Hansard, 2011-10-19

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

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

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

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I support our President in advocating an inclusive approach in discussing Singapore's future. While we can pride ourselves with having a safe, secure and prosperous Singapore, we cannot ignore the fact that there is still a large segment of our fellow Singaporeans earning low wages. Based on 2011 WIS recipients, it is estimated that we have more than 400,000 workers earning a salary below $1,700.

I have met many low-wage workers through my work with the NTUC, and at Meet-the-People sessions. There are employers that take advantage of their vulnerable position. For example, many cleaners, not only do they earn low salaries, a major component of it will be in the form of reimbursements such as transport, laundry or mobile phone allowances that do not attract CPF payments or included in overtime work calculations. Many struggle to meet the basic needs of their family members, and may not have job security, and may be afraid to speak up for their rights as they may feel worried about losing their jobs, especially if they are older workers. Rising costs have made their daily struggles even harder. Although the Singapore economy has performed well over the years, there is an increasing wealth divide.

We have done much to improve the life of our low-wage workers. Several Members of Parliament yesterday have made several suggestions on what could be done to help needy families or low-wage workers. I fully support their suggestions. While I acknowledge that a lot has been done to help low-wage workers, we can still do more. Recently, it was reported in the papers that the real income growth for low-wage workers for the past 10 years has been flat. Sir, I would like to urge the Government to ensure that the push to increase real wages by 30% in the next 10 years will be felt by low- wage workers as they are the ones who are most in need of higher salaries. In fact, I would like to suggest revising the target for low-wage workers' salaries to increase in real terms by 50% in the next decade so that there will be an even greater impact on these workers.

Last Monday, NTUC together with our tripartite partners reviewed and discussed our efforts to help low-wage workers. NTUC has been championing the Workfare Income Supplement, Workfare Training Scheme, and Inclusive Growth Programme and encouraging companies to embark on "Best Sourcing" instead of "Cheap Sourcing". We do have many success stories to show how these schemes helped boost productivity and led to wage increases for low-wage workers and NTUC fully support such initiatives. Personally, I have two questions. First, are the salary increments given to these more productive workers equivalent to the productivity gains? Second, is the impact from NTUC's efforts alone, widespread enough to make a real difference to the 400,000 low-wage workers out there?

Sir, as a labour MP, I would like to urge that the drive towards achieving sustained real wage growth for low-wage workers be a Key Performance Indicator for every Ministry, Government agency, statutory board and social enterprise. We must do this as a shared national initiative to help our fellow Singaporeans. We cannot afford to have any Ministry or organisation to take a "bo-chap" attitude in ensuring better wages and better working conditions for their workers.

Sir, for a start, every Ministry and Government-related organisation must take ownership of the Inclusive Growth Programme. NTUC has been driving the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) to help companies boost their productivity and share the productivity gains with the low-wage workers but, there is an urgent need for this programme to be ramped up quickly for a greater widespread impact. Unless, Government agencies take the lead in implementing IGP, we may not realise the full impact of IGP in helping low-wage workers.

In my conversation with union leaders on the plight of low-wage workers, many have lamented that the strategy of outsourcing manual or blue-collar jobs in many organisations, including Government bodies, has partly contributed to the current situation of depressed wages for these workers. While outsourcing has many benefits – such as saving operational costs, keeping companies economically nimble and allowing them to focus on their core businesses – it has its drawbacks, too. Competition amongst service providers inadvertently leads to cost-cutting and this manifests itself in the form of low salaries for their workers. To make matters worse, contractual obligations spanning a few years at fixed contract price means that the salary of these low-wage workers will stagnate. Sir, we should ask ourselves this question, is it morally justifiable to save cost through outsourcing at the expense of workers' salary?

Sir, I would like our Government Ministries and statutory boards to re-look at the strategy of outsourcing jobs that are needed on a daily basis. I recall when I was a child, my father was a civil servant as he worked as a daily-rated worker with PWD. As a result, my whole family had medical benefits that covered public clinic consultations. We did not have a lot of comforts but our basic needs were met. I wish this can be the case for all low-wage workers working in Government bodies to be direct employees so that they are protected from the bluntness of the economic system.

Sir, I do understand having these workers as direct employees will lead to higher expenditure for Ministries and public institutions, and this seems to go against the principle of exercising prudence in spending public funds. However, we should ask ourselves even if we can quantify the savings made from outsourcing, what is the social cost to it? If we spend more of public funds to have low-wage workers as direct employees of the public sector, while ensuring that they have higher salaries and better benefits, would it not translate to looking after the needs and welfare of Singapore workers? Moreover, having workers as direct employees will increase the worker's sense of belonging to the public service and they will feel that the Government is taking care of their interests.

Sir, if employing these low-wage workers as direct employees is not viable for whatever reasons, I would propose then for Ministries and Government bodies to practise "Best Sourcing" according to its rationale and intent. Based on our sense on the ground, there will be less resistance from the Ministries if the Ministry of Finance reviews the financial compliance guidelines in the Government's Instruction Manual to be more explicitly in supporting "Best Sourcing". NTUC, as the champion for workers, is willing to work with the MOF on this and work with other Ministries on its implementation.

Sir, "Best Sourcing" is not new to NTUC which has been actively championing "Best Sourcing" as an initiative to help low-wage workers earn better salaries and employment terms. This year, the Tripartite Committee on Low-Wage Workers will be pushing for companies to practise "Best Sourcing" so that the basic rights of low-wage workers are protected and they receive fair wages. I support this call and would like to suggest that MOM and NTUC work on a list of good service providers that give fair wages and employment terms to their workers. Ministries and public institutions should then consider only tenders put up by these companies recognised by the unions. Again, NTUC is willing to work with any Ministry to ensure that the workers are being paid a fair salary.

Sir, earlier, I shared that the nature of the contractual obligation between Ministries and the service providers will make it difficult for low-wage workers to get salary increases annually. Let me give an example. Currently, there is a Ministry with a cleaning contract that is a term for three years with a three-year extension and the contract price remains throughout. Workers under this contract will typically have stagnant wages for six years. I think this is totally unacceptable. I would like to encourage Ministries to relook their existing contract with service providers to enable that these workers do enjoy wage increments instead of earning the same salary for the duration of the fixed price contract. This is something that must be done if the Government is serious in helping low-wage workers earn sustainable real wage increases of 30% – or was it 50% – in 10 years.

If all these measures do not sufficiently address the issue, then we might have to think about introducing a law to make service buyers legally accountable for the welfare of these workers. Sir, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [P lease refer to Pg 319-320 for Vernacular Speeches .] The Malay community in Singapore has attained many achievements in education and employment. There are more outstanding students who managed to win awards and many successfully continued their studies to the post-secondary level in the ITEs, polytechnics and universities.

As for employment, there are now more Malay professionals with an increase in the number of graduates having diplomas, bachelor's degrees, Master's degrees and PhDs. These achievements were due to the efforts and the hard work of our community members who contribute to the Malay-Muslim bodies to improve the social situation of the community. But even though these achievements bring pride, our community now faces new issues. I will make an effort to highlight important issues related to the Malay-Muslim community throughout my term as a Member of Parliament. However, for today's Parliament sitting, I will focus on two issues: the issue of low-wage workers, and the issue of drug addiction, which are still affecting segments of our community.

Sir, in my English speech, I spoke about many issues that are faced by low-wage workers in Singapore. This group faces many challenges, and financial problems can be one of the factors causing a cycle of problems for the worker and his family. Some have problems in paying their housing arrears and are forced to rent a flat; some also have problems in their families and in disciplining their children. It is not easy to solve these problems because they need help at many levels, like upgrading the workers' skills, finding ways to enable the workers to get a higher salary, providing support for their children's education, and giving focus to solve the problem of dysfunctional families. Due to the various problems that they face, I have urged the Government and employers to find ways to create the real wage increase of 50% for low-wage workers within the next 10 years. I hope this can materialise.

However, the effort to upgrade the status of workers is not only the job of the Government. Workers also play a big part in this effort. Malay workers must continue to monitor news on the development of the major global economies because if the world dips into recession, it will have an impact on Singapore's economy. If Singapore's economy is affected, it will have an impact on workers and some may be affected and retrenched due to companies closing down. In order to try to avoid this negative impact on us, each worker must find or grab opportunities to upgrade their skills at their workplace. A skilled worker may be able to ride through the impact of an economic recession when it happens. Do not wait until something bad happens before realisation dawns on you. If there is an opportunity, grab it and do not waste it.

Next, the problem of drug addiction. Sir, I have personally seen among my own acquaintances the painful suffering inflicted on the family of a drug addict. It causes many family problems and the ones worst affected are the children of the addict because they have to live without a mother or a father all because of drugs. Sir, much effort has been made to reduce the number of Malay drug addicts. The community will surely remember the good deeds of the late Mr Harun Ghani who worked tirelessly to solve the problem of drug addiction when he was the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Success was achieved but we must continue to work hard in ensuring that our community members do not fall into the drug trap. This includes ensuring that there is no problem of relapse, especially with the advent of new drugs. As a member of a steering committee on the problem of drug addiction, I hope to be able to work with Malay bodies like Mendaki, Jamiyah and Pertapis and others to further understand this problem and try to solve it together. I hope that the Malay bodies can work hand-in-hand with the Government and relevant agencies like SANA, NCADA and SCORE to eliminate this problem. If it is not prevented effectively, it will result in a vicious cycle because the children of drug addicts may be influenced by the behaviour of their parents and can be trapped by the same problem when they grow up. Therefore, I would like to urge the Malay bodies to work hand-in-hand so that we can find ways together to overcome this problem and ensure that the Malay children do not fall into the drug trap.

(In English): Before I end, Sir, allow me to share my thoughts on Mr Chen Show Mao's views, please. Yesterday, in his maiden speech, Mr Chen shared his views on the importance of investment in human capital. Fundamentally, our Government is and has always been aware of its importance and a substantial amount of investment was made in areas of transport infrastructure, qualities, opportunities in education, healthcare and housing. I was surprised that he opined that Singaporeans have been under-served in recent years in these areas. I have lived and worked in Singapore for 46 years and over the years, undeniably, we have made much improvements and progress in these key areas. While I acknowledge that there are areas for improvement, I would not go to the extent to say Singaporeans have been under-served. In education, for instance, which I have been part of for the past 20 years, I have seen and experienced the transformation of the education service designed to mould the future of the nation. In every undertaking we did, we are constantly guided in providing the best for our children for we believe this would be best for Singapore. Our education system has been acknowledged by many independent international bodies to be among the best in the world. Mr Chen, let me assure you that Singaporeans have not been under-served in terms of investment in education. However, I would like to give Mr Chen the benefit of doubt in his view and look forward to hearing his alternative proposal to better our education system. Sir, I support the motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to draw our attention to some figures which, on their own, do not tell the whole story. If we were to look at education expenditure as part of our GDP, whether it is in comparison – these are 2008 numbers based on UNESCO Institute of Statistics as cited by the World Bank – with East Asian developing nations or whether it is with higher income OECD countries or the world generally, we cannot say that our spending is at the top of the range. Now, it does not mean that our spending or our education expenditure needs to be at the top end of all these rankings but when it is below, for example, 3.2% for East Asia developing, 5.4% for higher income OECD countries, or 4.4% for the world and it stands at 2.6%, I think there is room for us to think about what sort of additional investments we can make in the human capital of our young people. Starting from –

Mr Chen, this is a clarification. If you could keep the point short and just make your point.

I see, yes. Since I was not asked for a clarification of what I said in my speech but rather what I have in my mind, I thought I would share that with Mr Zainal. He asked me what sort of ideas I have. So, if I could, just to outline a few –

Mr Chen, I cannot allow you to give a supplementary speech. If you have a point and you want to make it, then you are at liberty to file a motion and you can make those points.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Chen. Ms Low Yen Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to rise in support of the motion of thanks to the President for his Address. In the six months that I have been with Bukit Gombak residents, I have met Singaporeans in different circumstances. One common thing binds us all, that is our hope and desire for a better future. We aspire for the best for our children and families. Many of us work hard to improve our lot, like our forefathers. The traits of diligence and determination to realise our aspirations are part of our Singapore DNA. Today, this Singapore "DNA" is being challenged and re-shaped by new forces and changes in the global economy. Technology is also transforming the way we work. There are now higher and more complex demands on education. In my speech, I will cover three broad points:

First, future-proofing PMETs above 40 years old for lifelong employability. Second, strengthening our bilingual advantage. And, finally, identifying the "Invisible Children". I call them "Invisible Children" because these are children not exactly with special needs but with learning difficulties.

