that we have to be very dynamic and mobile about and make all the necessary changes, as we move on into the future.

However, we still have a very low doctor-to-patient ratio. We have a 1.7 per 1,000 patient compared to a range of 2.14 to 4.49 per 1,000 in North America and Europe. It is estimated that we need another 2,000 doctors by 2015. To ameliorate this problem, we have alternatives which include more medical schools to train doctors, recruiting more foreign trained doctors and also a few other possibilities which have been discussed by Ministry of Health. However, we need to get our sums right in doing this.

Fifty-five percent of the registered doctors serve in the public sector, which provides the bulk of healthcare, which is about 80%; whilst 45% are in the private sector, providing about 20% of care. This would mean that the real or actual doctor-to-patient ratio is much lower than the national ratio quoted. This is also why we have some very long waiting times, eg, the Specialist Clinic's waiting time for some disciplines can be up to 25 to 30 weeks. So we need to act on that.

I would like to touch a little bit on the public-private partnership (PPP) that has been spoken about a lot of late. PPP means that the Government allows the utilisation of private care, within some agreed framework with the private healthcare system.

Public sector healthcare is characterised by central planning, global budgeting and some free provisions. In the private sector, we talk of devolved budgeting, user fees, reimbursement mechanisms and contracting, and contracting refers to formalised market exchanges of services. In Europe, for example, there is the model of "managed markets", where clinical services are subjected to this process.

But will this work for Singapore? Block contracting will enable the continuation of a global budgeting system in the form of a contract. A total amount to be paid is specified and the private institution is to deal with the demands of the service in question. We have to be cautious not to overload the private sector as well.

There are advantages in at least part retention of the public financing as it will allow determination of the level and amount to remain in the public domain. Resource allocation decision can also remain in the public domain. But a balance must be struck between the determination of resource allocation according to the professionally-based needs assessment. That is to be done. Basically, it boils down to two things: financing and delivery of care for Singaporeans.

The ratio of Medisave to MediShield to private insurance as well as out-of-pocket payments has to be decided if we embark on this. There will be a need for extension of the one-patient-one-medical record and electronic medical record system to be used and shared with the private sector as well. Decisions such as which elective procedures and which DRGs to be allowed must also be made. Will we be ready to relax the private hospitals' emergency departments to receive patients conveyed by SCDF's ambulances which they do not receive now? Now, world-wide systems that have PPP have shown a higher level of support by stakeholders, more innovative designs, faster time to healthcare services, better accessibility and sustainability as well. So, therefore, we have to get our sums right and see what is the best way shown for Singapore.

Now, on healthcare financing, I think it needs a bit of restructuring with the onslaught of demographic changes that is before us. There is a need to liberalise our "3Ms" system which has been around for quite many years now. I welcome the upgrade from Medisave 300 to 400 but feel we can still go to Medisave 500 in view of the push towards more ambulatory management of chronic diseases, our very rapidly ageing populace and the increase in the average salaries of Singaporeans. This will definitely help reduce the out-of-pocket payments.

I would also like to appeal to MOH to allow the use of MediShield for treatment related to congenital diseases. The costs for such treatment can be high and often multiple treatment and procedures are required. Moreover, now that we have MediShield for youth and newborn, it is only appropriate that we liberalise this as well. Also, for our MediShield fund, as we build up, can MOH consider increasing the coverage, eventually making it a comprehensive package?

Other plans for a more comprehensive insurance coverage after retirement, besides Eldercare and ElderShield, as this is a period where people need the most cover and yet it is the most difficult to get. Moreover, currently, many elderly have to tap on their children's accounts and this creates a greater demand on their children's Medisave. Consider the scenario where the child's Medisave account holder is 60 years of age and the elderly parent 85 years of age, this is going to become more and more prominent as we move on and our life span gets longer with our ageing population.

And one more area that needs some reviewing, Mr Speaker, is the financing and payment involved with the utilisation of PCPS and CDMP. Both are very good schemes. But can MOH come up with an easy to understand and comprehensive package incorporating the two? Many are still unclear how to go about combining both, including the GPs.

There has been a bit of debate on happiness and, as someone who has visited Bhutan, I have to give my piece as well. Gross National Happiness index cannot be literally and bluntly taken for what it is. Happiness can indeed be very personal and subjective. It is very much tied to expectations, character and personality. It also very much depends on one's taste which is acquired from one's environment and social context. Social scientists have found that happiness is affected by both material and non-material factors. There are seven factors which have been shown to have strong correlation to happiness: (1) income; (2) work and employment; (3) private and family life; (4) your community; (5) healthcare; (6) freedom; and finally, having a philosophy and meaning in life. I think these are important factors but we are already doing some of these things and we are going to continue to do it. It represents indirect measures and as evidenced by the social scientists' studies, it certainly contributes towards overall happiness. Therefore, Sir, this goes to show we are already mainstreaming initiatives which contribute towards happiness and must continue to do so, and they may not be directly happiness-generating policies. But then what makes me happy may not make you happy and we will never be able to satisfy everyone and make everybody happy all the time.

With reference to the MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Muhamad Faisal, who claimed, and I quote, "that fault lines were created in this House". I beg to differ, Sir. We are all here to debate and discuss on exactly how to make life better, help the low-income and needy through more than 30 different schemes under MCYS, close up the gaps which exist in society and increase happiness, improve productivity, create a safer environment and country, all in line with the President's call to give all Singaporeans a better life and a brighter tomorrow, and I quote, "a future we build together".

On policy-making and decision-making, Sir, I feel there is a need to be more crisp, more transparent and have a lot of more consultation in this arena. Policies are a necessity but we have far to go on presentation and communications. I would like to propose that the machinery of the civil service and Ministries focused on the following: (1) to enhance the level of communications with the public and this is one of the weakest link currently I feel; (2) to have more public consultation on a wider scale; (3) to engage, especially the appropriate and targeted sectors; and (4) to be more grounded. Join me on my house visits, and I do not mean just on one session where you are formally attached to us. No, you can come more frequently to our condominium parties, night house visits, targeted checks on the ground and on all complaints that we received, for example. Sure, it can be very labour-intensive but it is a practice that will yield the best understanding of the issues for your policy-making decision.

(In Malay): [For Malay speech, please refer to Pg 233 for Vernacular Speeches .] We are a unique Malay/Muslim minority community in a multi-religious, secular country. We strive to be a community of excellence that is religiously profound and socially progressive.

However, we cannot run away from having a good understanding of contemporary issues and ride the wave of modernisation with confidence. We have come far, but still have further to go. To be more successful, we need to be ready for change and open up our mindsets.

The Malay/Muslim community must, firstly, educate ourselves, including for our next generation. The number of Malays who are university degree holders has tripled to 14,300 in 2010 compared to the year 2000. Our community has shown a better performance in other educational levels too.

Secondly, grab all opportunities available to enhance our skills and learn new skills. I have seen many who feel they are already too old to pursue new skills, even at the age of 40 years. If we have this attitude, we may not be able to overcome the next crisis with our families.

Thirdly, continue to strengthen our relations and understanding with the various communities. We already serve as a model community to other Muslim communities in other countries. While other communities abroad hold all kinds of protests when sensitive and critical issues arise, the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore responds in a rational, calm and mature way, while giving constructive views.

Fourthly, we must be more health conscious and vigilant with screenings and treatment, especially for those with chronic illnesses. Our community has one of the highest complication rates from multiple chronic diseases. This is due to having the wrong mindset, unhealthy lifestyle and non-compliance to treatment.

And, fifthly, be a community that is active and willing to participate. Put forth constructive ideas that bring progress to the community. Do use social media responsibly, with sensitivity and wisdom, with an intention to educate, using accurate facts and positive engagement. Information can spread very rapidly, but so can negativity. Thus, it is important to "think before we type" when using social media. Anonymity behind the computer screen is not to be treated lightly.

(In English): Mr Speaker, we are at the crossroads of transformation. It is up to us to make the changes we need to make in the way we work, the way we engage and in our mindsets. Before I end, I would like to make a comment about what Mrs Lina Chiam mentioned about talent, and that we should bring back all our political exiles. I strongly disagree on this matter and I think it is a very loaded, dangerous and blanket statement.

A point of clarification, Mr Speaker. What I meant is that I would like to urge the Government to reconsider and think about it, not just a blanket statement saying that this is a very dangerous thing to do. I hope that the Government will reconsider and think about it because these people are our home-grown talents, and it has been a long time. I think the Government should rethink about a change, and not just have a blanket statement.

Sir, clarification on Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's speech because she alluded to my reference to Bhutan yesterday. I am glad she did because, to clarify, I never said at any time that we should transplant wholesale the index that Bhutan has. In fact, the reason why there is so much international interest and in the UN itself is because this index actually has latitude to be considered by each country on its own merits for its own national well-being. And if you look at the indicators there, it is not about whether we are happy as in laughing or things like that, but it has got a lot to do with things like sustainable development, whether we are preserving our culture for future generations, and things of that nature. So, what I wanted the Government to clarify was, since in July, there was this UN resolution which we apparently supported to say that we will look at indicators of our country too, how does that change things going forward now? Does it change the way we will look at different factors because the resolution says that these indicators have to be put in place to guide our policy formulation?

To clarify, Sir, certainly, I think the Member actually agrees with me that there are a lot more factors, soft or hardware factors, that actually go towards happiness which are some of the seven factors which I mentioned earlier in my speech. Certainly, I am not responding on behalf of the Government. But I am merely making my comment on what I see and observe as a Member of Parliament, as a Singaporean, that some of these have already been mainstreamed into the policies that we currently have.

Mr Speaker, thank you, and congratulations. Following our two elections this year, some commentators tell us that Singaporeans' political differences are rising to the surface. Many of our leaders have expressed their concerns about the differences. They warned of divisions and called for unity. I would like to remind us that differences are not divisions. It is the intolerance of differences that will be divisive.