Let me first kick off with the first topic of PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians). Many Members in this House in the past two days have talked about how the nature of employment has been transformed due to rapid globalisation, technology advancement and shorter business cycles. Jobs can now be easily outsourced, "offshored" and even disaggregated into tasks for virtual and temporary or even contract labour. This means that jobs essentially come easily under threat.

The 3 September issue of The Economist highlighted this problem by citing several economists, including Mr Paul Krugman, who argued that post-industrial societies would be characterised not by a relentless rise in demand for the educated but, interestingly, by a great "hollowing out". Smart machines are eroding mid-level jobs. High-level job growth will eventually slow down. The article described how even some jobs in professions like law and medicine are being undermined by computer-search specialists and online medical advice.

In the face of such challenges, there is a growing urgency for us to future-proof our PMETs above 40 years old for lifelong employability. They form a key cornerstone of our workforce. According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Labour Report in November 2010, the share of PMETs in our resident workforce grew from 42% in 1999 to 52% in 2010.

The issue of jobs for PMETs over 40 years old was highlighted by several of my residents during my interactions with them in the past six months. Many of them are well educated PMETs above 50 years old, worried about their jobs as well as family and mortgage commitments. Sir, please allow me to read an email extract from one of my residents, whom I will address as Evan.

"Ms Low, I am committed to contribute to the workforce and all I need is a good opportunity from some employers who believe in me. Although I am 50 this year, I am still capable of running 2.4 km under 13 minutes, swim at least 10 laps and have been practising yoga for the past 10 over years. I did all these to be healthy and employable and yet I am now facing the harsh reality of not even securing an interview despite months of job searching."

Evan's story, over the past six months that I interacted with my residents I realise, is not uncommon. In Gombak where we are home to 32 condominium developments, there are many middle-income families with the sole or even joint breadwinners as PMETs. Now, according to MOM's 2010 Redundancy and Re-employment Report indicated that a third of those who were made redundant were PMETs. And of the resident workforce made redundant, 61% were above 40 years old. MOM's recent Labour Market Report for Second Quarter 2011 observed that PMETs and those above 40 had the lowest rate of re-entry into employment. In my opinion, the number of older PMETs who will find it harder to re-enter their existing industry will continue to grow due to industry transformation arising from global competition. Just this month, MOM's Singaporeans in the Workforce Report showed that the employment rate of our population between 55 and 64 years old has fallen behind that of Japan, South Korea and the US.

I sincerely urge the Government to continue to review how we can further future-proof our PMETs above 40 years old for lifelong employability. Currently, we have strong supply-driven training programmes and infrastructure. We have the e2i and CDCs providing help to workers and PMETs, as well as programmes such as STEP (Skills Training for Excellence Programme) and EDGE (Executive Development and Growth for Excellence). In 2011, we will welcome the opening of the two CET (Continuing Education and Training) campuses. I understand $5 billion will go into the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. There will be a $150 million fund for PMET training that will train up to 60,000 PMETs.

With this in mind, how can we also catalyse a robust demand for the know-how and skill-sets of these valuable and well-trained PMETs? These supply-driven training programmes and sources of workforce need to be matched by a corresponding demand from employers, be it private or public sector.

Sir, may I suggest three points of action for the Government to consider? First, we can seek to foster greater demand and jobs for PMETs above 40 years old. We need to encourage employers to have a mindset that positively values employees of 40 years old and above. With more people living well into their 80s, 60 has become the new 40. Those above 40 years old offer a wealth of experience, skills, maturity and loyalty – traits that are very much valued by today's employers.

We need leaders in Government, business and education to be creative, to be willing to consider solutions that we have not tried before. The Government can also take the lead to support and encourage employers to desire and value the benefits of employing PMETs above 40 years old.

Take the UK as an example. The UK government's Age Positive campaign seeks to recognise and influence the attitudes and practices of employers and their staff. Its Code of Practice encourages the employers to make decisions about recruitment, training and retention that do not disadvantage someone because of their age.

Secondly, we can also look into practical ways of increasing the pipeline of fulfiling jobs for PMETs above 40 years old. The CET Masterplan aims to equip Singaporean workers with the skill-sets of entering emerging and growth industries. Perhaps, we can complement this by enhancing EDB's Strategic Attachment and Training Programme (STRAT) for PMETs above 40 years old. Those with the interests and skill-sets can be encouraged to move into adjacent growth areas, for example clean energy, identified and promoted by the Government agencies.

Thirdly, PMETs over 40 years old can be an invaluable human resource to help develop a stronger base of globally competitive Singapore enterprises, so as to grow the external wing of our economy. The benefit that PMETs can bring to SMEs, in fact, is illustrated by one of my residents whom I will call Jason. Jason is 53 years old, married with two teenage children. He was a General Manager of a multi-national corporation where he worked for more than 25 years. In March this year, he left the company due to ill health and spent a couple of months looking for a job. I met Jason in June and roped in CDC, WDA and e2i to help him. He went for some networking sessions and just last month, we were all very glad that he was hired to be a Service Manager of a listed local company that is in the marine industry. He now oversees more than 40 engineers and technicians. His company also draws upon his extensive experience to deal with the company's MNC clients.

Sir, I believe we stand a good chance of successfully tapping PMETs for the future growth of our SMEs. We can do more in this area – whether to provide job matching for PMETs above 40 years old to the SMEs, or to help these PMETs gain "T-shaped competencies". With that, they will be able to move into adjacent growth industries more easily when their industry strengths are coupled with a broad knowledge of horizontal strengths such as management, finance or even business operations. This will certainly be very useful in times like these, where we see that the centre of economic gravity is shifting to Asia.

At this point, Sir, please allow me to elaborate how we can further future-proof for Singaporeans by strengthening our bilingual advantage. Please allow me to switch to Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 321-322 for Vernacular Speeches .] Singapore's bilingual policy created people like us today, and it has also laid the foundation for future development. We all know English is an international language and a must in the global business world. Our bilingual policy in the early years gave us an edge over other Asian countries. We can use Chinese fluently to communicate with entrepreneurs from China and benefit from it. I personally know many entrepreneurs from China. They tell me that they can see the advantage of our bilingual policy that has trained many bilingual talents. We can communicate at ease with various parties in the international arena and have meaningful discussions with them. The rise of China and India and the shift of economic centre to Asia will bring boundless opportunities to this region.

Although Singapore has the bilingual advantage, more countries in the world are realising the importance of being bilingual. People are eagerly learning Chinese or English, and one day they will become bilingual elites too. These people are making fast progress. We cannot ignore these competitors. We should implement more effective education policies to educate the next generation so they can maintain our bilingual advantage. In fact, while studying mother tongue, we can also gain deeper understanding of Chinese cultural values, the root of being Chinese. We must pass on these values to the next generation.

Zaobao reported that many parents worry that their children cannot study and be good at two languages. As a parent of two children, I feel the same. Schools and homes, where English is the dominant means of communication, may not be the ideal environment of Chinese learning. Minister Heng Swee Keat has said that, according to the latest data, 61% of Primary 1 students come from English speaking families. Hence, we can start from family influence and to study how to help parents to create a relaxed and happy Chinese learning environment. As the saying goes, "The highest towers begin from the ground". Pre-school education is a crucial stage. I hope a creative and interesting pedagogy and a conducive environment will lay a solid foundation for their learning.

We also use different methods and media to teach the children, such as interesting Internet platforms, interactive whiteboards, cartoons, manga books, music, theatre and games. Through listening, watching, reading, writing and playing, the children can master the language in a fun way. We all know learning Chinese is a lifetime endeavour, I hope MOE and MCYS can jointly create a conducive Chinese learning environment for our next generation. If this learning environment is related to their daily life, they are unlikely to forget how to use Chinese after they graduate.

Talking about pre-school education, I would like now to touch on the issue of "invisible children". Please allow me to speak in English.

(In English): This brings me to another issue that has been close to my heart. They are our "Invisible Children". Who are these "Invisible Children"? They are children who may appear outwardly normal, but actually suffer from learning difficulties and development lags. While their intellectual capabilities can be within the normal range, they struggle with speech and language, writing and reading as well as other motor skills disorders.

About 5% to 6% in every cohort of pre-schoolers have developmental needs that could impact their learning, according to Prof Ho Lai Yun, Senior Consultant at the Department of Child Development in KK Hospital and Director of MOH's Child Development Programme. Prof Ho advised that early identification, followed by timely early intervention, is the key to helping these children and preparing them for mainstream education.

Right now, their needs are not fully addressed by the current support structure and facilities. On 3 October this year, The Straits Times reported that the number of children with developmental needs seen by KK Hospital and NUH grew by 30% in 2010. Both hospitals saw more than 9,000 children last year. Although MOH is working at reducing the wait, a child may need to wait between one and 3.5 months to see a psychologist or therapist.

This was one of the reasons why the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) embarked on a pilot programme with the KK Hospital and Lien Foundation called "Mission I'mpossible" in 2009. It covered 25 PCF centres in the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. The programme aimed to provide early detection, intervention and therapy for children with learning difficulties. It not only allowed parents' involvement in the child's therapy, it also brought the therapists into the PCF classrooms. Senior pre-school teachers were also trained to become Learning Support Educators to support the children and their parents. On 29 August this year, Lianhe Zaobao highlighted how a K2 PCF child, called Vicki Liu, had improved. She had difficulty focusing and communicating with teachers and friends. After counselling and several occupational therapy sessions, Vicki's behaviour became much better. To her mother's amazement, Vicki did very, very well in the Primary 1 English test this year.

Every child is valuable. There are no cures for learning difficulties. These children need help to develop relevant skills to cope with lifelong development and learning. Through this pilot programme, PCF screened 3,600 children over two years. And out of these 3,600 children, 200 children showed significant progress in their development and learning after intervention and therapy.

There are many more "Invisible Children" out there whom we are not aware of. If 5% to 6% of each cohort has learning difficulties every year, it translates to about 2,000 "Invisible Children". Can we look into ways of extending this programme nationally to even more pre-schools? We cannot lose any child due to lack of assistance. As Vicki has shown, it takes just a little help to make a huge difference in her life at this early stage.

We need to make the learning environment more inclusive and supportive for these children. The outcomes for these children can be improved with early detection and help. By narrowing the gap before they enter Primary 1, they can have a better chance of coping and succeeding within mainstream schools. To do this, we need to build up our pool of therapists and experts in this area. As of last year, there were 32 public sector therapists and psychologists working with special needs children. I understand MOH plans to double this number in two years' time. However, we need many more of such professionals to serve children with learning difficulties. To meet this shortage, we can also train senior pre-school teachers to be Learning Support Educators. This new job scope and function can also enhance the career choice and development of our pre-school teachers.

Can MOH's $46 million fund for developing manpower in childcare development be potentially used for this purpose? Will MCYS and MOH consider funding a national programme to detect and help children with learning difficulties?

Sir, our children and people are our treasures. We cannot afford to let anyone fall through the cracks. At the Opening of the Twelfth Parliament, President Tan exalted us to build "a fair and just society that ensures the well-being of every citizen; a gracious and compassionate community whose members care for each other; and a truly special Singapore, where our children can grow to be the best that they can be."

The vision of an inclusive nation is now up to all of us to fulfil. May we continue to strive hard to make Singapore a home we share and a nation we are all proud of. On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. Our President opened the Twelfth Parliament with a most assuring promise that the Government will continue to be unwavering in its resolve to build an inclusive society, one that all Singaporeans can be proud of and one that young and future Singaporeans can grow up to be the best that they can be. His assurance was timely.

We have come a long way since Independence, widely admired by countless governments globally, with many hoping to emulate us. Ironically, it has been said that our Government has not made our people happy and, in particular, our youths have become more openly dissatisfied and more belligerently critical of authority.