I would like to quote a man who is not able to join us here today. In a newspaper interview, former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo related what a Roman Catholic cardinal had told him about the late Pope John Paul II. The cardinal had drafted, "Even though we're all different because we speak different languages, we are one". The Pope corrected him. "No, it is not even though we're different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one." Mr Yeo then said, "I thought that was so profound and beautiful. In my first speech to the United Nations, I repeated that story because in the UN, it is also because we are different that we are one. To be a human being is to be different. The whole logic and driving force of biological life is diversification. An imposed unity is a false unity; it is a contradiction in terms. To me, that is a core position, and Singapore is an expression of that core position."

Singapore is an expression of that core position of diversity, and this must include political diversity in this day and age. Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an Opposition Member of this Parliament. I may challenge Government policy in Parliament, but I do not by definition oppose Government policy. It does not mean that I do not support the Government in its work. It is very simple. I am an Opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law-making process, based on my party philosophy. But I submit to laws properly made because I believe they express the sovereign will of our people. You see, I do not believe that Parliament is all form, and no substance. I have been elected to serve in this Parliament and I will do what I can to help make it work for Singapore, make it a First World Parliament after our own fashion. As an Opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the Government, I am a Singaporean and a patriot.

I believe that our community will come out of robust debates alive and stronger. Not just in Parliament but in larger society as well. Social cohesion will be strengthened when we give people, including our young people, room to voice their views and grievances and participate in community affairs. This is being recognised in households and at work places all around us. It is changing how they are being run and there is no reason why we cannot learn from it. But we must start from a position of difference, not a forced unity.

How do we move forward from a position of difference? A wise Singaporean wrote to me recently on Facebook, "the key is always to set our €˜devilish' pride aside and for both parties to communicate." He did not mean political parties, but just any two parties in a position of difference. He goes on, "The aim is not to impose one's view over the other but to find as much common ground as possible for the good of the common objectives both parties share€¦ And yes, I have always practised this in the office and with the wife and so far so good."

How do we expand the areas of common ground to accommodate political differences? I believe it will be best done through strengthening our institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans in spite of their political differences. The office of the Presidency, for example. President Tan clearly intends this. In his swearing in ceremony, he said, "I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. €¦ Whatever your political views, €¦ I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you."

The Government in the Addenda to the President's Address said, "The building of friendship, understanding and trust amidst increasing diversity will be supported through organisations such as the People's Association and grassroots platforms such as the Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles." We welcome this.

Let us Singaporeans take our cue from the President and look for what our different visions have in common and take our next steps in these areas of common ground. Let us ask ourselves "is there more that we could do?" I believe that it would always be possible to find common ground among Singaporeans, even if it may now take greater efforts on the part of those of us here in this House. But it is possible – they call politics "the art of the possible".

Mr Speaker, in the Addenda to the President's Address, the Government announced its plans to "significantly enhance the transport infrastructure, quality and opportunities in education, healthcare and housing". We endorse the goal. And we will hold the Government accountable for it.

We believe that Singaporeans in recent years have been under-served by enhancements in these areas. We believe that most of these enhancements are best thought of, not just as increased expenditure for the term, but as investments, investments in our country, with long-term benefits to our society, such as the productivity increase that the Government calls our "fundamental economic challenge". Adam Smith wrote many years ago about investments in a person, such as by the acquisition of new talents, he wrote, "such acquisition of talents always costs a real expense, which is a capital realised in his person. Those talents, as they make the fortune of the individual, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs."

Many economists have long regarded expenditures on education and healthcare as investments in human capital. They produce income and other useful outputs for the individual over long periods of time. They also produce external benefits for the rest of society. When growing disparity in wealth suggest that more and more households may not be able to make the investments necessary to give their children a place at the same starting line as their cohorts, it is even more appropriate for the Government to increase public investments in the human capital of our young people.

This is one of the goals the Government set in the Addenda to the President's Address: "Through our investment in Education, we ensure that every child, regardless of family circumstances and background, has access to opportunities." That access to opportunities has to be meaningful and available to everyone.

For many expenditures we make outside the areas of education and healthcare, if we just take an expanded view of the returns from these investments, then we will be able to see their long-term benefits.

Take elder care, for example. Our investments in this area do not just benefit our elders alone. They enhance the productivity of working family members who worry about their care. They sustain and unlock the rich social and cultural capital embodied in our elders. But more importantly, taking good care of our elders who built the nation is the right thing to do in the "fair and just society" that the President wishes for Singapore. It strengthens our sense of community. It is consistent with the values we wish to impart to our children. These are all intangible but significant returns on our investments.

This is part of our nationhood: these are the bonds that will hold us together in times of trouble. Our social harmony needs to be sustained and cultivated carefully. We must invest in these efforts. "People are the real wealth of a nation", declared the United Nations' inaugural Human Development Report over 20 years ago. "People are the real wealth of a nation," this is especially true for our nation. Let us put our people at the centre of our Government policies. Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.

Significant investments cannot be made all at once. In addition to fiscal discipline, we would need to watch out for inflation, the effects on our currency and competitiveness. But the investments must be made. So we should start now and engage in a long-term sustainable investment pattern for the good of our people.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister concluded in his National Day Rally speech and said that "ours is an improbable nation". I cannot agree more with his call for all Singaporeans to treasure and fight for our improbable nation.

I would like to add that an improbable nation will be made more probable for future Singaporeans by the politics of possibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. And now in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Pg 234-235 for Vernacular Speeches .] Following the two elections this year, many of our leaders speak of the importance of unity. They stress that the entire nation must now be united and march forward in step. Some of them feel that Singapore is becoming politically divided, which does not portend well for our unity or future development. But let me ask you, how do divisions come about? Is it because different voices have surfaced in our society? Or is it the intolerance of different voices that will result in division?

"To govern means to be righteous. If you set a good example by being righteous, who would dare not to be righteous?" "He who governs by means of his virtue may be compared to the North Star which keeps its place, and all the stars turn toward it." "People will be convinced if you lead by virtue." These are all sayings by Confucius that describe a good ruler. A good leader, who is confident and embarks on the correct course of action with the moral strength and competence to deliver results of good government, will naturally win over the people. There will be no need to fear a divided nation and harp on unity.

Patriotism is not the exclusive right of any one political party. No matter how great a party, it is only a part of the country. It does not constitute the entire country! Chen Duxiu once said, "To think that there should only be one party is to think like an emperor". In a democratic society, it is both natural and healthy for people to have different views and offer different suggestions.

Confucius said 3,000 years ago that gentlemen can achieve harmony with differences. Be harmonious, but not identical. Yan Ying once asked, if the whole orchestra plays only one note, who can bear to listen to it? If there is only plain water after plain water, who can bear to drink it? A harmonious society does not have only one voice in it. Instead, within the boundaries of the law, people express their views peaceably and engage in political activities. We should not need to guard against the people as we guard against thieves.

The reign of Zhenguan, the golden age of enlightened rule in Chinese history, was not characterised by an imposed unity that brooked no dissension. There was Weizheng who was famous for being unafraid to speak hard truths in admonitions that caused offence to the emperor Tang Taizong. Without either, there would not be the golden age of Zhenguan.

In this Twelfth Parliament, I hope a wise ruling party can be Tang Taizong, and we can be Weizheng. Together, we can work to usher in a period of prosperity and peace for the nation, not an age of domineering leaders ruling over a petty people living in submission.

In my frequent contact with foreigners, they often have the sense that Singapore is a resilient and hardworking country but lacks creativity. As competition grows more intense with globalisation, would we not do well to encourage our youths to be independent-minded and creative?

Former Prime Minister Lee said in a speech that he was concerned that our young people have gotten used to a comfortable life. He has apparently thought through these issues. We cannot expect to develop into a mature and independent people if total obedience to one dominant party is demanded, in an environment of submission and dependence. If we want our next generation to be creative and independent, we have to provide them with a cultural and political environment in which to flourish. This aspiration and a sense of deep unease lie in the hearts of many Singaporeans – is total control by a ruling party the only thing we can depend on to help us compete effectively in a globalising world?

It is for the good of the nation that we in the Opposition offer suggestions and level criticisms. Patriotism is not the exclusive province of the ruling party. I hope we can all play our part, so that our nation may achieve progress with vitality and creativity.

Lastly, I wish to remind the ruling party to have confidence in the people, in addition to having confidence in itself. I would also like to thank the ruling party for its role in building a society of growing maturity grounded in the rule of law, where Opposition parties may co-exist and compete with the ruling party to serve the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just now trying to listen very attentively to what the hon. Member Chen has mentioned about the definition of "differences". I tried very hard to understand, but I really do not know what is the difference he has made so far. I think the PAP MPs are different, but we work together as a team to serve our people, to make a difference to improve the lives of Singaporeans. But I cannot see that in the contribution in what he has made in terms of defining the differences.

Sir, I would like to focus my speech on the elderly. First, I rise in support of the Motion. I fully support the call by our President to strive for a better life for all Singaporeans. I understand that the Government has allocated lots of resources to nurture our young and build a competitive workforce. But I hope that more could be done to help the elderly in our community. Thus, I would like to urge this House and the Government to work together to make Singapore an "Elderly-friendly city". An elderly-friendly city will not only benefit the seniors but also improve the quality of life for Singaporeans across all age groups.

Sir, in 2030, one in five Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. Our fast ageing population will pose immense challenges to our society and country. If we want our elderly to age actively and positively, urgent measures must be taken to provide opportunities for seniors to stay independent and healthy.

Sir, people fear three things when they age: First, they fear that they do not have enough money for retirement. Second, they fear they are not healthy to enjoy their silver years. Third, they fear that they may become lonely without families and friends when they grow old.

Financial security − many Singaporeans do not understand and appreciate the importance of having CPF savings which help to provide financial security to our elderly. Some have called for the early withdrawal of CPF savings, while others have lost some CPF savings through investments. For many Singaporeans, their flats are their most valuable assets. Unfortunately, some Singaporeans have lost their flats or entire life savings by selling their flats and spending their sale proceeds too quickly. Sir, I have come across cases of older Singaporeans who were ill-advised to sell their flats, thus resulting in them becoming homeless and facing financial hardships.

In this regard, I would like to urge the Government to provide more measures to protect the CPF savings and flats of Singaporeans, especially the elderly who are more vulnerable to unscrupulous practices in the market place. We must safeguard the CPF savings used for flat purchase and ensure that flat owners do not expend their CPF savings prematurely. At the same time, the Government should allow more flexibility for the elderly to exercise reverse mortgage so that they can age in place. Alternatively, the Government can build more elderly studio apartments within existing housing estates to facilitate seniors to live near their children when they grow old. In this way, the elderly can have more options to safeguard their financial security and get support from their families.

Sir, older people are a precious resource which is often ignored by policy-makers and the industry. We always receive feedback that firms prefer younger and more energetic workers, thus limiting employment opportunities for older people. Although various Government measures were introduced to help older workers to remain in the workforce, some still find it challenging to secure quality jobs.

Sir, I would like to urge the Government to consider a special Jobs Credit Scheme for older workers in the social service sector. Many voluntary welfare organisations and institutions of public character lack resources to employ staff to expand their services and help strengthen our social safety net. Older people can be a valuable resource to these organisations as they have lifeskills, they have experiences and also the right temperament to add value to the services and activities of these social service organisations.

With more direct funding for older workers, we can create more employment opportunities to tap on their talent and expertise so as to achieve positive ageing and also strengthen our social safety net. At the same time, more part-time or flexible employment work can be taken up by seniors to keep them economically active and continue to feel useful to the society.

Healthy seniors − Sir, the health of our elderly is also the wealth of our country. With longer life expectancy, more Singaporeans will have more silver years, that is, living from 50 to 80 years old. Even with the retirement age of 62, many Singaporeans will be retirees for about 18 years. How can we help our seniors to be active and healthy? In this aspect, I would like to make three suggestions to improve the health and quality of life of our seniors.

First, lower entry barriers for sports facilities. Sir, the Government must be prepared to fund and facilitate easy access of sports facilities to seniors. For instance, public swimming pools, sports complexes, community clubs, should allow free usage or affordable usage for seniors during the day time, especially from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on weekdays as these facilities are under-utilised during these periods.

Second, senior sports interest groups. We should help more seniors to form sports interest groups so that they can encourage one another to exercise regularly. Sir, I recently formed a senior table tennis interest group at Bukit Panjang Community Club (CC) and allow them free usage of my CC hall and table tennis tables. I am surprised to see a steady stream of seniors coming to join this interest group. Now, it has grown to about 30 of them, and they are playing five times a week at the CC.

Third, build better park connectors. Besides sports facilities, I would urge the Government to expedite the construction of park connectors in Singapore. Today, many Singaporeans have taken up brisk walking, but it is indeed very challenging to brisk walk in a group along our park connectors and our road pavements. Our park connectors and road pavements are usually very narrow and not seamless. Many park connectors and parks also do not have convenient facilities, such as toilets and water points. As such, these parks are not very elderly-friendly and do not attract many users.

Loneliness − Sir, older people fear being sidelined and left alone. Over the years, I have seen cases of elderly being left in isolation due to marriage failures, broken families or abandonment by family members. I have come across cases where the elderly have many children but none of the children will take care of them. In some cases, the children dumped their parents after the parents transferred flat ownership to them or sold their flats to help finance their children's flats. Some children left their parents at nursing homes and refused to visit them.

Sir, I am concerned about the erosion of values such as respect, gratitude and filial piety among Singaporeans. Our education system must inculcate these values in our children as many parents are facing difficulty to guide their children to be respectful, grateful and filial. I received such feedback from many parents. This erosion of values is further compounded by the prevalence of dual-income families, with both parents at work and the influence of media and Internet exposure. As a result, more elderly are left in isolation both physically and emotionally in our society.

Sir, how can we help our elderly to overcome loneliness? In what ways can the Government help to strengthen the fabric of our families and society? The key to setting up strong families is through proper education and Government support. Children must be taught individual responsibility, encouraged to set up families, learn to respect their elders and nurtured to be filial to their parents. If these fundamental values were not taught properly, the foundation of families will be weak. Subsequently, the fabric of our families and society will be fragile, resulting in fewer family formations, more broken families and many lonely elderly.

Sir, I support the recent call by our Education Minister to set up a specialised unit in the Ministry to focus on character building of our students and citizen education curriculum, which will involve developing their personal attributes more systematically. I hope the Ministry will be more outcome-based in measuring the effectiveness of its character-building programmes.

Sir, unless children are taught that they have a responsibility to look after their parents, they will become self-centred and consider their parents as a burden, affecting their lifestyle and comfort in the future. I sincerely hope the Ministry can succeed in fostering a strong sense of duty among our young to look after their parents. The foundation of these values must be built through our education system while parents can continue to strengthen these taught values in their children in their daily lives.

Sir, besides building strong families, the Government should also focus on building communities as a social support system. Many seniors remain active and healthy through the encouragement and support of their families and friends. Therefore, I hope more resources can be placed to build strong and resilient communities. This is crucial, especially when an ageing population faces crisis. A supportive community will also reduce the number of elderly in isolation, thus reducing "dying alone" cases.

Sir, an elderly-friendly city is one where all citizens can enjoy a better life. I hope the Government will implement policies and programmes to overcome the three fears of our elderly and provide all senior Singaporeans "Health, Wealth and Happiness".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President. I was here in this House five years ago but seated in the gallery as a civil servant, watching from the sidelines rather than participating in the debate. I still remember the then President warning that the global environment would change "rapidly and often unpredictably". I do not know what Mr Nathan had in mind when he said those words, but I do not think he or anyone in this House then would have anticipated what happened in the ensuing years. Globally, we lived through the biggest bank bailout in history and the deepest recession since the global depression. Singapore, too, suffered its worst recession since Independence. Understandably, this roller-coaster ride caused anxiety for many Singaporeans.

I have talked to many residents, first, during the General Election and then over the last few months in my house visits and Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). One experience with a 60-year-old resident stood out. I first met him shortly after I was elected as a Member of Parliament. My helpers warned me that this was going to be a difficult case. I looked at his case file which was very thick. He had been coming to the MPS since 2009 when he lost his job as a driver. Since then, he had been looking for a job but without any success. He was angry and he lost his temper easily. But the anger stemmed from a deep sense of despair, hurt and hopelessness. I continued to see him several times over the past few months and provided him with temporary assistance through ComCare and NTUC vouchers. I also encouraged him to apply for a taxi licence because I found out that he had driven a taxi some years back. Recently, he came to see me again. And this time, he looked like a completely transformed person with a new lease of life. He was well dressed, clean shaven and his hair was properly combed for the first time. He then took out a freshly-minted taxi licence from his pocket and showed it to me. The pride and joy was visible on his face, and I was delighted for him. But this resident is still not out of the woods. He has just started driving, and needs to earn enough money to pay off his outstanding debts, and so he still has lingering anxiety and concerns about the future. And there are probably many others like him – people who have gone through the roller-coaster ride of the last five years and they do not feel that their lives have improved, and they worry about the unexpected twists and turns that may lie ahead. They see prices and bills going up and they worry about their future and their children's future. I fully emphathise with these sentiments and our hearts go out to all those who need help.

The Government is taking steps to strengthen our social safety nets, to look after the lower-income, the disabled and the elderly. We are working with the many helping hands in the community to make sure that no one falls through the cracks. We have, and will continue, to do all we can to address the strains and stresses that people feel on the ground. Some Members of this House have suggested that the problems we face today are the results of the Government's focus on growth. I think the suggestion is completely disingenuous. To begin with, the Government has never pursued GDP as an end in itself. Rather, growth has been pursued with a firm commitment to fairness and as a foundation for broader benefits for all, the provision of equal opportunity, greater social mobility and a quality of life that improves with each generation.

The criticisms against growth are not uniquely heard in this House. There are also heard in other developed countries where growth becomes tainted by the excesses of capitalism and financial markets. But they have arisen more fundamentally due to the pressures in the workplace brought about by globalisation and the IT revolution. In the past, competition came from low-wage, low-skilled workers. Now, there is also competition from low-wage, high-skilled workers. Reading X-rays or filing tax returns can be done by lower-paid radiologists or accountants. They simply do the work in India and send the results back the next day via fibre optic cable.

When Applied Materials, a US-based solar panel company, decided to build the world's largest commercial solar R&D centre, it chose Xi'an, China, as the location. Applied Materials had openings for 260 scientist or technologist jobs. It received 26,000 applications, 100 times more than there were openings, and 30% of the people eventually hired had Masters or PhDs. In this highly connected and interdependent world, there is a wider polarisation of jobs and employment opportunities. Those who do well are the ones who can think critically, who can tackle complex non-routine tasks and who can come up with creative, innovative ideas. All others are vulnerable to outsourcing or automation. This is contributing to rising income gaps around the world, and this is at least partly why there is widespread social malaise and discontent manifesting itself in protests and street demonstrations in some countries.