While I do not doubt that Singaporeans are loyal and would put their lives down for the country, I urge the Government to do their utmost not to let the current discontent go further than an express wish to become a better people, a better nation. The danger of our country's peace and prosperity being destroyed is a real one because discontent, left to brew unattended, can be easily fuelled by those whose interest lies not in Singapore's continued success but for their own mischievous ends.

We need to consider very carefully why our people's satisfaction with life, instead of increasing with Singapore's undisputed economic growth, has dropped swiftly as if weighed down by a big boulder. Top on the list of grouses is that the cost of living has gone up and housing has become unaffordable. The recent measures to cool the property market have brought results in some measure but resale flat prices continue to increase, presenting difficulties to diverse groups such as young couples who wish to live near their parents and in-laws. Another grouse is how certain housing policies are inflexible, making it difficult for Singaporeans in need to either buy a flat within their means or to rent one.

Another source of dissatisfaction is transport related – train congestion and irregular bus service. Singaporeans note the big contrast between the service that they received in the past and what they have to put up with every day as they travel to work and back to their homes in the evening. The dissatisfaction runs deep and I shall illustrate with an anecdote. An elderly lady, who lost the dash into a train, turned to another similarly disappointed passenger, and started blaming it on the Government for allowing too many foreigners to come to Singapore. She was carrying food to her loved one in the hospital and worried that the food would be cold whilst she waits for the next train.

Our ordinary folks' happiness is mirrored daily not just anecdotally but in the media, both mainstream and non-mainstream. Although Singaporeans know that the Government gathers feedback 24 x 7 x 365 through various channels, they perceive that the feedback is not acted on decisively. An example of this is my residents' feedback on irregular bus service that has tested their patience sorely because the requested change took very long to happen. Residents are now telling me that our trains are overcrowded and they fear the situation will worsen when COE prices continue their upward climb next year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 323 for Vernacular Speeches .] Mr Speaker, I mentioned earlier about the the people's dissatisfaction in three areas: one, housing; two, transport; and, third, healthcare. Singaporeans complain about high healthcare costs, crowded polyclinics and poor service. To address these issues, the Ministry of Health intends to involve more GPs rather than building more polyclinics which takes up precious land resources. One new idea is to allow GPs to form Family Medical Centres (FMCs) where subsidised patients can receive treatment, thus reducing the queue at polyclinics. But GPs have told me that having a group of GPs work together will achieve its intended goal only if they are equally competent and attract roughly the same number of patients. If FMCs become the preferred healthcare provider and GPs earn more as a result of many more subsidised patients, more well-off patients who are not subsidised will turn to polyclinics and join the long queues there. Would this motivate more doctors to join the private sector? If this happens, overcrowding at polyclinics will remain. So will patients' dissatisfaction.

(In English): At the heart of the above issues is the willingness of our people to work closely with the Government to achieve the desired outcomes. Devoting more resources or funds to any initiative to address housing or health issues will not work unless Singaporeans are willing to take ownership of the problems and work the hardest they can for the good of all. They would have to trust this Government to deliver as well.

I now come to what I see as a more pertinent contributor to unhappiness. The growth-based national vision which appealed to newly independent Singapore no longer holds as much charm for a better educated people who start to have higher expectations of life in all its aspects. Many demand freedom to pursue personal goals which they feel was the trade-off in the past. John Kampfner, former editor of The New Statesman, describes the typical Singaporean as someone who traded freedom for prosperity and security in his book "Freedom for Sale". Such a simplistic view of Singaporean society, if left alone, will create even more unhappiness. We need to question the facile equation of freedom to pursue individual goals with democracy or happiness.

It is good to have personal goals if this little red dot was blessed with natural resources and precious stones. But to fight off global competition with nothing more than a small workforce and collective intelligence, we need to settle. More people marching off in different directions means fewer people left to face off the strongest common enemy. We have to decide whether to do one big thing together well, or many little things all at once with little certainty that any of them will work.

Unfortunately, our people appear to have forgotten our inherent weaknesses. Many also appear to have forgotten the social contract that we lived by. No individual can claim to have succeeded on his or her own effort. Our safety: we entrust to the Home Team and MINDEF which everyone paid for. Our ability to find jobs: we owe to our education and schools which everyone paid for. Our gorgeous parks and greenery: we leave to NParks which everyone paid for. What modern infrastructure we have, we have to build and improve over a long time under a stable leadership which is able to see through long-term improvement programmes and projects. Nothing much can be accomplished if our Ministers keep walking through revolving doors.

The question to ask is, how can Singaporeans be reminded that it is important not to lose sight of the big picture whilst pursuing individual goals? How can they remember that our pioneers made success possible through sheer hard work and a sense of duty to the country? My concern is that our youths are beginning to think that it is their right to pursue personal goals in the name of freedom and their democratic ideals without sufficient thought to what it is that makes Singapore tick and what it is that will allow Singapore to continue to thrive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is imperative that we pay more attention to what goes on in schools from now on. To solve long-term problems, we will have to start with our education system. I asked a 16-year-old young man on attachment with me in my law firm his views of Singapore. Mr Tan Jia Xin has just completed his Harvard Summer School and he is waiting to start his IB programme at Hwa Chong International next year. He said that the first difference was having the opportunity to discover his strength. In Singapore, he could not be a player on his school's basketball team because it only accepted members who could play well and by implication, win competitions. In the United States, all students were put on a debate team which allowed him to discover his passion for law.

Another observation was the passion with which his teachers taught which left a deep impression on him. Finally, he was impressed by the willingness of high net worth parents who willingly helped out as coaches and mentors in his school. In his Google search, he discovered that one parent was a CEO overseeing a company valued at a few million US dollars. His wish list seems reasonable enough for passion is a great motivator for both learning and teaching. If our parents show passion for education, it will rub off on the students too. Thus, our schools should consider how we can, within our constraints, infuse the learning environment with passion for both teaching and learning. I am all for the new emphasis on Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), but I agree with the view that unless our people feel passionately for the subject, the perception many will have is that it is merely another piece of "propaganda".

Mr Tan also talked about the importance of promoting family bonding which was more evident to him in the US. For many youths in Singapore, communication with parents is usually restricted to school work because their parents are busy providing for the family's needs. Hence, I urge MCYS to consider offering parenting workshops at all community centres or clubs to promote family bonding, conduct sharing sessions on how to bond with children, make them aware of the importance of being rooted in family values.

Sir, Mr Bill Gates once gave a talk at a school where he told the audience that their parents did not use to be so boring but that they got to be that way by paying bills that keep their children in school, buying food to provide them with meals, washing their clothes to keep them clean, and so on. Parents need to teach the lesson of appreciation at home and this has to be reinforced at school by CCE in our children's formative years. If our children learn the lesson of appreciation well, they will grow up to be compassionate citizens who shoulder the responsibility of looking after the old and the disabled. They would have learnt that they should not just pay back what they have received but that they should also pay it forward so others will benefit from their actions and create a virtuous circle of kindness. Paying it forward is what we have to do to stay united as one people, one nation, regardless of race, language or religion. In the next five years, our education system must focus on the right values for our young if we want to achieve our vision of an inclusive society that will last a long time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will speak in Mandarin to respond to the Member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao's analogy yesterday.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 324 for Vernacular Speeches .] Mr Speaker, Sir, MP Chen Show Mao used the analogy of Emperor Tang Tai Zong and Wei Zhen to describe the relationship between the ruling party and the Workers' Party. I think it is not very appropriate.

Emperor Tang Tai Zong was wise and benevolent. Wei Zhen risked his life to see him and voice his views. Both of them are historical figures who deserve our respect. However, no matter how wise Emperor Tang Tai Zong was, he was still an Emperor in the feudal system, an authoritarian ruler. On the other hand, we are a modern democratic society. The ruling party just wants to be a political party that serves the people responsibly, one that is un-corrupt and has integrity. It has nothing to do with emperors.

In a modern democratic society, everybody has the right to express his views, and he does not have to risk his life. This analogy sounds very romantic, but upon thinking carefully, it would appear inappropriate.

Furthermore, to express views and to criticise is not the exclusive right of opposition parties. If MP Chen continues to listen to the speeches made by many MPs in Parliament, he will find that there are many MPs in the ruling party with suggestions to improve existing policies and they often express their views fearlessly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin with my heartfelt thanks to the voters of Hougang for giving me this opportunity to serve our country in Parliament. I also wish to express my gratitude towards Mr Low Thia Khiang for his guidance. I aspire to and will work diligently to meet the high bar set by my predecessor.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to address two main issues affecting Singaporean workers. First, we need to always put Singaporeans first when formulating our manpower policy. Second, we need to look at international best practices in addressing unemployment and retirement needs. I will conclude by sharing my vision of how I will serve Singapore as a Workers' Party parliamentarian.

Mr Speaker, I would like to first address the concerns many working Singaporeans have about our foreign manpower policy. I read in The Straits Time on Saturday that there is "a rare show of disagreement" between NTUC and SNEF. We have noted this new development from the NTUC and are pleased that the NTUC is now in line with the Workers' Party's position on manpower policy which we described in our Labour Day message in 2008 as "putting Singaporeans first". The Workers' Party is pro-Singaporean and recognises that immigrants and foreign workers have an important role to play in our nation's progress. We do not see this as a contradiction. Our goal should be to strike the right balance between an efficient system of manpower supply and to achieve the best outcome for employers, employees and above all, Singaporeans.

I would like to discuss three areas we need to work on to achieve this balance. First, we need more transparency and accountability in our Employment and S Pass system. Second, we need to further tighten the Work Pass system by adjusting the inflow of foreign manpower by industry. Third, we need to enhance the current workforce training in order to increase productivity.

The Employment and S Pass system needs to be more transparent. Figures showing a breakdown of the different categories of passes issued and across different industries are not released to the public. Why this secrecy? We need regular reports showing the relative standing of Singaporeans and Pass holders. Singaporeans have expressed their concerns about losing their jobs to foreign workers. With the release of such detailed figures, it will help us better understand the need for foreign manpower across various industries. Analysis of these figures will help us calibrate foreign manpower recruitment across employment segments. Transparency will also go far in removing insecurity on the part of Singaporean workers and cool unwarranted anti-immigration sentiments. Transparency begets accountability.

Although the circumstances of labour supply are not made clear to us, it is evident that Singaporeans are at a disadvantage under the current system because a Singaporean worker costs more to employ. The need for Singaporean males to serve National Service aside, employers are also required to make CPF contributions for Singaporeans and permanent residents but not for Pass holders.

In the recent move to tighten the First Quarter Pass criterion, the Ministry of Manpower estimated that it will increase the wage costs for about 20% of current Employment Pass holders or 30,000 foreign professionals by 1% to 2%. This tiny amount does not level the playing field for Singaporeans as employers do not make CPF contributions for foreign employees, while the CPF component of the wage cost Singaporean workers amounts up to 16% of gross wages.

There needs to be measures in place to enable Singaporean workers to compete equally with foreign skilled workers. Already letting in lower cost foreign skilled workers without consideration for different demands across industry sectors is putting our workers at a great disadvantage.

The Workers' Party believes that the inflow of foreign workers should therefore be calibrated for each industry, considering first the suitability and availability of Singaporean workers for these industries.

Mr President, in his speech, mentioned that our shared goal is for every Singaporean worker to have a skilled, well-paid job. In order to achieve that, we must start from our formative years, and continue to ensure that there are effective training programmes to allow each worker to maximise his ability and keep his skills up to date throughout the course of his working life.

The setting up of Continuing Education and Training (CET) centres and big employment institutions is well and fine. But instead of waiting for employers and employees to flock to the classrooms, we should also be proactive and bring more training programmes to the workplace to encourage employers to retrain Singaporean workers. Existing and new training programmes should be enhanced to ensure that they will target increasing actual productivity in the workplace, and not just abstract ideas of improving productivity in the classrooms.

Since WDA has been shifting its focus from employer-based training programmes to worker-based and outcome-based programmes, we should reconsider the principle guiding the Skills Development Fund that assistance is to be given to employers as incentives, and not as subsidies. It is time to move towards giving assistance in terms of both subsidies and incentives to workers. Payroll subsidies should be provided to help workers bear the costs of training for worker-based programmes. This is especially important, as workers may not have employer sponsorship and employers will naturally be reluctant to let workers select their own training programmes and take no-pay leave to complete them.