These are the realities of what is happening around us. Singapore is not immune from these global pressures. But we are in a much stronger position than other countries, and this is in large part because of the measures taken by the Government. We have to look at these measures in the context of the economic cycles over the past decade. In the first half of the decade, it was a very difficult period for Singapore, for the world and for us. We had two recessions, overall growth was very slow, and the impact of all these was felt on our people, on ordinary Singaporeans. The common call then, if Members will recall, was about jobs. Median income in the first half was flat, in real terms. At the 20th percentile it dropped by 11%. Then, the second half came and, at the beginning of the second half, we could see the opportunities because we could see the external environment improving. We took full advantage of these opportunities. This meant more foreign workers. It meant bringing in more investments. But, ultimately, it meant creating more jobs for our people. In doing so, it is true that we ran into some infrastructural bottlenecks – in transport, in hospitals, in housing. We could have decided not to seize the opportunities and to leave things be. But these opportunities come in cycles. If we had failed to seize the opportunities then, our people, Singaporeans, would be worse off today. But because we did what we did at that time, Singaporeans benefited. And if you look at the second half of the decade, median incomes rose in real terms by 11%, from flat in the first half to 11% in the second half. At the 20th percentile, real incomes rose even more sharply by 13%, from a drop of 11% in the first half to an increase of 13% in the second half. Overall, our economic growth for the whole decade was 5.6% − hardly the outcome of a grow-at-all-cost policy. It was the Government steering the economy through economic storms, that enabled us to achieve decent growth. And by doing so, we created jobs, we raised incomes and we did good for the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have taken some time to go through the details of what happened to the last decade because, listening to some of the points that were made earlier by Members, I do not think a full picture was given to Members and to Singaporeans. Earlier, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Chen Show Mao spoke about the value of diversity, about different views and about constructive debate in the House, and not scoring political points. I fully agree with them and I share these views. I hope therefore that Members of the Workers' Party will look at the data and the facts of what happened over the past decade, to appreciate the hard trade-offs that we faced and to understand the basis of the decisions that were made. Perhaps if Mr Giam does that, then I hope he will be persuaded that what happened in the last 10 years was not the PAP's biggest policy failure, as he put it, but the PAP's success in steering Singapore through difficult times and doing good for our people.

The facts, if you look at what happened in the last decade, are that very few other countries have emerged from that period of global turmoil to achieve the kind of positive result that Singapore did. We made it happen because of the Government working for the people, because of our policies to promote sustainable and inclusive growth – growth that benefits every citizen, strengthens social solidarity and increases living standards not just for today but for future generations as well. And this is the way to build a fair, just and inclusive Singapore and, indeed, to stay true to our founding ideals and achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. We want to be a nation where every citizen has a place, where every contribution is valued, where all can live in dignity and harmony. We also want to be a gracious, caring and compassionate society, for the strength of any society is measured by how well it treats its weakest members. As Singapore progresses, we must ensure that our vulnerable members are not left behind. These are high and aspirational goals, but I am confident we can achieve them because of our people and our spirit. While we should never rest on our laurels, how we have overcome past challenges as a nation provides inspiration and strength for how we should face the future together.

Singapore has many strengths, but our biggest strength is our people. And this is why one of the best investments the Government can make is in education, to give every child the best possible start in life, to give equal opportunities for all to make the most of their lives, to give those who do not succeed at first, a second and even a third and fourth chance to make good.

Many MPs have spoken on education, and I think this is an area where everyone is an expert because everyone has a view often shaped by their own personal experiences and the experiences of their children. I have visited many schools over the past few months and I readily acknowledge that we do not have a perfect education system. We do not have all the answers and there will always be things we can do to improve. Indeed, I have listened to many of the suggestions that Members have given, and I am sure more will come in the next few days, which MOE will study carefully. We are determined to raise the quality of all our pre-school centres, to make every school a good school and to provide opportunities for all.

Looking at how our education system has evolved over the years, I believe any objective observer will agree that there has been a vast improvement. The rigour of our education system is robust and the standard that we have attained is first rate. We have high peaks and high averages. Much is owed to our school leaders and teachers for they are capable, motivated and passionate.

Our whole philosophy towards education has evolved. Our teachers are not just focusing on content and knowledge. They are getting our young to think independently, to explore with confidence and to pursue their passion. We are imbuing them with character and values so that our children grow up into stout-hearted, upright adults. Our schools are doing many things to spark the interest and passion of our children for learning. Ping Yi Secondary School encourages their kids to experiment with new products during their design and technology classes, in order to develop their thinking and problem-solving skills. One parent of an "N" level student had this to say about the curriculum: "My son loves what he is doing. Tasting success has given him a new found confidence. Now he is so much more motivated and self-directed that I don't have to nag him about his work. It has been quite a transformation, and I am very pleased."

This is what education should be about, and this is what we are seeking to achieve in every class, level and school. We all know that education is more than filling a pail with knowledge; it is to light a fire in our young people. With the right education, both at home and at school, our children will not only be equipped with skills but will also be fired up to do great things. For this to happen, we all need to change our mindsets, to embrace a broader definition of success, and there are many pathways to achieve this.

Beyond schools, we will create more progression avenues for post-secondary education. We are continuing with the expansion of the university sector to meet the rising aspirations of young Singaporeans, especially polytechnic upgraders seeking a degree.

Next year, the new Singapore University of Technology and Design will take in its first batch of students. The Singapore Institute of Technology will also have new programmes with overseas universities. So I am happy to inform the House that we can expect an increase of 1,000 university places, all for Singaporeans in 2012. Thereafter, there will be an increase of another 1,000 more places over the next few years. Beyond that, the Committee on University Education Pathways, which I chair, is gathering feedback and studying ways to have more university places for Singaporeans.

I know that there is a great desire amongst young people to get a university education. But there are many good students who prefer a hands-on, practice-based environment. These students recognise that a degree is not the only route to achieving one's dreams. One example is Mr Darren Nathan who graduated from Ngee Ann Polytechnic in 2000. He commercialised the IT technology he developed during his studies and started a company with venture funding from several sources, including the co-founder of Skype. Darren has been so engrossed in his work that he has deferred his degree studies for the past 10 years. So we will increase our investments in the polytechnics and new ITE colleges to provide even more opportunities for people like Darren.

The more we invest in good education for our people, the better we enable them to excel in the workplace and to maximise their potential. Across all industries, employers are looking for people who are inquisitive, prepared to learn, adaptable, creative and innovative.

Even in the military, job requirements are changing. In the past, the emphasis was discipline and regimentation. Today, soldiers, at every level, have to be trained and empowered to respond to unpredictable situations on the ground. Many Members would be aware that our soldiers have been in Afghanistan to support the multi-national stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Last year, the SAF deployed a detachment with the weapon locating radar to provide early warning for the coalition forces against enemy rocket fire. A team of young engineers accompanied the detachment to ensure that the radar was in good working condition. When they were asked to extend the deployment of the radar from nine months to 15 months, the engineers sought advice from the experts. The radar manufacturers and other armies said that this was mission impossible − the radar could not function that long under the extreme weather conditions in Afghanistan. But our engineers made it possible. They improvised and they came up with their own technical solutions. And this was done not in civilian comfort at home, but on the battlefield of Afghanistan. Our boys kept the radar going for the entire 15 months stretch, enabling the crew to detect all incoming enemy rockets and saved lives.

Such ground-up innovations are happening everywhere, not just in the SAF but also among business and non-profit groups. We see people taking pride in their jobs, striving to excel and then to outdo themselves by continuously looking for ways to add further value. That is the spirit that has made Singapore what it is today: a small country that has achieved great things.

The demands of the future would be great and different from the past, but if we put our hearts and minds together to find imaginative solutions, if we all pull together and stick together, then we will surely overcome every new challenge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the imperative for team work in building our future is great. The Government will do its part to facilitate and lead in terms of the broad directions. But it has no monopoly of knowledge or ideas. To understand and tackle our challenges fully and vigorously, we need to draw on the expertise and resources of all our people. This may mean that the Government should pull back from being all things to all citizens and give Singaporeans the opportunity and space to organise themselves and develop their own solutions.

Active citizenry is a key ingredient of any functioning democracy. Each of us must be a participant in building the Singapore we want. We must keep abreast of new developments and educate ourselves on major issues of the day.

The Internet and social media give us unprecedented access to information, but the Internet can also be an echo chamber that amplifies inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths. We must therefore be responsible in both putting forward views as well as accepting them. We must also actively seek out viewpoints that challenge our own assumptions and beliefs so that we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from. This will allow us to debate issues honestly and robustly without becoming polarised as a nation. It will ultimately enable us to build a stronger consensus on what is best for Singapore.

Besides engaging in policy, there are many other ways of shaping the character and life of our society. Talking to young Singaporeans over these past few months, I have been very encouraged by the commitment and passion that they show to serve in different causes. I have seen young people serving in grassroots organisations. I have seen our youths setting up social enterprises to give back to the community, like Mr Shawn Low, who founded a nationwide online peer support network called "Audible Hearts" for youths in distress. I have met students caring for the aged, the sick, the handicapped and the less fortunate. And I hope even more Singaporeans, young and old, will step forward to serve and make things better in our community.

Service makes our lives richer. I know it has made mine more fulfilling and meaningful. Through service, we not only discover more about ourselves, but also about the meaning of community and the meaning of citizenship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken about the anxieties and concerns of Singaporeans, but I hope I have also given sufficient reasons for us to be confident and optimistic about our future. Sometimes, we hear talk about a gap between the Government and the people. But the Government is elected by the people, for the people. We are all in this together, even if we may sometimes disagree. We must bridge our differences and reach across divides. And as we connect the dots of our shared existence, we can all look forward to the promise of a stronger, more cohesive nation. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am privileged to rise in support of the Motion of thanks to the President for his Address. I had intended to demonstrate some diversity in highlighting two Government policies that I would like to criticise, but I feel I must digress a little regarding the points that Mr Gerald Giam made about the healthcare system. Sir, I realise that this is not an academic convention or a scientific meeting. It is a political debate and one may argue about the balance between fact and opinion, perspective and data. It is my humble opinion that the data Mr Giam quoted is based on flawed study, and not generalisable to our situation in healthcare regardless of whoever endorsed it at that time it was done.

Sir, given my constituency's location, I would also wholeheartedly endorse the bringing forward of the timeframe for the building of healthcare facilities in Sengkang. Although Mr Giam highlighted the issue of total hospital bed capacity, he failed to highlight the fact that the real issue is one of a balance between acute hospital bed capacity and chronic and convalesce in care, which is the largest burden on our relatively excellent healthcare system, and that this was debated extensively in previous parliaments, and that the need for a shift in funding towards community care was already established by the previous Government.

Sir, if I may return to my diverse viewpoints. I would like to speak on two issues which I believe merit re-examination as to what is the "right thing" for our citizens. I would also like to use them as examples as to how we may move forward in considering what we want our society to become. Should we focus on the hard-headed pragmatic realism or should we occasionally pay heed to our hearts and emotions? Can we do both? Is there a role for an ideology in our development as a nation? How do we go about deciding what values to use as a framework for policy development?

The first issue I would like to speak on concerns single unwed parents. Before any confusion arises, let me state categorically that I completely endorse and support the position that the best family environment for a child is to have both parents fully engaged in their upbringing. Nevertheless, that ideal is not always realised or possible, regardless of our best intentions. Whatever our efforts, the issue of single unwed parents persists. The numbers of such parents are not huge, but despite the policy positions taken in this House on occasions in the past, the incidence of single parenthood is not decreasing, and the issue continues to affect us in several areas of social work.

Raising a child can be challenging enough for a married couple even with the help of an extended family. More so if a young parent is doing it herself. In examining the inequality faced by a single unwed parent, I am not advocating any extra assistance above and beyond what a couple receives, merely that as a family unit a single parent and her child should not be discriminated against, and that they should be treated as equal to any family unit and treated with dignity.

The inequality starts around the time of birth. A married Singaporean woman is potentially entitled to 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, half supported by the employer, and half by the Government. In stark contrast, the employer of a single, unwed Singaporean woman giving birth to a Singaporean child, is required to provide eight weeks of paid maternity leave, and a further four unpaid with no Government funding.

Sir, one question I would ask is who benefits from the maternity leave? Is it purely a reward for the mother? If so, reducing the amount of maternity leave is essentially a punishment. In truth, the women who make the choice to have a child out of wedlock are likely not aware of this specific consequence, hence the deterrent value is limited. However, maternity leave also serves a very specific purpose for the well-being and health of the child. The time allows an increased level of care when the infant is most at-risk, and also allows the establishment of breastfeeding which has a measurable, objective impact on the health and development of the child. Women who have adequate maternity leave are far more likely to fully breastfeed for the recommended time. While there are provisions for mothers to claim more maternity benefits if they subsequently marry, this is a narrow view and only addresses the concept of reward and not what is in the best interest of the child. Why is it that we are denying a Singaporean child, during his most vulnerable days, equality of access to his mother?

After birth, the indignity continues. An unmarried parent will need to adopt the child, for a fee, if they wish to "regularise" their relationship, according to MCYS. This adoption is not mandatory but this tack has implications. This is an affront to the mother who has carried this child for nine months and gone through labour. Why should the State have to endorse the relationship between a mother and her child? The social stigma of being single and unwed is already a huge burden to both parent and child. Why do we need to add to it, if it fails to reduce the likelihood that such family units will occur?

Looking at other parts of the world, the policies that are most likely to reduce single parenthood address three fundamentals: extending the number of years in formal education, pro-active sexual health education and the availability of birth control measures. My purpose here today is not to expound upon these, but merely to emphasise that punitive measures do not work.

Sir, returning to the trials of a single unmarried parent, she is entitled to only two days of childcare leave per year for a child below the age of seven. The two days are capped, regardless of the number of children, whereas married parents are entitled to six days of childcare leave for children of that age. Is childcare leave a reward to the mother? Is the inequality a punishment for the single unmarried parent? Is it part of an effective deterrent? As a father of three, I would say that such leave is absolutely necessary to allow a parent to work and yet when needed also care for a child that falls sick. Withholding it affects the child most of all. Why do we feel a need to deny a Singaporean child the care of her parent when she falls sick?

If I may turn to the problem of housing, I recognise that HDB exercises considerable judgment and I have seen single mothers in difficult circumstances rapidly and effectively assisted appropriately. However, Sir, I question the logic where a divorcee with a child, a widower with a child, and even two orphaned siblings can be considered as eligible to apply for a flat from the HDB as a family unit, but not a single unwed mother with her child.

Sir, a single unwed mother will not qualify for the tax relief for a foreign domestic worker. Given the stress of bringing up a child, let alone the difficulty resulting from doing so on a single income, she needs it most. Consider what happens when the daughter of an unwed mother grows up. Her mother is now aged, now dependent and now in poor health. What do we say to the caregiver? We say, "You are the first source of support for your mother, we support caregivers in the community; we will provide help, we will support you in looking after your aged mother." The relationship has not changed. Contrast the assistance provided to a single unwed mother with that available for a single, filial daughter who remains within the family home to care for her mother. How is it that we feel a need to support and assist one, but punish and burden the other? Is there here an opportunity to emphasise our values better?

Sir, the social stigma and the challenges of raising a child alone will function as a deterrent. We should not penalise or punish either the parent or the child. We should ask what it is that we are trying to achieve. I would ask: is the Government looking at the unintended negative consequences that result from the policies affecting single unwed parents? Are we examining the policies to see if there is an effect on the health, development and social mobility of the child? Are we looking to see if inter-generational poverty is more likely to result? Do we care more about a set of stated principles or do we care more about the effects on our citizens? If the Government wants to discourage the incidence of single unwed parents, there are much better ways that do not have such negative consequences.

Sir, the issues I have brought up directly affect a small number of Singaporeans, but the presence of these policies concerns us all as we think of where we want to go as a nation. They can be reflective of our ability to forgive, to be compassionate, and to focus on the future. Each policy position may make specific sense but taken together and examined from an individual's point of view, they result in an unnecessary burden. As we build and create societal norms, whether they are old norms or new norms, we can make decisions about those of our fellow citizens that fall outside of those norms. Do we ignore them, punish them, or hope they find their own way? Or do we extend a compassionate hand, reach outside those norms, reach outside our comfort zones, and help those who need it?

Sir, I would like to turn to another policy which thankfully affects even fewer Singaporeans, and yet potentially weighs heavily on all of us − the Internal Security Act (ISA). This issue has been debated extensively both in the House and in public. In my heart, I feel it inappropriate to detain a citizen without trial and prior to the act of committing a crime. I suspect I will hold that personal position for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, in my head, I am swayed and perhaps even convinced by the hard logic that the safety and security of our nation must be paramount, that there are many number of threats that we face, and which must be dealt with swiftly and decisively. The world has changed beyond recognition since the Act was conceived and written. Similarly, its utility and impact have shifted as the threats to our nation have changed. This is especially so in the last decade with the rise of terrorism. In this issue, perhaps the heart has to give way to the head.

Sir, I believe I share this view with many Singaporeans, we understand the need to ensure our security despite our misgivings. We recognise the cold hard facts despite the uncomfortable feeling they generate. However, we lack confidence and assurance that the extraordinary power of a State to detain its own citizens without trial will not be abused. The process of the safeguards around the ISA needs to be discussed in a more transparent manner, even as the facts associated with a given detainee may need to be kept secret. We need to know that the review process works and operates independently of Cabinet. We need to see the President exercising his authority on this issue. We need to know that the system is robust enough to pick up and deal with potential abuse. We need to see that there is an understanding that errors can be made, and that the system will correct these.

I would like to ask about the safeguards to prevent the ISA from being abused. Will the Ministry be introducing further measures to enhance these safeguards? To what extent can the decisions of Cabinet be challenged? Can Cabinet challenge the review? Is there an opportunity for independent legal scrutiny, essentially a judicial review? Should there not be periodic re-examination of the process and the detainees by an independent party?

Sir, each generation will need to learn the most important lessons anew, and will need the opportunity to debate and discuss these safeguards. With the onerous burden of power that the ISA provides to the Government, there should be an ongoing discussion about the adequacy of the safeguards.

Sir, coming to my conclusion, the issues I have brought up seem at two ends of the spectrum. One directly affects our security and stability as a nation. The other affects individual mothers and children. In one perhaps the heart needs to listen to the head; in the other perhaps we have been too hard-headed. Sir, the issues I have brought up will not affect our GDP, they will not affect our foreign affairs, they will not affect the vast majority of Singaporeans directly. Nevertheless, I urge that we re-examine them. How we deal with them reflects our aspirations for the type of society we want to become. How we move forward in these, as in other areas, will reflect our intent for the process of development. What we do with and to those of our fellow citizens at the edges of what is considered "mainstream" will reflect our values.

Sir, the process through which we deal with these issues will be as important. Will there be endless, open-ended dialogue, discussion, debate, or will there be a rapid, decisive directive? Or will we, as a nation in so many other areas, find a middle path and allow a full expression of various viewpoints, yet also demonstrate leadership through good governance, and find a way to take the best of these extremes and make them work in the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans? Sir, with that, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, a point of clarification in response to Dr Janil Puthucheary. He said my data and my speech were based on flawed study. Now, let me quote from the Department of Statistics' Yearbook of Statistics Singapore 2011. He said that the figures I gave were based on "Acute Care". That is incorrect. It was based on "Overall Hospital Beds" in Singapore. The Member was suggesting that there are actually more beds in the "Extended Care" sector because of our ageing population. That is actually not true because in 2000, there were 4,007 Extended Care beds but in 2010, there were 3,172 which is a 20% overall drop. In the public sector Extended Care alone, there is a 39% drop from 3,292 to 2,010. And the only saving grace actually is in the private sector which saw an increase from 715 in 2000 to 1,162, that is a 447-bed increase. But I note that in the footnote it says that with effect from 2002, the management of Ang Mo Kio-Thye Hua Kwan Hospital has been handed over to Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society. So, that probably accounts for the figure in 2005 jumping to 1,302. But from 2005 to 2010, it has actually dropped off again to 1,162.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the study that was flawed was not the one quoting our hospital statistics. Perhaps I did not make myself entirely clear. It was the study he quoted regarding the Royal College from the United Kingdom about the link between capacity and excessive infections which has been debated extensively in the scientific literature. I do not take issue with his facts quoting the number of hospital beds. What I was suggesting was that the improvement in total bed capacity that is going to occur over the next few years was a result of far-sighted policy put in place over the last two Parliament sessions.