All Government-funded training programmes should have an outcome-based effectiveness measuring system tailored to industry requirements. Given that increasing productivity is our top-most concern, we need to develop quantitative performance indicators that evaluate the contribution of training programmes to increasing productivity over an appropriate timeframe. Monetary incentives pegged to the performance indicators should be awarded to top up payroll subsidies and to pay for course fees.

On this note, I urge the Government to think twice before accepting Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's proposal for a compulsory training framework for Work Permit and S Pass employees. As things stand, Singaporeans do not compete with foreign workers on a level playing field because foreign workers cost less. Let us make sure the odds are not further stacked against Singaporean workers, by subsidising foreign workers' training using our taxpayers' monies to increase their effectiveness and employability. This, I believe, will contradict the WDA's chief objective of helping Singaporean workers to improve our employability.

Mr Speaker, I would like to turn my attention to unemployment and the inadequacy of retirement provision. The global financial crisis has highlighted problems in these areas. We need to be able to analyse these shortcomings, study international best practices, and learn how other countries have dealt with such issues. We can then take these valuable lessons and apply them to ourselves, with the aim of recalibrating our own system, always with our people's interests at heart.

Our workers need better protection from involuntary unemployment. Singapore has a small open economy, susceptible to external forces of globalisation. The current sovereign debt crisis in the US and Europe and the problems faced by the Euro-zone affect us too. Our economy is maturing and growth is moderating in the context of the current prolonged global economic crisis. Cyclical and structural unemployment is a reality and our people are facing increasing risks of retrenchment.

Already the resident unemployment rate for the second quarter of 2011 has crept back to 3.9%, very close to 2010 levels. Since the height of the financial crisis in 2008, only 50% to 58% of residents have been re-employed within six months of having made redundant, compared with 66% to 78% before the crisis. Yet, the Government let in more Employment and S Pass professionals, increasing the number from 188,000 foreign skilled workers in 2008 to 240,000 in 2010. This is a 27% increase, as half of our laid-off resident workers struggled to find work.

Under these circumstances, the combined weight of financial commitments for laid-off workers − be it rent, mortgage repayments, utility bills, medical bills and educational expenses − can be considerable. There must be some level of support for the unemployed to continue to live a decent and dignified life. It is also important that the involuntarily unemployed be provided with peace of mind to retrain, upskill and to look for employment.

We do not want unemployment to push our workers into the vicious cycle of poverty. We note that there are ComCare Work Support and Transition programmes for the unemployed to tide them over periods of unemployment. The stringent criteria for these programmes include a household income of not more than $1,500. This will not help the unemployed from the sandwiched middle class with a household income that exceeds this ceiling; they too have bills as well as mouths to feed and elderly to take care of.

For a long-term solution to temporary and involuntary unemployment, we should very carefully study the feasibility of an unemployment insurance scheme. The Prime Minister dismissed this idea in 2006 on the basis of affordability. He said it would reduce a worker's take-home pay or add to wage costs and reduce competitiveness.

Five years on, global economic conditions have changed and the risk of unemployment faced by our workers has risen considerably. However, we now have the benefit of seeing mixed results from many unemployment insurance schemes around the world, particularly after they have been put through the crucible of the global financial crisis. Some schemes are costly and cannot be sustained, but there are also schemes that appear to have been successfully implemented. Not all unemployment insurance schemes provide income without work. Unemployment insurance can encourage the unemployed to find work or even to retrain, for example, by tying payouts to participation in WDA job placement and training programmes. We must therefore study international best practices and consider whether they could be adapted to our context. We cannot dismiss it out of hand without due consideration and research, especially now that we are facing challenging economic conditions ahead.

Finally, I would like to address the adequacy of our CPF in providing for Singaporeans' retirement needs. The Australian Centre for Financial Studies and Mercer have just released their Mercer Melbourne Global Pension Index report for 2011. Among 16 countries (which include developed countries and fast developing countries such as Brazil, India, China and Chile), Singapore is ranked 11 and received a "C" grade. In terms of the three dimensions of the Index, our CPF is doing well in terms of sustainability and integrity, but we fared badly for adequacy. In other words, our CPF is at risk of not delivering adequate retirement benefits for Singaporeans. We ranked second from the bottom for the adequacy index, scoring only 41.9 points when the average is 63 points. We scored 51.7 points in 2009 and have dropped nearly 10 points in just two years. This is very worrying.

The Mercer report suggests six ways for us to improve our CPF system. I want to highlight three of them which echo what the Workers' Party has proposed.

Firstly, our CPF should raise "the minimum level of support available to the poorest pensioners". We have a duty to protect our senior citizens who have spent the better part of their lives contributing to Singapore's growth. Not everyone turning 55 in 2013 will be covered by CPF LIFE, as only those with $40,000 or more in their Retirement Account will be automatically included in the scheme. The CPF Board estimates that 70% of the cohort will be auto-included, while the rest with less than $40,000 in their Retirement Accounts will have to opt in. Ironically, the bottom 30% are the ones who need better support.

Furthermore, we understand that the CPF Minimum Sum or CPF LIFE monthly payouts can be less than the prevailing Public Assistance allowance of $400 per month for a one-person household. Those who are receiving less can therefore apply for Public Assistance. Even so, is $400 a month enough, in the words of MCYS, to "sustain basic living"? I note, too, that CPF LIFE is not inflation indexed. If core inflation continues above 2% each year, and headline inflation is above 5%, the purchasing power of each monthly payout will have eroded by 25% to 50% in 15 years.

How is this insurance for longevity? The Government should consider setting up a Longevity Fund to supplement the income of our senior citizens inadequately covered by the CPF Minimum Sum or CPF LIFE schemes. The Fund could be built up through transfers from budget surpluses. This small but significant step by the Government will go a long way in our goal to ensure that all our senior citizens will have adequate means to enjoy their golden years after spending their prime years contributing towards nation building.

Taking the second and third points together, the report states that our CPF should "invest a portion of the CPF in growth assets and reduce the barrier to establishing tax-approved group corporate retirement plans". We welcome the recent announcement that the SMRA interest rate will continue to be fixed at 4%. The extension of the 4% rate is only a temporary solution. In the first place, the aim of the 10-year Singapore Government Security (SGS) floating rate policy is to improve returns for Singaporeans beyond the 4% rate. It is cold comfort when the Minister of State for Manpower recently boasted that the 10-year average real rate of return is 2.6% for the Special Account in 2010, when the 10-year average real GDP growth is 5.6%. Singaporeans deserve fair returns for what we work for.

It has also been said that this portfolio is largely risk-free. It is only risk-free insofar as the Government will pay out the amounts that have flown into the fund. The Minister should be reminded that risk includes present and future inflation risk, past real returns notwithstanding, and inflation risk has grown significantly in the past few years. Past performances are not indicative of future ones. The time has come for a comprehensive study drawing on international best practices to assess the feasibility of a pension fund model tailored to Singapore's own circumstances to enhance CPF returns.

I would like to conclude by saying that the issues I have highlighted above are very real and pressing concerns for my constituents and also for the people of Singapore, as we fight to find our footing in an ever-volatile and challenging environment. It is my hope that in carrying out the business of this House, we will work together towards a better life for each and every single Singaporean. On the cusp of what we are constantly told is a new era in our young country's political development, I am energised by what I have seen in the past decade: the development and the gradual maturity of our political landscape. I look forward with much anticipation to my part in ensuring that reasoned, alternative voices continue to make ourselves heard in this honourable institution. It is an honour and a privilege that I will preserve while serving the people of Hougang Constituency and the Republic of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address. There has been much discussion about the "new norm" in governance. Singaporeans are demanding more engagement, consultation and transparency. We are expressing ourselves assertively and freely on the Internet and through social media. President Tony Tan himself had acknowledged the importance of new media as a platform for citizen engagement. Nonetheless, I perceive a degree of reservation and apprehension among the Government agencies due to inherent challenges presented by the social media.

Advances in technology improve the quality of lives, enhancing the way we interact with our environment and with one another. On the other hand, history is full of examples of those who were left behind because they were unable or unwilling to make the transition.

Let us turn the time back to 1927. It was the year when "talkies", that is, movies with sound, were introduced. It was a technological break-through and audiences enjoyed a new level of entertainment, but many movie stars lost their jobs. They had dominated the silent screen but did not manage to make the transition to the new world of moving pictures with sound. These actors included Emil Jannings, the first winner of the Oscar for Best Actor whose heavy German accent did not go well on American screens. On the other hand, actors like Charlie Chaplin was able to thrive on both sides of the sound divide, which is one of the reasons why he is still remembered today.

All communication media are neutral and social media is no exception. It is just another milestone in the evolution of the media landscape. It is up to us to adapt and to leverage on them. Even as the establishment is proceeding with caution and perhaps, with some trepidation, our younger generation has taken to social media like ducks to water.

Personally, I have found Facebook and Twitter very useful in engaging the public. I give updates on what I do in the community, share my thoughts and sometimes snippets of my personal life, and I also receive very good feedback and suggestions. I ask for opinions and even call for volunteers and help. In July, I asked for volunteers via Facebook to help distribute rice packets to needy families in Tampines North. In just two days, more than 20 people turned up that Saturday morning. There were both young and old people, both residents and otherwise, and one even came all the way from Teban Gardens.

I have learnt a lot from my Facebook friends even though I have not met most of them personally. Many have become familiar names and profile photos. There are of course a few "friends" who are not so friendly and choose to be critical about everything. But if I keep myself out of social media just because of these few characters, I will be missing out on the diversity and richness of views and comments offered by the majority.

I hope my experience can offer the Government some food for thought in its mode of engagement. On social media, the Government does not have to rebut every single rumour or set the record straight for every misrepresentation made, even on the platforms it chooses to engage. Sometimes, it is better to leave the discussion open and not jump to defence too quickly or even at all. Firstly, it is not possible. Secondly, the time, effort and money expended would not be justified. Thirdly, the Government should also trust in the public's ability to make logical assessment of the information they encounter online. The Government has to accept that it cannot and should not try to have the last word on every debate.

Whether we like it or not, civic engagement in cyberspace has to be treated with the same level of respect and care, planned and delivered with the same competence we wish to achieve in our physical domain. Netizens expect their Government to engage with finesse, diplomacy and sincerity. This is no different from face-to-face interactions. The Government must be able to differentiate among different areas in cyberspace, customise its communications strategies and apply the appropriate treatment.

If I may share some light-hearted analogies – mainstream media sites like ST Online and channelnewsasia.com are the newspapers of the city. Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites are the virtual cocktail parties. Chat rooms and forums are the coffee shops of the online world, and Twitter contains casual exchanges similar to housewives comparing notes on what is fresh and cheap at the market. If the Government posts on Facebook the same official statements or press releases it sends to the mainstream media, the message will be lost. This is where an understanding of the respective media and creativity in repackaging the same message is needed. The housewife is unlikely to worry too much about global food crisis and diversification of food sources, but will flock to buy more apples if her neighbours tell her that they are sweet, juicy and on promotion.

Regardless of the medium and the presentation format, the content and core of each Government message must be consistent. More importantly, the Government must be able to demonstrate that it is objective, transparent, open-minded and sincere about addressing the issue at hand.

Another aspect of social media is that because of its interactivity, it can build a community. Netizens will frequent certain forums, follow certain blogs, like certain Facebook fan pages because of similar interests and through them, they recruit the like-minded. Just like one cannot just gatecrash a cocktail party and expect to be welcomed, the Government cannot just intrude into a social media space and expect to be listened to. It needs to build the comfort level and develop the relationships.

Two years ago, the Government rejected a recommendation by the Government-appointed Advisory Council on New Media to respond to posts at blogs and online forums. It asserted that such engagement would be "extremely difficult" and better facilitated on REACH, its own feedback portal. Obviously, the Government is not able to engage in all social media platforms. As a member of the REACH Supervisory Panel, I do know that REACH has done a lot in reaching out to the public in the digital media, via Facebook, Twitter, webchats, forums, and so on. The Government can choose to stay put at its own cocktail party. However, why limit ourselves to just one cocktail party? Why does the Government not tap on other forums and reach out to different demographics? We can tap on the following that others have developed and reach out to them in a sustainable manner.