Mr Speaker, maybe the Member would like to clarify which part of the study was flawed because that was not just one study which I looked up, there were other studies as well that did mention about the link between overcrowding and infections in hospitals.

Mr Speaker, I will try to be brief and not get into the technicalities of microbiology nor epidemiology. There is a link perhaps between what happens in a hospital and the infection rate. I was merely pointing out that the specific study he chose to quote which was endorsed by the Royal College was based on flawed data. In my opinion, I do not think the technicalities of my professional opinion and his reading of that is perhaps best debated in this House. I am willing to proceed with that if there was a request but I do not think it is appropriate, Sir.

Gentlemen, I think we will leave it there. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Motion to thank the President for his speech. Let me provide a little bit more data regarding hospitalisation since everybody is at this now. I am a visiting consultant to Tan Tock Seng Hospital as well as Singapore National Eye Centre. From what I know of the waiting time for hospital beds now in Singapore's public hospitals: in 2010, the median waiting time is 1.4 hours. The 95th percentile waiting time is 4.8 hours. This is a significant improvement from 2007 when the median was 1.5 hours and the 95th percentile was 6.7 hours. Compared to Western advanced countries with First World parliaments such as Canada, the median time is 1.7 hours and the 95th percentile is 15 hours. So, we are actually doing way much better compared to the West despite our doctors ratio not being as high and our expenditure not being as high as theirs. In terms of hospitals having not enough beds: if there are not enough beds, then why is the waiting time so short?

I would like to mention that I completely agree with MP Chen Show Mao that we are all unique biological creatures. Every one of us is unique. All 87 elected MPs are unique, and listening to the speeches, it is obvious we are all very different. Even among PAP MPs, sometimes I cannot tell if they are PAP MPs or Opposition MPs. But I can certainly tell a difference when they are Opposition because they all seem to speak with one voice, one note.

I was waiting eagerly when somebody asked me what the opening of this Parliament was going to be like. I said it is going to be different from the last five years that I have experienced. I am waiting eagerly to hear alternative views, alternative suggestions. MP Chen Show Mao also mentioned that they are here to provide alternative views. And I was listening very carefully to my Opposition colleagues and trying to pick up where are the alternative suggestions. Of the three areas brought up so far − perhaps esteemed hon. Members can read up the Hansard − we have mentioned about transport, in particular congestion, which has been aired by me in this House. We have talked about healthcare − I think Dr Lam Pin Min has talked about it. HDB problems − many, many of the MPs have spoken about it. I think we do not need more rhetorics but we need to help and assist the Executive in providing more solutions, more suggestions. I totally agree with Minister of State Lawrence Wong when he said nobody has monopoly over all ideas and all suggestions. As a result, we should all chip in, all 87 of us, for the betterment of Singapore; simple as that.

Let me just say that as a Singaporean, I am proud of what we have collectively achieved as a nation over the last 46 years. I have stayed in this country for 42 years – I was away in the US for one year. We have progressed from the Third Word to the First World. The journey is by no means easy and our forefathers worked hard to get us here today. On the other hand, the direction of the country then was very clear. There were pressing concerns of unemployment, inadequate housing, lack of education, racial tensions and population control. The crisis faced by the country then was daunting but what happened was that it made the people of Singapore more united and more resolved to support the Government in tackling all the pressing issues of the day.

Today, we are enjoying the fruits of labour of our forefathers. We are enjoying First World living standards. The question is, where do we go from here? What is after the First World? Where are we progressing to? Are we now in uncharted territories and waters? In fact, increasingly, I believe the road ahead is actually tougher than when we started. Just like the Chinese proverb, "starting a business is easy but maintaining it, keeping it going, is tough". It is now more than ever that we need a good government with a clear vision, with a clear mission to rally all Singaporeans together to tackle our challenges ahead and to write the next chapter of the Singapore Story together.

In the face of our diversified economy and the individual's specific expectations, the President stressed the need for our country to build our future together as one – whether old or young, weak or strong − in this new environment. We do indeed need to give our best to get the best.

I was in London recently just before the riots. I chanced upon an article in The Daily Telegraph discussing a very interesting issue – that the Left might actually be right. We are at the dawn of probably another big ideological revolution, judging from the protests on Wall Street, in London and many of the Western cities. One thing that is different is that people in general have lost faith in the free market, the Western democratic order and their First World parliament. The greatest capitalist country in history is now dependent on other people's capital to survive. Many governments in the West are on the verge of bankruptcy or are already bankrupt while the private corporations and rich individuals amass billions. The governments have mismanaged their countries' finances and now the people are paying the price. I hope we will not go that way.

I am glad we have a government who is always so prudent in finances, sometimes in my view to the point of being stingy. However, I do ponder whether moving to the Left might actually be right for us, too, in certain issues. I would like to illustrate this with two points – one, our housing policy; and the other, our retirement adequacy.

In view of how far we have come as a nation, we must not forget how we got here. Every system that we have created, built and developed has always been in response to the needs of the people of Singapore at that point in time. Take, for example, HDB. Homeownership is the key mission. The HDB came into being as a response to a severe housing shortage at a time when people lived in squatter settlements and squalid conditions. The original intention was homeownership for the people. I firmly believe it should remain so. The low-cost housing was priced likewise and everyone was contented to have a roof over his head that he could call "home".

In the 1960s, a 3-room HDB flat cost $6,200. In the 1980s, a 4-room flat cost $85,000. Prices moved up due to various reasons as we progressed. In fact, the value of HDB flats continued to be supported by the Government's Asset Enhancement programmes such as MUP, IUP, and later the LUP and the HIP. These massive programmes are costly but the Government undertook them as a means of wealth transfer to HDB dwellers and to the general public. The policy to regard HDB flats as an asset rather than just homeownership could be right at that point in time but, in my opinion, it may have gone a bit overboard. Although HDB flats are 99-year leasehold properties, they behave like freehold properties as there is hardly any reduction in price as the flats age. A 30-year old 3-room flat in Ang Mo Kio costs more than a brand new three-room flat in a non-mature estate. This is never the case with a 99-year leasehold private property.

Previously, HDB owners who upgrade to a private property were not allowed to retain their HDB flat ownership. It was mandatory for them to sell the flat in the open market such that these flats are released back or recycled back to the market to supplement the supply. But now, HDB flat owners who have completed their minimum occupancy period are allowed to retain their HDB flats when they upgrade to private properties. They are allowed to rent out the whole unit to gain recurrent rental income from their subsidised HDB flats. The large influx of foreigners during the last few years has driven up the demand and hence the rental rate of HDB flats. Allowing PRs to purchase HDB flats has also added pressure to the already high demand. The resale market is driven sky high by people who cannot wait for a Built-to-Order flat or are afraid that prices may increase if they wait further or they are afraid that their salary may go up by the next salary increment and they will miss out the chance to buy an HDB flat.

Today, we hear of a $860,000 5-room flat in the resale market. At the rate we are going, we will be seeing $1 million HDB flats quite soon. It is a paradox that we see more people losing their HDB flats when our economy performs well and when HDB flat prices rise, many monetise their flats for a quick profit and for various reasons. Personally, I do not think that over-investment in property is good in general for our country. In the 1990s, Japan was also done in by high property prices domestically and likewise in the US in 2007. There are signs that China may be heading for the same direction. Our excessive investments in property do not generate more jobs, more services or more goods for the country. On the contrary, over-investment in property will result in less disposable income for other investments that may generate jobs, services or goods. There will be less disposable income for other personal pursuits including further education, health and family needs.

At today's prices, ownership of an HDB flat is akin to a dwindled CPF account at retirement, a time when we expect to sit back and enjoy our hard-earned savings. It takes one up to 25 years to fully repay his loan, by which time the average Singaporean would have depleted the bulk of his retirement savings in his CPF account.

It is true that the quality of HDB flats has risen over the years in tandem with costs, but the question of affordability enters one's mind. In turn, everyone now who owns a brand new HDB flat dreams of the day, five years later, when he can liquidate his investment for a tidy profit for himself. The original objective of pure homeownership has turned into one of a stepping stone to upgrade oneself. Not that having a better life is a bad thing but we have to bear in mind that there are those who are only asking for a roof over their heads and because of the consistent and ever-increasing prices of an HDB flat, they are forever chasing but never attaining the Singapore dream of affordable home for all citizens.

In my opinion, we should return HDB to the basics, back to homeownership as the main mission of HDB. I would like to offer the Ministry some suggestions, not like the other Members of Parliament who can complain but there are no suggestions:

Disallow HDB flat upgraders to private property from retaining their flats for rental, which means they have to sell.

Impose additional tax conditions on PRs who have invested in HDB flats for rental or for capital gain.

Increase HDB housing grant to low-income families but at the same time extend the minimum occupancy period to prevent premature cashing out, which was suggested by one of my colleagues earlier on.

Review the pricing policy of new HDB flats which I spoke about in this House previously − pegging to market rate and then giving a discount may not be the best way of pricing. In a rising market, it will continue to spiral upwards as the new price will be increasing and in turn for another round of increase when the new owners release these flats back to the market. It will actually fuel a higher sort of baseline value.

As Singapore progresses, it is natural that we will continue to attract investments in all sectors, including the property sector, but we should limit these investments to the private property market. HDB should and must remain to be privileged housing preserved and protected for Singaporeans.

Our CPF – is it adequate for our retirement? I think we have argued on this topic before where we talked about CPF LIFE policy. CPF was originally intended as a savings scheme to meet our basic needs for old age. We all know that we are ageing and we all hope that every individual Singaporean has a comfortable nest egg to take care of his own needs in old age without having to rely too much on the younger generation. CPF LIFE annuity plan was introduced a few years ago which I fully supported.