It is not surprising that many people perceive social media to be a contributor of "noise" to the media landscape. Is the voice of our people really getting louder only now? I do not think so. Singaporeans were not necessarily more docile in the past. It is the ubiquity of the Internet, along with the rise of social media, which has allowed the perennial opinions, including those of the Government, to be heard through new platforms. As each generation becomes better educated, more will utilise social media. Whatever chatter and rumours which used to float around coffee shops and markets or exchanged between taxi drivers and passengers can now be heard online. The Government can go to new media to listen to the ground and gauge the sentiment.

The recent suspension of the Abercrombie & Fitch advertisement along Orchard Road seems to be sparked by a couple of letters to The Straits Times' Forum section which found the uncovered male torso indecent. If the industry regulator was acting on public interest, does it also note the strong support online for the advertisement to stay put? The online chatter is the closest to coffee shop talk that should have been taken into consideration before a final decision is made.

Nonetheless, just as we should not under-estimate the impact of social media, we should not over-estimate it either. During the Presidential Election, according to online polls, certain candidates enjoyed extremely high levels of support but, in the end, they did not win. This outcome suggests that the rise of new digital platforms had merely enabled certain opinions to be articulated and amplified rather than reflect real changes in public opinion. For me, I cannot assume that just because more than 80% of the comments on my Facebook have largely been supportive and encouraging, I will achieve similar levels of support at the General Elections.

In a survey on "Political Traits and Media Use" last year, the Institute of Policy Studies found that people on social media are politically more knowledgeable, interested and liberal. They also tend to be more politically engaged online and offline, be it posting a comment on a blog or speaking to politicians. Dr Zhang Weiyu, an Assistant Professor at the National University of Singapore's Department of Communications and New Media, urged the Government and policymakers to take advantage of the online platforms to reach this group directly as "interpersonal talk has a big influence on political psychology".

Our President had also engaged the "social media crowd" including bloggers such as Mr Brown and The Online Citizen team during his campaign. How will this be continued, or has it continued? Is the Government going to stand in the way, or build on this starting point and facilitate a closer and more constructive relationship?

However, here is the dilemma. How can a consistent message be conveyed by the Government where there is no framework for the rules of engagement, where efforts are very much individually driven, appear ad hoc and are neither organised nor uniformly applied through the Government or civil service. On the other hand, if online engagement is conducted in a very systematic or uniform fashion, would the discourse become very impersonal?

Mainstream media will still be a very good vehicle to set the agenda for our nation for the day. Once set, the conversation may be continued online. It is natural for us to consume information with an inherent bias. If we come across information that seemingly contradicts our own experiences, we will want to address it, and the Internet is an excellent platform for such discourse.

Hence, it is important that mainstream media be held in high regard by the public. It can only maintain credibility if it is perceived to be neutral and objective. Ideally, mainstream media should be the benchmark for quality of information, and the reference point against which information on new media is compared and analysed.

Five years ago, I had appealed to the Government to relax regulations for traditional media. I believe the Government can afford to loosen up more. Former Straits Times' journalist, Lynn Lee, in her response to the WikiLeaks report on her comments on journalism in Singapore, mentioned that the Government tried "to set the tone and form of media coverage". The Editor of the Review section at The Straits Times, Chua Mui Hoong, subsequently clarified that it was only natural that "the Singapore Government tries to influence coverage in the national newspaper – just as anyone who has ever held a view has tried to influence the media".

However, I would urge the Government to reduce its effort to remove or correct what it perceives to be negative reports. The relevant departments should take them as constructive feedback, a form of check-and-balance, and work on rectifying the situation. If the Government were to persist on keeping a tight rein on the mainstream media, it would lose credibility and people will rely even more on social media and the Internet for alternative news and views. And over time, they may feel that these news and views are the mainstream ones. As a Public Relations professional, I know that we can only participate in, shape and influence what the traditional and new media portray. We do not and cannot own or dictate the media conversation.

What the Government should seek to achieve is to maintain balanced and healthy discussions on all forms of media. The world portrayed in our newspapers and TV and the world in our blogs and online forums should not appear too different. As it is, we are already seeing a better balance of views on the Internet. Netizens have set up sites to debunk negative myths about the PAP. Facebook pages like "Fabrications About the PAP" have sprung up to offer a better balance to the mostly negative online comments about the PAP and the Government.

Last but not least, we must teach our people, especially the young, to be discerning in the use of media. They must learn to navigate, in particular, the Internet and social media platforms and judge for themselves what is accurate and what is reliable.

During a survey of students in a school in London, an independent think tank Demos found that most young people did not know how to navigate information on the Internet. What is even more worrying is that the students placed YouTube as the closest to the heading "Trust" and the government somewhere near "Distrust". When the students performed searches for information on Google, a significant number "believed the first answer that came up" is the right answer. To them, "Google is like a trusted website". The students did not verify sources, had poor understanding of how search engines work, and were not good at differentiating between propaganda and facts. The think tank recommended that "digital judgement" be a core part of the UK education curriculum. The emphasis should be on research and interpretation of information.

I understand that IDA has worked with our schools on some media literacy courses. However, I understand that these courses are not part of the core curriculum. It would be better if these courses can be integrated into the core syllabus to ensure that every cohort attains a minimum standard of competence.

I would like to come back to my analogy of the movie world. The cinematic experience has come a long way since sound was introduced to film. Every other movie is now made in 3D, or has a 3D version. However, CGI effects do not guarantee a blockbuster, nor is a low-budget independent film not able to win awards or be a box office hit. Good story-telling is still fundamental. Likewise, whether the engagement is via the newspapers, TV, radio, Facebook, Twitter or face-to-face dialogue sessions, the right message in the right tone will reach and touch the hearts of people. The Government must continue its efforts with sincerity, transparency, magnanimity and willingness to accept differences and failure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now make a final point in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 325 for Vernacular Speeches .] Yesterday, MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao, talked about the Zhenguan era during the Tang Dynasty, which is indeed a role model for good governance throughout history. It was a time when the country's economy was prosperous and the country was under the rule of a clean and un-corrupt government. Emperor Li Shimin and his officials led the country to unprecedented prosperity within 20 years. Coincidentally, the Singapore Government is also famous for being un-corrupt, an achievement that is acknowledged and praised by the entire world. We cannot compare ourselves with the Zhenguan era, but we constantly remind ourselves to learn from the Zhenguan period.

Emperor (Tang Tai Zong) Li Shimin knew how to make good use of talent and listen to suggestions with an open mind, and this created conditions for clean politics and peaceful lives for everyone. He also realised that the relationship between the ruler and his people was very much like water and boat. That was why he paid much attention to people's views and was willing to accept criticism. What I want to say is, it is exactly because he knew that "water can carry the boat, as well as topple the boat", and things could work both ways, that he could make the right judgement and decisions.

When we are dealing with the new media and mainstream media, when we try to get people's feedback and listen to their views, not only do we need to keep an open mind and constantly strive to achieve balance, we must also remain cautious and wise. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, do you have a clarification?

Sir, allow me to seek three points of clarification from the hon. Member for Hougang. Is Mr Yaw aware that the Government training subsidies for our workers in Singapore are only extended to Singaporeans? So, I am not sure what is the basis for him to assume that when we suggested that foreign workers must also go for certification and training, the costs will be borne by the Government and not the employers. If he is really concerned that the Singaporean workers are more expensive and the foreign workers are cheaper, is it not a contradiction when he said that employers need not ensure that the foreign workers that they brought in have to have the right competency and their skills certified?

I also want to seek another point of clarification. Is Mr Yaw aware of the efforts by the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and the CDC's assistance to all the unemployed workers in Singapore, and that ComCare has been giving "three plus three months" financial assistance to workers when they are unemployed, when he made such a suggestion for unemployment insurance? Is it necessary?

My third clarification: is Mr Yaw trying to brush aside the efforts of the Labour Movement, union leaders and the tripartite partners and what they have been doing for Singapore and Singaporean workers over the last decade, and helping everyone to cope with the challenges that we are facing? I think that is important to note and not just brush it aside and claim it under the Workers' Party's agenda. I would like to say that real help really requires a hands-on approach and not lip service.

The Member may wish to be assured that this is not brushing aside but an alignment of views which we, as one Singapore, are forging together towards a common goal.

Regarding unemployment insurance, I am only asking for a thorough study of its feasibility and not for a knee-jerk implementation. If a knee-jerk implementation is something which the Member thought that I have mentioned, it is not. Let me assure him. Because it is important that in both good and bad economic times, we should not dismiss this idea just like this. We should do our due diligence and it is our public duty to ensure that we study the possibility of implementation before we actually say that this idea cannot work.

In regard to his counter to the idea of compulsory training of foreign workers, this is what I read and this is what I have known. The bottomline is this − so long as MOM devised the requirements and conditions of the various Work Permits and Passes, and our employers and employment agencies know what to do to meet the skills and productivity of our foreign workers and not using taxpayers' money to achieve this objective, I think that is fine and we are in agreement.

Bhutan was mentioned several times in this House. I visited Bhutan a few years ago, and met a good cross section of the people, from the Prime Minister, the Ministers, the Chief Monk to civil servants and ordinary folks. I am, of course, not an expert on Bhutan but the westerners' romanticised version of this ancient Kingdom does not fit the reality of what I saw. Bhutan is not the Shangri-la on earth.

The Chief Monk of Bhutan is a learned man, an enlightened monk and passionate about saving lives in the spiritual sense. He knows Singapore well, visiting us regularly to meet up with his devotees and friends. I asked him what brought him to Singapore on his first trip. He explained that Singapore had cropped up during one of his deep meditations. He was, at that time, planning to build a Buddhist university. He was very concerned with negative influences that inevitably would come with globalisation, and he felt very deeply that the only way out was to imbue his people with traditional values, religious practices and cultural norms. To build his university, he needed money. He conceived a plan to build a big Buddha statue, to draw in paying tourists and visitors and hence funds. The Bhutan government allocated a good piece of land on a hill overlooking the capital but said that he would have to raise the funds for construction.

As he meditated on the way forward, and this was in one of those deep meditation sessions, he apparently saw glimpses of Singapore, a country he had then not known much of. He took his first flight to Singapore and landed at Changi Airport at midnight. What followed was quite incredible. He left the departure hall, jumped into the first taxi that came along. So, the driver asked for his destination. He said "a clean, cheap hotel". The driver seemed to know where to send him to and he checked in for a three-day stay, as that was the amount of money he had in his pocket.

The next morning, over breakfast, a group of people seated next to his table went up to him and posed some questions on Buddhism. He must have given a good reply because they ended up with a very long chat. As it turned out, the owner of the hotel was among this group of people. He offered the monk free hotel accommodation for as long as his visa permitted, and asked him to give dharma talk to a group of devotees who were his friends. That started the series of the monk's subsequent visits to Singapore. In time, this group of devotees grew and many in gratitude supported the Buddha statue project.

My trip to Bhutan was to check out the Buddha statue project. The Chief Monk was gracious and kept me company throughout. We visited several ancient temples, in the city and in the villages. Although a strictly private visit, the Prime Minister, who knew of my visit from the Chief Monk, spent some time with me. Over several days, I met up with most of his Ministers, including my counterpart at that time, the Health Minister.

The Bhutan Ministers know a lot about Singapore. They have studied us very closely because they are keen to port over some of our public policy solutions to Bhutan. The Health Minister himself had spent months training in the Singapore General Hospital and he remembered his stint in Singapore most fondly and could rattle off our 3Ms financing framework.

My Bhutan visit left some deep impressions. First, the plight of a tiny nation. How to make yourself relevant in the harsh world of big nation politics? Or simply making their voice heard? Straits Times' Europe correspondent, Jonathan Eyal, wrote a perceptive piece just today on the plight of small countries. He quoted the example of how tiny Slovakia, with a population of 5.5 million, was currently being unfairly treated by their big EU allies. They are being told to contribute to the bailout fund and to "bail out countries which are far richer, and which have only themselves to blame for their current predicament". As Jonathan put it, "small countries are supposed to know when to shut up and simply do as they are told".

Second, the hard reality of living next to giant neighbours. I spoke to the Cabinet Secretary to understand their economic structure: what were their revenue sources, how did they make a living? Most of the government income was aid and handouts from a giant neighbour next door. The second largest income item was sale of hydroelectric power to the neighbour. I asked if they were paid international market rate. From his body language, I gathered that altruism or even fairness did not feature much in government-to-government relations.