Along the way, there are more and more requests to use the CPF for other purposes such as housing, education, healthcare and even investments. CPF is a limited pool of resources especially for the lower-income group. For this group, there is hardly any amount left after deducting the CPF for housing needs.

I urge the Government to do more to help with the retirement financing of this group and also for homemakers who have no CPF at all. One suggestion is to move towards the left by the formation of a common pool pension fund apart from CPF where everyone contributes according to their income level but disbursed equally to all aged Singaporeans. This can be done in addition to our current CPF LIFE scheme to supplement Singapore's retirement adequacy.

Building facilities ahead of demand − I am glad that the Government in the Addendum to the President's Address stated the intent to build facilities ahead of demand. Part of the reason why non-mature estate was not popular was the lack of facilities. The early settlers and pioneers of HDB estates were penalised as such. Instead of a first movers' advantage, I coined it the first movers' disadvantage.

I have always wondered why for certain facilities such as airport and seaport, the Government takes a long-term view and builds much ahead of demand. But for HDB estate facilities such as swimming pool and stadium, the Government takes a different approach. Investments in such facilities may not expand our GDP directly but may have many intangible benefits such as promoting a healthier and happier population, as my Workers' Party's colleague has mentioned. Sports facilities and hawker centres are also a magnet for people to congregate as well as mingle. They serve as platforms for a closer community and play an important role in community building.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight, for the sake of nearly 80,000 residents in Sembawang town, that the 12-year-old Sembawang town does not have a swimming pool or a sports facility. The only wet market and hawker centre situated along Canberra Road was demolished but not replaced more than 10 years ago. On behalf of the residents of Canberra, I would like to make a plea to the Government for a swimming pool, sports complex and also a hawker centre.

Sir, in conclusion, life works in a miraculous way. We started off as a nation with problems of housing, employment, healthcare and population issues. After 46 years of development, we are back at the same circle, looking at again housing, employment, healthcare and population issues but this time round, it is not enough population.

We have done it before and there is no reason to believe why we cannot succeed. There is an old Chinese saying that wealth and prosperity do not cross three generations. We are now at the third generation of leadership. There are some who believe that we may succumb to this third generation curse. But I am confident that, together, we will prevail and write the next chapter of the Singapore Story, and it should be titled "From First World to Our Singapore, Our Home, Our Future". With that, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of thanks to the President. The President had emphasised the concepts of "inclusive growth" and "quality growth" in his Address to the Parliament. These are two points which are close to my heart and I wish to share my humble perspectives on these with the House.

It appears that the word "growth" has somewhat taken on a negative connotation recently, and it seems almost fashionable to associate it with a government that blindly pursues it at the expense of Singaporeans. This cannot be further from the truth. It was therefore timely for the President to remind us that this Government is very much focused on achieving what he described as "inclusive and quality growth", which is "growth" that the majority of Singaporeans can and will benefit from.

What is growth? Stripped to its fundamentals, growth, to me, means jobs. It means livelihood for our people. It allows Singaporeans to afford better housing, better transport, better education, and better healthcare. Most importantly, it allows Singaporeans to aspire towards a better life for themselves and their families. Without growth, in the words of the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, we will die as a nation.

Growth, to me, is also about the Government caring and being compassionate to our citizens. There remains yet to be seen a better form of welfare than a government working to provide ample job opportunities for its citizenry. During the recent financial crisis of 2008, I have seen firsthand what joblessness does to a person, and I can attest to the fear and anxiety associated with being unemployed. A government which is focused on providing a livelihood for its citizens is, to my mind, a government that has the utmost concern for its citizens' welfare at heart.

Growth, however, also means a willingness to work hard and to better ourselves as our fathers, and their fathers, did. We can be very certain that if this country is not prepared to work hard and remain competitive, there are many countries out there which are more than willing to take our place in the global economy and to take away our rice bowls. No one owes us a living.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it begs emphasis that managing the economy well is not an exact science. This uncertainty is compounded by the inevitable reality of globalisation. As the world's economies become much more intertwined, the storms that rage in other parts of the world have the potential of affecting our tiny island with greater acuity. As Lord Peter Mandelson alluded to during his recent visit to Singapore, with globalisation, what governments can do become less and less effective.

It is not as straightforward as saying we sacrifice a point of GDP for a point of Gross National Happiness (GNH). The right thing to do therefore is to make hay while the sun shines. This is so that when the menacing storm clouds gather over us, we can rest assured that we had, over the years, garnered sufficient financial resources to keep ourselves warm. Indeed, a government which neglects to provision for contingencies will be remiss in its duties to the people.

The point has been made that we have seen no real wage growth in the income for the bottom 20% of the workforce, notwithstanding the fact that the Singapore economy as a whole has moved forward in the last 10 years. But if I may remind this House, taking this proposition in its converse, I shudder to think what the real wage growth for the bottom 20% will be if the economy has not grown at all. Will it be negative perhaps? How then will this House answer to her people?

The bottomline is this − there must be growth. This is first and foremost. How then do we ensure that the Singaporean brand of "growth" is inclusive and of high quality? A very tall order indeed. This Government has through the years demonstrated that she is in tune with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans. The watershed election in May brought into sharper focus the fact that Singaporeans expect even more from the Government. I have no doubt that this Government will be able to rise to the occasion.

In July 2010, the Finance Minister set a tangible target of 30% growth of the median wage in the next 10 years. He had during the Budget Debate of 2011 explained in detail how the Government hopes to achieve this. This is an ambitious target and I applaud the Finance Minister for this. For as any statistician will say, it is extremely difficult to target something such as the median. However, the difficult thing to do is often the right thing to do.

What more can be done in the shorter term? For a worker in the bottom 20% of the wage structure, he is concerned with cost of living issues. How will he face inflationary pressures? He is concerned with the price of utilities, food, transport, housing, healthcare, all basic necessities of life. He might be a 45-year-old sole breadwinner to a family of four, armed with a primary school or secondary school education in a blue-collar position. He is worried about foreigners who might be abroad or in Singapore, and who expect lower wages and are willing to work for longer hours than he is. In short, he is worried that he may become uncompetitive. These are concerns which this Government must meet with the greatest urgency.

Our medium-term solution is to retrain him with more marketable skills, increase his productivity so that he is competitive again. However, it is not always possible to alleviate the short-term sufferings associated with structural unemployment problems through these measures. I would propose that the Finance Minister consider extending targeted dosages of "grow and care" packages for this group of Singaporeans. This, I believe, will go a long way to alleviate his fears and to assure him that the Government is there to help him deal with the immediate concerns of cost of living.

For the young in Singapore, the Government must continue its policy to create multiple peaks of excellence in its educational programmes. The vagaries of the global economy necessitates that we have a supple and well diversified workforce. We cannot be sure where the next area of growth will be, but we must ensure that we provide a conducive environment for our young to pursue their passions − be it in the sciences, medicine, arts, music, culinary expertise or sports. Then we must ensure that a platform exists in Singapore for them to take centre stage and make a difference to the lives of fellow Singaporeans and in the world.

In closing, I would remind this House that the Singaporean brand of "growth" is a promise and an assurance of a better future for all Singaporeans. No one will be left behind and every one will be able to share in this nation's achievements. With that, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I congratulate you and I stand in support of the President's call to create a better life for all Singaporeans. I fully agree with the President's comment that it is in a new environment that our future will be built. Sir, that means challenging the mindsets and policies that are often thought of as obvious or common sense – things that many of us think "cannot be done in any other way because that is the way it has always been done".

Sir, in re-examining Singapore's policy blueprints in this new age and how these might be changed, I urge Government to exercise the three "Cs" of courage, clarity and conscience.

First, on courage in re-examining Singapore's modifications of the traditional Westminster parliamentary model since the 1980s. The Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMP) Scheme was introduced in 1984 to provide a voice for the Opposition in Parliament. It allows the best performing Opposition candidates to be appointed as MPs even though they had lost in the elections. It was a scheme to address the then lack of sufficient alternative voices in Parliament.

Another feature, the Nominated MP (NMP) Scheme was introduced in 1990 − a move to appoint (instead of being elected into office) MPs who do not belong to any political party or represent any constituency. The Scheme was to provide opportunities for Singaporeans who do not participate or want to participate in politics to have a voice and/or present alternate views in Parliament.

The Elected President (EP) Scheme was instituted in 1991 and transformed the presidency from a ceremonial head of state to a directly elected office with additional power to safeguard Singapore's rich financial reserves. The move was intended to ensure institutional checks to prevent any irresponsible government in raiding our national reserves, subjecting our country to economic loss.

The NCMP, NMP and EP Schemes are all departures from the traditional Westminster parliamentary system and installed in a different political climate.

The fact that we have in this House a team of elected Opposition MPs through a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) win, no less, bears testament to the fact that the political conditions have evolved from the time these schemes were introduced.

The new political environment the President alluded to is indeed an awakened, no-holds-barred world facilitated by an open-access, free-speech new media. Even in new media, evolution is taking place. The emergence of moderate voices in both pro-Government and pro-Opposition online communities are signs of a politically maturing electorate. I was encouraged recently to read several postings by pro-Opposition netizens who chided their online peers for their hobby of posting videos and photographs depicting often poor, vulnerable, elderly individuals without the intent to help the individuals. These moderate voices demanded that instead of simply publicising these stories on cyberspace, netizens have the duty to direct them to the relevant agencies, or even their MPs for necessary help.

Sir, against this new political backdrop which also features the many vocal PAP backbenchers and Opposition MPs in this House, I believe it is time for a review of the current political blueprint of Singapore. It is time for the Government to study the relevance of the modifications it has made to the political system thus far, and consider the merits of reverting to the parliamentary democracy system that trusts an electorate to vote and be represented by the candidates they elect to office. I believe that there is no need for the Ruling party to play the paternal role and artificially inject alternative voices in Parliament or install additional checks on elected representatives of Singaporeans.