Third, the challenge of making yourself relevant in a globalised world. Being landlocked between India and China, they know their options are limited. The talented are leaving for opportunities elsewhere. The economic opportunities at home are few. The tradition is for the first son in the family to be a monk; the second son, a civil servant. The rest of the children will just have to fend for themselves, mostly in the farms. Tourism is a possible engine of growth. But they have seen how mass tourism has ruined their neighbouring countries environmentally and culturally. They are determined not to go that route.

Fourth, self-determination and self-reliance bring dignity and pride. If survival means pandering to the wishes of others, it is no fun at all, let alone happiness. This is so at a national level; it is equally true at a personal level.

They have studied us because Singapore is also a tiny nation, living next to big neighbours. We have successfully transited from Third World to First and managed to create a functioning and harmonious society for our people. In their mind, Singapore could well be the Shangri-la and they want Bhutan to emulate Singapore.

Just last month, I hosted a meal again for the Chief Monk and the Home Affairs Minister who were visiting. The latter was keen to get some help from our Home Team on security issues. And, of course, along the way, we spoke about the Royal Wedding and how happy the King was. Indeed, we often spoke about happiness and the foundation of happiness. I recall an ancient Japanese poem on happiness by Yosa Buson. The full beauty of this haiku has to be appreciated in Japanese. So let me try to do it in English:

What happiness

Crossing this summer river

With sandals in my hands

Crossing the summer river, barefooted with sandals in your hands; what happiness!

Members must have had such an experience before. Mr Zainudin's residents in Bishan will soon be able to experience it regularly when our Bishan Park's ABC programme is completed. In the Bhutan villages, I saw obviously well-to-do tourists crossing beautiful mountain streams, with expensive Nike shoes in their hands. They were happy. I saw Bhutan children enjoying the river like all children do. They had no sandals in their hands because they could not afford any. But they seemed happy, with angelic innocence without any worry. I met and heard about foreigners who volunteered in Bhutan: many Singaporean retired teachers bringing IT to the schools, doctors providing eye care and immunisation for the villagers. They were happy as they found meaning in what they were doing – helping others.

But most of the time I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there will be buyers for their products. The Health Minister asked me to help get ambulances and medicine for the villagers.

The Chief Monk is a sincere man. He sees the onslaught of the Internet and he strives to save the soul of these people, to get them to understand the meaning of life, how to live it for others. He keeps a close tab on developments here in Singapore. In fact, a week before our General Election, he passed a message that "May 7 is an auspicious day, for good people". So all of us here in this House, who won the mandate on May 7, are good people. Congratulations!

It is now incumbent on all of us to do our best to make the lives of our people better, not through empty rhetoric, sound bites or mindless giveaways. The challenges of a tiny nation are real and huge. We are not a continental economy like the US or China. We live in a troubled and troubling region. Against all odds, we have done well in the last 50 years when we had so little. We should be able to do even better, now that we have much more. The important thing is to stick to the basics and remember the values of hard work, prudence, self-reliance and meritocracy that have brought us here so far.

Our public policies are founded on such values. They are well-intentioned for the good of Singaporeans, both in the current and future generations. They are not perfect, but they are not bad. We do however need to adjust them from time to time, in keeping with changed circumstances and in the light of experience. For example, against the current environment of rising costs, I see the need to make major policy adjustments to help the low and the middle classes cope better with a higher cost of living. But we must be mindful that we do not mindlessly slip down the welfare route which has now plagued Greece and which threatened the rest of Europe and the world.

After the General Election, I volunteered to come to Ministry of National Development (MND) because I have some ideas what some of the major adjustments to public housing policies ought to be and, more importantly, how to make the adjustments without harming the fundamentals of our economy and our society. To do so, we need to be clear first what exactly is the housing problem.

Ninety percent of Singaporeans own their homes. This is the highest home ownership rate in the world. Why then was housing such a hot issue? In the last two years, home prices shot up by 30% in the HDB resale market and 50% in the private housing market. Naturally, this has alarmed many Singaporeans. Parents are concerned about their children's situation in the future. Newlyweds worry that they will never be able to afford their own homes. HDB upgraders fret that they will never be able to upgrade to a private property. Their Singapore Dream seems to be slipping away.

There were many factors causing the sudden rise in home prices. Globally, the capital market was flushed with cash, resulting in very low interest rates for mortgages. In an effort to fix the 2008 banking crisis, central banks loosened their monetary policy, resulting in global liquidity overflows. Mr Vikram Nair described it as "a sea of money", actually more like an ocean. Much of this excess liquidity went into properties and other capital assets, especially in Asia. An exuberant property market was not unique to Singapore. It was hot in China and Hong Kong too. Domestically, a sharp increase in residential population pushed demand up faster than the supply of housing units. Dealing with the uncertainties post-SARS, we had opened up the labour market so that we could seize the opportunities that came along for our economy to survive. It was on the back of this growth that we were able to come out of the 2008 financial crisis very quickly. Minister of State Lawrence Wong gave a good account of this policy trade-off just yesterday.

But the resultant imbalance in housing supply and demand drove home prices up. The solution to an imbalance problem seems straightforward enough: reduce demand and increase supply until the desired balance is struck. Then the price will return to a sustainable and affordable level. However, there are practical difficulties as not all factors are within the Government's control. For example, with the ongoing euro crisis and the risk of another US recession looming, global interest rates are likely to stay very low for quite some time. Low mortgage rates tend to boost demand to an abnormal level. But we do have considerable influence especially over the HDB market. We are proactively tackling the problem but we need time to allow the measures to work. We cannot create new flats overnight. But I am confident that we can tackle this problem within four years.

This is my first speech on housing in Parliament. There will be many more over the next five years. For this first speech, let me just focus on what I can do in the first two years.

The housing market comprises many segments, from HDB rental flats to various types of HDB sold flats to Executive Condominiums (ECs), private condominiums and landed properties. It is one giant inter-linked market, with different segments being subjected to different pressures. Consumers of the housing market also cover a wide range, from newlyweds, singles, divorcees, upgraders, downgraders, Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners. Their needs are diverse. Some are desperate; others are eyeing their next property for investment. Some wish for the prices to drop; others wish for the prices to go up. I cannot meet all their needs, some of which are conflicting and certainly not immediately. I would attend to all these buyer groups over the next five years. But for the immediate two years, I need to set priorities and I have focused on the newlywed HDB first-timers and the vulnerable families.

First, I commit to help all newlywed first-timers earning below $10,000 per month, to get their first HDB home as soon as possible. This will help make an important social objective of helping them to settle down and start their families. We are building 50,000 units of HDB flats in the first two years, as you have already read. This is equivalent to building one whole new Ang Mo Kio Town. Beyond 2012, we have not decided yet on the scale of the BTO programme. If the demand remains strong, we have the resources and the capacity to build more than 100,000 HDB flats during this term of Government. And this may include starting BTO project launches in the proposed Bidadari Estate. Bidadari Estate can potentially house up to 12,000 units. Further afield, we will start planning the Tengah Town. This will be a new HDB Town with possibility of housing 56,000 units when fully developed. We will not launch any BTO project in Tengah during this term of Government but we will begin to put in the infrastructure like earthworks, roads, drains, sewers and other facilities. We are building infrastructure ahead of demand. It will cost us money but the social cost of infrastructure too drastically behind demand, as currently experienced, is not trivial either.

In parallel, I am tackling the issue of affordability head-on. The worry out there is that the HDB prices will continue to rise. This led to alarm and some panic demand. I have now participated in three BTO launches, involving 13,000 HDB units and since May, we have stabilised the prices of these BTO flats. We have moderated price changes such that after adjusting for differences in location, amenities and other physical attributes, the May, July and September BTO prices were roughly comparable to the prices of similar units in the April BTO launch. The upcoming BTO launch next month will repeat this pattern. Newlyweds eyeing new HDB flats do not need to worry that BTO price will run ahead of their income. As long as construction costs do not rise dramatically, the BTO prices will stabilise. In this way, new HDB flats will always be affordable to the newlywed first-timers, provided that their expectation is realistic.

HDB builds a range of housing types, across different towns, precisely in order to offer a range of options for different income groups. Let me provide some illustrations. In last month's BTO launch, the typical price of a 3-room flat in Sengkang was $170,000. A newlywed couple earning $2,500 will get an Additional Housing Grant of $30,000, so the new flat will cost them $140,000. This is less than five years of their annual income. A typical 25-year HDB loan for such a couple will see their monthly repayments fully covered by their CPF contributions. No cash needed. Another couple earning, say, $4,500 could be eyeing a 4-room flat in Sengkang, where the typical price is $280,000. They will get an Additional Housing Grant of $10,000. The flat will cost them $270,000, about five years of their annual income. A 25-year HDB loan will see their CPF contributions covering most of the monthly mortgage repayments, with an out-of-pocket payment of about $60 a month. Another couple earning $6,000 could be eyeing a 5-room flat in Sengkang, where the typical price is $350,000. This is also about five years of their annual income. A 25-year HDB loan will see their monthly repayments almost fully covered by their CPF, with an out-of-pocket payment of about $50 a month.

These are realistic illustrations, quoting statistics of typical buyers of our HDB flats. HDB flats are affordable to all newlyweds, provided they are prudent in their choice. And the vast majority are. Let me reiterate that every newlywed first-timers earning below $10,000 can afford their first BTO flat.

My second top priority is to address the housing needs of families with household income below $1,500 per month. Home ownership is out of their reach, at least for the moment. They need subsidised rental flats. We are currently housing 44,000 such families in HDB rental flats. They make up about 5% of all HDB households. But another 1,600 families are waiting in the queue; one in five of these households is made up of divorcees or single parents with young children.

We are building more rental blocks. We are speeding up the building programme and using interim facilities which come along, including delaying the demolition of the blocks placed under the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), an idea suggested by Mr Inderjit Singh. We took other opportunities like when the Malayan Railway moved out of Tanjong Pagar, Deputy Prime Minister Teo alerted me to two blocks of dormitories, so we quickly moved in. We are cleaning them up; we can use them again as rental units.

So, we are making some progress. Since May, we have housed an additional 1,400 families. We have reduced the waiting time for a rental unit to six months, still longer than I hope I can achieve. We can expect further improvement in the next couple of years, as new rental blocks become available. Separately, I am reviewing the rental structure. Rentals are heavily subsidised for the needy. For those earning $800 or below, they pay a nominal rent of about $30 a month. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh told me about tenants who worked to raise their income, only to see their extra income going mostly to HDB through higher rental. And he has a point. I think we can consider introducing more rental tiers, with smaller increments in rental adjustments so that the incentive to work harder and earn more is not unwittingly diminished.

But we must always remember that rental housing can only be a part of the solution for the larger social problem of marriage failure, financial mismanagement and the failure in family relationship. What HDB can do is to give them a helping hand, while they get on their feet again. We are working with MCYS and VWOs to tackle this larger social problem upstream.

There is one aspect of this problem which MND has a strong interest in. In many of these vulnerable families, we see that they got into financial difficulties, sold their flats, spent the cash proceeds and then turned to HDB again for another flat, but this time with even less cash savings than before and, being older, have fewer years to build up their savings. Mayor Teo Ho Pin raised this point yesterday. We must try to find an effective and humane way to prevent such a tragedy.

Mr Speaker, I am focusing my attention on the newlyweds and the vulnerable families because these are the two groups that I can help most during my first two years in MND. But I am aware that there are other groups of home buyers: the singles, the second-timers, the upgraders, the downgraders. I will attend to them more fully in due course.

Meanwhile, because all the housing segments are inter-linked, our solutions to help the newlywed first-timers will also help to moderate the other market segments. For example, since we started the larger BTO launches, the number and the proportion of first-timers in the HDB resale market have declined significantly. This has reduced the competition among the buyers in the HDB resale market. More importantly, as we progressively clear the outstanding demand from the first-timers, we will be able to move to the next step of addressing the needs of the second-timers. We estimate that there are about 16,000 first-timer families still waiting to buy a new HDB flat, and each year brings in 15,000 new applicants.