I therefore urge the Government to examine if the created offices of NMP, NCMP and EP are still relevant in today's new political environment. If the conditions under which they were introduced are no longer the same, let us have the courage to slay these sacred cows before they become overgrown and irrelevant.

Next on clarity. Sir, a policy area that I strongly seek clarity is in funding public services. Wikipedia defines "public services" to mean services provided by government to its citizens, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing providers for services that are deemed desirable for outsourcing or are under or not provided by the private sector. The term "public service" is associated with a social consensus that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income and are expected to be provided by government.

Sir, I am a little dismayed that asking for more money or funds is becoming a standard conversation piece in most dialogues held between Government agencies and especially Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) who are often assigned the task of providing some form of public good or other community services.

There appears to be a disconnect between (1) how much the Government thinks it should be funding, eg, social services; and (2) how much the public and service providers expect and demand. Prime Minister Lee has a point when he cautioned VWOs at the ComCare Fifth Anniversary event last December, and I quote, "We should always be mindful that welfare schemes start with the best of intentions but, over time, they grow, they get bigger, they get more comprehensive and they build up into a taxing burden, because they are easy to implement, easy to expand, hard to trim, impossible to stop." While I fully agree with the Prime Minister about the danger of unstoppable welfare services, I think it is also important for us to clarify on what constitutes welfare schemes and what are essential services that the people expect the State to provide and fund.

Sir, it is important that crucial conversations take place between Government and the rest of Singapore to clarify and try to seek consensus in which and how public services are funded and charged. In modern developed countries, the term "public services" often covers education, public transportation, town planning, public housing, healthcare, military, police, fire services, broadcasting, waste management and social services, especially for the disadvantaged.

Service providers and users of their services need a framework that provides more clarity in funding philosophy and guidelines that take into account at least three kinds of services – essential services, community services and other form of services:

Essential services or public goods such as healthcare, education of both mainstream and special schools, public housing, national security services and welfare for the vulnerable;

Community services that support Government strategies such as eldercare, active ageing, health promotions, disability support and assistance for the poor; and

Other services initiated by public-spirited parties who wish to promote better quality of life such as Make A Wish Foundation which grants wishes to children with chronic illnesses and Food From The Heart which distributes unsold food items to the poor through a volunteer network.

If a service is deemed to be a public good, and outsourced, then the provider should be treated as any outsourced vendor and be paid a competitive price. An appointed provider should not then have to pitch and raise funds either directly or through agents such as the National Council of Social Services (NCSS) to pay for their basic operational cost.

In the case of special education, for instance, the State should be bearing the full cost of operating the special schools for agreed expected outcomes. But the current funding formula which calls for 75% funding by MOE and 25% by NCSS seems to reflect a lack of clarity on whether special education is a public good. Formulae of this nature make little sense, complicate the reporting matrix and distract our special school leaders from their core education mission. I therefore recommend a review of the funding policies and practices of public and other community services and ask for more clarity in this area.

Third, conscience. Sir, I want to conclude by arguing for a place for even more conscience in policy formulation in the new environment.

On vulnerable uneducated and non-English-speaking workforce, Sir, the "Occupy" movement which started in Wall Street and is now igniting protests across the world is a reminder that economic growth must engage and bring along those who are at risk of being excluded or, worse still, left behind. I applaud the excellent work of the Government in helping Singapore tide over some of the worst financial crises in recent years − a feat I often feel is under-stated and under-appreciated. I support the strategy of increasing the real incomes of Singaporeans through productivity enhancements.

Sir, I serve in Kampong Glam, which houses many uneducated or less-educated, elderly and poor. I often have to seek jobs, with the help of other agencies. Because of their profiles, many of these residents were placed in the security and cleaning industries – a fact which often disturbs me. I now fear that the new productivity movement which emphasises multi-plexing job scopes and higher value-add and, in many cases, English proficiency, are no longer within the reach of my residents. The security industry, for instance, which reported a higher increase in average income due to better designed higher-value jobs, now appears to be not so accessible to those who do not qualify. Many of my people seem to be resigned now to a career cleaning and picking up after other people.

Sir, we need to raise the boat of this group of Singaporeans who are too able to be placed on Public Assistance but structurally too immobile to enjoy the fruits of the current productivity movement. I propose a taskforce to be set up to lift this vulnerable group.

On special needs population − still on the subject of conscience − recently, when I asked a youth with special needs what "Family" meant, he said "Ohana" – a term echoed from his favourite cartoon "Lilo and Stitch". When I further asked what the Hawaiian word "Ohana" meant, the teenager repeated what he heard from TV, "Ohana means €˜family'. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten." Although I am not quite sure he understood what he said or repeated, I felt the words were profound and they reminded me and my fellow volunteers to persevere and plod on to not leave behind or forget those who are vulnerable and at risk in our society.

I recently facilitated several focus groups to prepare for the next Enabling Masterplan for the Disabled. Last week, I also read two papers outlining the challenges that the deaf and blind in our country faced. I recall the papers and appeals I have submitted to Government Ministries for inclusion and excellence for the special needs community in education especially.

Sir, it is to the credit of several Cabinet Members and civil servants that so much has improved for the special needs community in the last 10 years. Thank you, Prime Minister, Minister Tharman, Minister Vivian, Minister Gan Kim Yong, Mr Wong Kan Seng who opened the doors for the deaf to have an SMS emergency line, several Mayors and others in their respective teams who listened and helped. Yet so much remains to be done to include these sons and daughters of Singapore in mainstream Singapore.

Sir, as long as we still need to fight for public services such as access to good education and transport for them, the people with special needs in our country are still not fully members of "Ohana" in Singapore.

When a child is born with a congenital condition, he is not covered under the MediShield, the national medical insurance plan. If a special-needs child needs special education, he cannot be guaranteed of a good education because the quality of education he receives is determined by the aspiration and expectation of the charity leader who operates his special school. Unlike his mainstream peers, his school records are likely to be stored in an Excel spreadsheet or database rather than the sophisticated million-dollar IT student tracking and records system that only Government can afford for other students of his same age. The special school students' teachers are unlikely to receive the type of variable and performance bonus plans their mainstream peers receive.

What this student with special needs ultimately gets is fought for and granted usually by some kind political leaders or civil servants whose conscience is touched. If he has no intellectual disability and makes it to tertiary institutions, he is likely to have to struggle as support for him is dependent on the kindness of his teachers and his school. For the deaf, unless they enter the right polytechnic, it is quite likely that there is little access to sign interpreters and note takers so vital for them to access learning.

The adult with special needs in Singapore is also unlikely to receive lifelong learning like his able-bodied peers, nor have his rights defended by a union representative because the union thinks that the job of representing a disabled worker is best done by a charity.

Sir, it is time to stop treating people with special needs as people we have to do something good for or something to do good to. Each one of them is registered in Singapore's birth of registry and deserves the right to basic healthcare insurance, quality education, security and, yes, even the right to make informed decisions in the event of a general election. Their advocates should not have to fight so hard to play catch-up to ensure they are included within the system throughout their lifespan. They are not objects of charity and are more than Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Community Involvement Projects (CIP) projects of Singapore. They are not the addenda to the main Singapore book of success. They must be considered every time a page is written and not as afterthoughts. We need a mindset shift in how we view this population.

Sir, American political activist, Martin Luther King Junior once shared these words, which I feel are relevant to the importance of doing the right thing. He said: "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic (or practical)?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But Conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."

Sir, it is time for Singapore to take that position to do what is right. Today, I will only ask for three specifics which I hope the Government will approve for this community:

Reform the Special Education Governance System and set up a Special Education body which incorporates the best personnel and practices with representation from each major disability group. The body must look at identifying, implementing and reporting the enablers that will move special education to excellence, to make every special school a great school, in the image of what Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said and has envisioned for all mainstream schools. Lest the governing body turns out to be an assembly of persons who cannot value-add or too busy, I ask that proper due diligence be conducted and consensus be obtained before appointing members of the body;

I ask the Government to fund personnel and a structured support system for students with special needs in every tertiary institution. Take a reference from the well-admired Disability Support Service Centre that is set up in the University of Berkeley; and

For Minister Manpower to set up a Taskforce with the goal of providing Continued Education and Training for the special-needs workforce, similar or better than that available to the able-bodied.

In conclusion, Sir, I will share what one of my favourite authors observed about life. Rick Warren said that there are actually three levels of living life. There is the survival level. There is the success level. And there is the significance level.

At the survival level which means physically barely surviving, one worries about getting one's next meal or a roof over one's head. Whilst the majority of Singaporeans are not at this survival level, there are nonetheless some who fall through the holes of our social safety net and it is the duty of both the Government and people to find them and help them; to move them from survival to the next level.

At level two – success − it concerns the pursuit of happiness for oneself; happiness being defined as, all of us agree, more than the chase for GDP, encompassing quality of life factors like owning a home of one's choice, elevators that never break down, an environment that is free of air and noise pollution, worklife balance, financial security, and the like. I assume that is what the other Members of the House were talking about yesterday, and that is happiness, success.

But, Sir, it is at the third level of living – significance – that Singapore can be a truly inspiring place to live in. Significance goes beyond looking out for the interest of oneself and one's family only. It is not simply reading the President's Address, play the role of critique, and holding other people accountable to pursue the Singapore Dream. It is not simply having something to live on, but something to live for. It is applying conscience and courage to stick our necks out, roll up our sleeves, give up some of our own comfort and convenience to add value to the lives of other people, especially those who are at risk of being left behind or forgotten; perhaps not just within Singapore but also in communities who are barely surviving beyond the shores of Singapore, our neighbours.

Today, I urge the Singapore Government and Singaporeans to apply courage, clarity and conscience as we partner to create a better future for all of us. And I pledge my best to help Singapore achieve not just success but significance. With that, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?

You have my consent.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Dr Lam, resumption of debate what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." − [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Adjourned accordingly at 6.49 pm.