If the estimates are correct, then at some time next year, we can begin to better meet the needs of the HDB second-timers. Currently, only 5% of BTO flats are kept for second-timers, even though they make up 40% of BTO applicants. It is my hope that in a year's time, we can raise the percentage allocation for second-timers to improve their chances of getting a flat. In turn, this will further reduce the demand in the HDB resale market. By reducing the demand on the HDB resale market, resale prices should also begin to moderate, benefiting other home buyers, like the singles.

As for private housing, they make up 23% of the housing market. They meet the upgrading aspiration of higher income Singaporeans, besides housing the PRs and foreigners who come here to work and live. URA will continue to release land parcels to meet the demand. Four rounds of cooling measures have also had their effect. There have been some calls for their removal but I do not think it is time yet. The global economic uncertainties have also tempered exuberance. Price escalation has moderated for eight consecutive quarters, with the latest URA data showing the lowest rate of increase (1.3%) over the last two years. We will continue to monitor market conditions closely and, if need be, we will take further measures.

Mr Speaker, housing is a complex matter, and there are no instant solutions. But I am confident that we can address the temporary problem of supply-demand imbalance, with clear improvements for the newlyweds and the vulnerable families within two years. This will bring happiness to many families. The other housing segments will take a longer time to fix, and I seek Singaporeans' understanding and patience. [Applause.]

Order. Before I take the break, I would like to remind Members that they may seek clarifications on another Member's speech. The Member giving clarification should keep his clarification concise and to the point of the clarification raised. Members should not make a supplementary speech and introduce new matter during the clarification. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to raise new matter, you can do so by filing a motion. With that, I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join the debate. I rise to support the motion. In the past three days, we have debated many issues to do with the well-being of Singaporeans. I would like to address now an issue that provides the underlying foundation for us to pursue progress – the safety and security of Singapore. And, specifically, how the Internal Security Act (ISA) has allowed us to deal swiftly and effectively with threats to Singapore and keep us secure.

The Singapore Internal Security Act (ISA) has its roots in preventive detention laws introduced by the British colonial government to tackle serious threats to social and political security in Malaya. After Independence, the ISA remained a law in a sovereign Singapore and was important in enabling the Government to continue to counter national security threats to our young nation. The ISA empowers the Government to address threats to national security not just through preventive detention, but also other measures like the imposition of curfews to deal with civil disorder.

While the ISA provides considerable powers to deal with threats to security, it also contains important safeguards which have been enhanced over time. An Advisory Board chaired by a Supreme Court Judge reviews all detentions under the ISA. In 1991, the ISA was amended to give the Elected President veto powers such that where the Advisory Board recommends the release of any person, that person cannot be detained or further detained by the Government without the President's concurrence.

Determining what is a security threat to Singapore that requires the use of the ISA is a judgement. This judgement must be made by the elected Government of the day, at the given time and based on the situation at hand. The ISA allows an overall assessment of the threat posed by a person to be presented and considered in totality, unlike a criminal case that is tried before the courts which consider only specific acts directly related to that charge. The ISA thus allows the Government to act quickly to prevent a threat from developing into something very serious such as a bombing; or to stem an organised pattern of subversion which promotes civil disturbances and disorder.

The Government needed to use the ISA from the 1960s till the late 1980s to counter the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). In the 1990s it was rarely used, except in a handful of espionage cases. But the ISA proved critical after 11 September 2001 to protect us from global Jihadist terrorism. Let me take Members briefly through these three periods to illustrate how the ISA has safeguarded our security against the evolving security threats.

From the 1960s right through to the late 1980s, the ISA was used mainly to counter the serious threat posed by the CPM and the underground satellites or fraternal organisations of the CPM. The CPM was determined to violently overthrow the democratically elected governments of the day. Communism was on the march world-wide. In South East Asia, every country faced a communist insurgency; and in Indo-China, countries fell like dominoes under communist regimes.

For the CPM, Singapore and West Malaysia were always one entity called "Malaya". The CPM's revolutionary strategy had two tactical prongs, with priority being given to one or the other at different times. One prong was armed struggle by an insurgent CPM guerrilla army hiding in the jungle. The other prong was mass struggle relying on covert infiltration and subversion of open and legal organisations to create a communist "united front" (CUF). This "united front" would incite and stage illegal strikes, riots and civil strife, to de-stabilise the Government and the State. Given Singapore's urban geography, the preferred tactic was the "united front". Even then we were not spared deadly terrorist incidents by CPM elements.

In the 1960s, when its armed insurgency failed to achieve success, the CPM stepped up its united front activities, aggressively infiltrating political parties, trade unions and schools in Singapore. This led to rising labour and student unrest, strikes, demonstrations, boycotts and even riots. Attacks on the Police were common.

In such a situation where the subversive threat was hiding in legal organisations, the Government needed the ISA to flush out and neutralise these CPM elements, separating them from those who were not involved. Several of the CPM elements escaped and fled to re-join the CPM insurgents in the Malayan jungles, including two PAP Members and elected parliamentarians, who were deployed by the CPM to its 12th Assault Unit in south Thailand.

Following these security operations, ISD's assessment was that the CPM underground network was neutralised. The Government foresaw a more peaceful decade ahead in the 1970s, but was proven wrong. ISD later learnt that in 1968, the CPM had issued a policy to return to armed struggle. Numerous new CPM satellite organisations were formed. Between 1970 and 1974, they were behind at least 35 arson and bomb incidents in Singapore.

In April 1970, a young girl was killed by a CPM booby-trapped bomb in Changi. In another incident in December 1974, the CPM elements targeted the Managing Director of the Nanyang Manufacturing Co. Members may refer to the more detailed accounts in the documents I have distributed [handouts distributed to hon. Members]. However, the bomb exploded prematurely in their car at Still Road, killing two of the bombers. A third bomber survived and fled. He was given refuge by the CPM underground who smuggled him to Johor. While in hiding, he received assistance from CPM supporters.

The group behind the Changi bomb was the Malayan National Liberation Front (MNLF) which managed to recruit a few hundred Singaporeans from infiltrated organisations like trade unions, Old Boys Associations, drama and cultural groups, the Barisan Sosialis, Nantah and Singapore Polytechnic. Another CPM organisation assassinated the Malaysian Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Police Officer of Perak. In Singapore, the plot against the then Commissioner of Police narrowly failed.

So, while ordinary Singaporeans remember the 1970s as a peaceful time and largely went about their lives, intense security operations were continually being undertaken to preserve that peace. More than 800 people were arrested under the ISA in the 1970s of whom 235 were issued with Orders of Detention. Most were detained because they were more than just sympathisers and had provided financial, logistical and manpower support to the CPM insurgents.

The return to armed struggle did not mean an end to "united front" activities which carried on in parallel, actively radicalising local and foreign workers. A number of these activists in the 1970s were university and polytechnic students. Some of them also penetrated a religion-based student group. Several of the student radicals eventually worked in the CPM radio station, the "Voice of Malayan Revolution" in Changsha, in China, to produce English-language broadcasts.

The CPM also exploited the grievances of workers and sought to radicalise them. Their confrontational approach resulted in strikes and even a demonstration in front of the US Embassy in 1973 against multi-national corporations in Singapore. In 1974, the Government charged several activists who played key roles in inciting disorder and strife. One of them later emerged as a key figure in the Marxist group in the 1980s.

In 1979, the CPM issued a directive calling for higher priority to be placed on penetrating and subverting open social and political organisations. There was thus renewed energy to get involved in social and political activism. Certain CPM-linked elements and their supporters infiltrated legally-registered organisations, including some linked to the Catholic Church. Some of these infiltrators had connections with one of those charged in the 1970s.

When the Government did move against this group in the mid-1980s, it made clear that it was not acting against genuine social activists or members of the clergy, but only those who were covertly pursuing their subversive Marxist political agenda by hiding within the church organisations. Appreciating the sensitivities involved, the Government made every effort to explain to the Church leadership that this was not targeted at the Church. The Church leaders and the Vatican itself acknowledged this publicly. Following this episode, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was passed as an additional legal instrument to keep politics and religion separate in Singapore.

Two years later in 1989, the CPM laid down arms with the signing of the Peace Agreements in Hadyai with the Thai and Malaysian governments, finally ending the four-decade struggle against the CPM and its manifestations. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the opening up of other communist countries also eroded the credibility and appeal of communism. Some members of the CPM armed units in the jungle, as well as many of those who had been detained, were given help to recover their lives and re-integrate into society back in Singapore.

While it seems distant now, the communist threat to Singapore was a real and serious one. Without the resolute steps taken then by the Government, the outcome for Singapore would have been drastically different. When that era passed, Singapore enjoyed a period of relative calm and stability. The ISA was used during the 1990s only to counter isolated episodes of espionage.

But today, we face a new serious threat. Al-Qaeda's global Jihadist terrorism, like communism, is an ideology with a global agenda that advocates the use of violence. It puts forward a distorted view of Islam and seeks to unite a trans-national community against the "non-believers" who are viewed as "enemies of Islam".

Jihadist terrorism has managed to recruit many into its fold, including some Singaporeans who went to Afghanistan to train and fight as mujahideen. They were so indoctrinated by the extremist ideology that they were prepared to participate in a terror plot with the regional Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) group against targets in Singapore, even knowing that that would mean the loss of many Singaporean lives. While ISD had previously found Singaporeans flirting with violent groups like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or even the Hizbollah, they had never encountered Singaporeans prepared to go as far as what the JI members were prepared to do.

Using the ISA, the Government could take prompt pre-emptive action to neutralise and disrupt the network. Otherwise there could have been several truck bombs targeted at Embassies exploding in Singapore in 2002. Information from those arrested under the ISA assisted in the arrest of the JI bomb-maker Fathur Rohman Al-Ghozi in Manila in January 2002. He had already amassed 1.2 tonnes of TNT and 2.4 km of detonator cord, and was on the way to Bangkok to obtain funds to complete the purchase of explosives for the attack in Singapore. Singapore also narrowly missed an attack in early 2002 against Changi Airport: Mas Selamat and his team backed off boarding the plane in Bangkok to Singapore when their identities were exposed in the Thai newspapers. Singapore had a third narrow miss when JI's master bomb-maker, Dr Azahari Husin, gave up trying to stage an attack in Singapore after failing to connect with the local JI network which had been disrupted by ISD. Azahari then went from Johor to Indonesia to join the JI team planning the Bali bombing.

Today, most would agree that the use of the ISA against the JI group was warranted. At the time though, there were many sceptical voices. Some thought the Government had deliberately exaggerated the JI threat. Others called for those arrested to be released or openly prosecuted in court. Court proceedings would have focused on those involved in the plot, but stalled the investigations which uncovered the broader network. Only after the Bali bombings 10 months later in October 2002, were the sceptics silenced.

Since 2002, 60 persons have been detained for involvement in terrorism-related activities. Although the original JI organisation is disrupted, the regional network has morphed into different forms – splintered groups but connected to one another in the larger extremist network. In addition, there is a new self-radicalisation threat which is even more difficult to anticipate and detect.

Let me now explain why the ISA continues to be relevant for Singapore, why a specific Terrorism Act would not be adequate, and how the ISA allows a small country like Singapore to protect itself in the face of our challenging security threats and needs.

The threat of violence is not the only national security threat Singapore has faced or will face in the future. The ISA has been used, for instance, against foreign subversion and espionage as well as racial agitation. Between 1991 and 2010, there were a total of seven cases of detentions for espionage. One case was subsequently charged under the Official Secrets Act. Wherever possible we have prosecuted espionage cases in court, but this is not always practicable when the danger from compromising confidentiality of the intelligence involved outweighs any advantage from open prosecution and conviction.

The threats to our national security can take various forms. For example, the CPM and its affiliates used not just terrorist violence but also covert subversion and infiltration by an unseen network behind open and even religious organisations in a united front to subvert the Government and the State. They incited civil disorder and disturbances and defiance of the law to threaten stability, order and security.

The Government has used the ISA as a last resort when there is a significant threat, and other laws are not adequate to deal with the situation. Investigations provide useful information to map out subversive organisations, and identify key leaders, members and their roles. In many cases a person arrested is not eventually detained; he can be released on a Restriction Order or unconditionally, once he is no longer a threat.

For those arrested for communist-related activities, all were eventually released, and most have re-integrated into society. A few were detained for longer periods because they adamantly refused to renounce the use of violence. They were eventually also released when communism lost its appeal, and they were assessed to be no longer a threat.

Similarly, not all those arrested post 9/11 were detained. In the first phase of the JI investigation in December 2001, 23 people were called in for questioning. Of these, 16 were arrested under the ISA, of whom 13 were eventually detained. Of the 60 who have been detained for terrorism-related activities over the past decade, 43 have been released, some on Restriction Orders. They and their families continue to receive counselling and assistance to re-integrate back into society. Some, however, have to remain in detention as they are assessed to continue to pose a threat to security.

The severity of a threat is always tied to prevailing circumstances, vulnerabilities and consequences. For example, the ISA has been used to deal with racial and religious extremism over the decades, but calibrated to the circumstances of the time. In the years following the race riots of 1964 and 1969, the risk of renewed ethnic violence was high and the Government needed to deal quickly and firmly with extremists and communalists. In current times, those who provoke ethnic violence will still be prosecuted. However, those who are insensitive or offensive but are unlikely to provoke ethnic violence, may be interviewed by ISD and warned, but they are not usually detained. Where terrorism takes on the cloak of religion, this becomes a particularly dangerous threat, and the Government has acted firmly and decisively.

There have been suggestions to abolish the ISA and replace it with a specific Terrorism Act. A Terrorism Act would not allow pre-emptive action against those who have not yet committed overt deeds that warrant prosecution, but nevertheless belong to a wider terrorist network, unless the Act is very broad in scope and provides for preventive detention just like the ISA. For example, we now have a Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act passed in November 2007. But, had it existed in 2001, it could not have been used against most of the JI network. Based on what was known at the point of arrest, only the cell involved in taking manifest action in pursuit of the Al-Qaeda bombing plot would be liable.

With the ISA, the Government was able to systematically uncover the network in Singapore even though not all of them were then actively engaged in terrorist operations. Then US Attorney General, John Ashcroft speaking at the US Council of Foreign Relations in 2003 elaborated on the new prevention paradigm: "In the past our focus has been on traditional law enforcement – prosecution. Prosecution is retrospective; it re-creates a past event ... Our new ... goal of terrorism prevention, on the other hand, involves anticipation and imagination about emerging scenarios, the puzzle pieces of which have yet to come into alignment." He also said there is a need to "anticipate these dangerous scenarios and to identify, intercept and disrupt them before they become tragic terrorist realities". Sir, when dealing with suicide-attackers, prevention, as the US discovered post-9/11, becomes a greater imperative, compared to prosecution after the fact.

A Terrorism Act drafted, say in 2002, would probably not have adequately anticipated new forms of the terror threat, like the self-radicalised lone-wolf which has emerged in recent years. A case in point is the full-time NSman who was self-radicalised through the Internet. He had expressed intent to conduct jihad abroad and had already made online contact with a suspected Al-Qaeda recruiter and radical ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki. But that would not have been sufficient grounds to charge him in court, as under normal criminal legislation, he had not yet committed an offence. The ISA enabled the Government to detain him preventively, while he was doing his NS, just before he embarked on demolition training in his course. We now have time to assess, counsel and rehabilitate him. This avoided exposing Singapore to a high, perhaps unacceptable, degree of risk. The consequence may not just be loss of innocent lives, but also serious damage to inter-communal relations and trust.

There have been calls also to try the terrorism cases in court. Such trials would expose information which terrorists could use to pursue their agenda. Sometimes, information that uncovers security threats comes from painstaking and dangerous efforts by our security personnel. In other instances, highly secretive information may come from foreign security agencies, on the understanding that we will not disclose the sources and details. The disclosure of such information, which reveals current sources and methods of intelligence gathering, would compromise ongoing or future counter-terrorism operations. On the other hand, if the information is not disclosed in court, the case could be weakened because of evidentiary requirements in a court of law, the terrorist could be acquitted, and could walk free to pursue more terrorist activities.

Where national security threats deal with issues of race, language or religion, the very airing of these incendiary issues in a public trial can further exacerbate an already volatile situation as in the Maria Hertogh communal riots in Singapore.

Let me now address the related issue of judicial review. The process of making a threat assessment is to anticipate, pre-empt and prevent security incidents in a timely and effective manner and this is different from our judicial processes. A judge in court is not equipped to investigate or decide whether there are suspicious circumstances warranting some restraint. Mischief-makers engaged in conspiracies or other covert operations, do so in a clandestine, furtive manner, making it impossible or extremely difficult to get the kind of evidence that would enable a conviction in court on a specific charge. This was the main reason why preventive detention was needed in the first place. The ISA allows an overall assessment of the threat to be made, based on the best possible information available, as distinct from proof or evidence in a court for a specific criminal charge.

More importantly, giving the final say on what constitutes a serious threat to national security to a judge would in effect mean that the judge rather than the Government becomes responsible for, and answerable for decisions affecting the national security of Singapore.

In Singapore, this responsibility and accountability to act to protect national security is placed in the hands of the Government. This is in accord with long standing principles since Independence and going even further back to 1948, where the Executive alone has been responsible for decisions on national security, including arrests and detention. This matter has been debated in this House on a number of occasions and been re-affirmed. This is reflected in the way that the ISA is drafted. The ISA recognises that it is the elected government which has to carry the heavy responsibility to assess what constitutes a threat to security, and to act on this assessment.

However, while the Government makes the final assessment, it cannot act arbitrarily. It can only act within the powers provided to it by the ISA, and has to follow the procedures and abide by the safeguards specified – in particular an Advisory Board chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, and since 1991, the Elected President's veto powers. Otherwise, the Government can be challenged in court. It is the Government's view that this framework is unique and strikes an adequate balance in the present circumstances.

Sir, every country has to grapple with the issue of what legal powers its government needs to protect the security of its people, and how to balance the effectiveness of the powers against the need for safeguards and due process of law. Every country has to make its own decisions as to the best approach depending on the threat it faces and its own external and domestic environment. The Americans too face this dilemma. The US government decided to build a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to house foreign terrorists outside their legal system. They have also had to wrestle with the legality and ethics of military strikes to kill not just foreign but even American terrorists like Anwar al-Awlaki, and they have decided that the government has the legal power to do this.

The difficult decisions that a government has to make to protect its people must be made based on an individual country's context and circumstances at the time. In Singapore, we have a law called the ISA, which empowers the Government to act, but it comes with a system of safeguards, and provides the detainee certain rights which must be accorded to him. Over the years, the Government has used the ISA in good faith, and in a measured way in the prevailing security situations it has had to face, keeping Singapore safe and our people secure.

Sir, Singapore is a small country which can be buffeted by the many powerful forces and influences that intersect here. A broad range of threats can undermine Singapore's security. These include terrorism, subversion, racial and religious extremism and espionage, and also other unanticipated threats that may emerge in the future. For the foreseeable future, Singapore will need a law containing provisions like those in the ISA, including preventive detention, to empower the Government to pre-empt and prevent serious threats to our security. The precise form the law takes may evolve with time and circumstances. But for the present, the ISA is a shield that we need that protects us against these threats, allowing us to deal with them swiftly and effectively before they cause us serious and possibly permanent harm. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not been to Bhutan but I am very happy to congratulate you on your new appointment and hope that you would be kind if we overstep our time. I have learnt many things since stepping forward to serve in this capacity as a new Member of Parliament. I have certainly learnt much from all of you here during these few days and certainly for the next few days ahead.

I realise that, for one thing, there is great value in speaking earlier in the week. As I listen to each speech, I am sure some of you are checking off at the same time, all the things I was planning to say. When Ms Denise Phua spoke of courage and doing the right things – I checked it off. When Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about happiness and our pledge – I struck it off again, and when Dr Janil Puthucheary shared about pragmatism versus compassion, there goes another couple of points. And my dilemma was – and I learnt this yesterday as well – whether to fine-tune, or should I throw the baby out of the bath water. Or, was it with the bath water? [Laughter.]

Whether "with" or "of", I thought Ms Denise Phua put it best. Let your conscience guide you and do what is right. And may all of us be guided by our conscience in this House. Let me register my respect and admiration for your passion in not just saying and criticising, because, really, anyone can do that. But in walking the talk, you pushed for specifics and you make things happen. You fight for those who are not able to fight for themselves.

Recently, a resident came to see me for assistance. She is a young mother of three. She had to stop work at a fast food outlet suddenly because her older son, a young teenager, had enough and told her that he was not interested in helping to look after his younger siblings, both of whom were very young. The middle child has some psychological problems as he was traumatised when her husband, his father, was arrested for drug-related offences. He is jailed for 10 years. The son had fallen into bad company in the neighbourhood while hanging out at the Internet cafe. What struck me most about her was how strong spirited she was. She shared with me her joy in being able to work, to stand on her own two feet to provide for her family, however simple it may be. But, now, she was at a loss. As we chatted, she confided that she had attempted suicide before but she has moved on and, with steely-eyed determination, she emphasised that she would not go down that path again. There was none of the griping, grumbling at the world nor a sense of entitlement. She asked me simply, almost apologetically, if there was anything I could do to assist her. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the reasons why we serve.

As her MP, it is my responsibility to see how best I can help her. As a Government, we need to see how we organise ourselves both as Government and society to help those in need and those who are not able to help themselves. We must endeavour to make their lives better. If possible, to go upstream before these problems happen. These are lives that matter. As our President put it right at the start of his speech:

"But one thing stays the same – we seek to do our very best for our country and make it the best home for all Singaporeans."

At the heart of everything, it must be about our sense of purpose. Why are we doing this? Who is it for? As a Government, there will always be the bigger picture and the proverbial rainy day to cater for. In fact, I think we are quite well known for that. We must resolutely, I think, keep this strength because this is the real world that we live in. This is the responsibility of a good government – to worry about all our nightmares so that our people can sleep in peace. But the bigger picture and the rainy days are not ends in themselves, important as they may be. They are imperatives but serve our more fundamental goal and purpose. Without this sense of purpose, they will be just policies; a collection of initiatives that we can laud about and tick the box with. Some have shared that we should not be obsessed with economic growth at all costs. I totally agree.

Ms Serene Chew posted a video on my Facebook wall recently. It was about the mindless pursuit of GDP in another country. I responded to her, and I am sharing part of that response: "No one should ever pursue GDP or any variant of that for its own sake. It is not an end but a means to an end. What is our purpose? If it is not for Singaporeans and our community and society, if it is not for the now and for our tomorrows, it will make no sense."

I am new to this Government. We meet each week during our Cabinet meetings and I want to state that we have only one preoccupation. And that is to provide for Singaporeans and Singapore, for our present and for all our future.

These are not mutually exclusive. But neither do they overlap completely. What may make sense for an individual may not always be ideal for society or the other way round. What is useful and relevant today may be less so or, perhaps, even detrimental for our future. It therefore requires wisdom and judgement to make the best decision possible.

This clarity and the shared sense of purpose will keep this Government and, indeed, this Parliament firmly on the straight and narrow. To do what is right and to do it right. And this is the responsibility of this Government as well as our Opposition friends because, I think, despite our politics and our differing visions, view, ideas, I believe we all, in this House, want to do our very best for our people, our nation and our future.

While we celebrate our diversity, and we have seen a fair bit of that, I think we share a lot more in common than we would sometimes, perhaps, like to admit. When we bleed, I think our blood is all the same – Singapore red.

How does this sense of common purpose shape what we do, how we think and how do we make things better for our people?

There are many issues that have been raised by Members of this House in the last day or so. I have received much feedback, dutifully reading almost all the posts on my Facebook page – though not responding to all of them − countless emails and, importantly, heard from many a Singaporean in person. I know there are concerns on affordability of homes, fair employment opportunities in jobs, being paid a fair wage, adequacy in retirement and healthcare, and so on. These are real concerns. Though I believe that we have established systems that work and that have provided significantly for our people, I would also be the first to admit that we can and should improve, and we do intend to.

Was infrastructure strained in the preceding years as a result of growing our economy? Yes. Transport became crowded. There will be the inevitable impact on property prices and cost of living as a result of increasing demand. Singapore became crowded and, perhaps, less comfortable. But was it a mistake? What happened? Why did it happen? Was it really an obsession with growth? GDP numbers? Growth at all costs?

We had two serious recessions in the first half of the decade. It seems long ago but, if you remember, there was the dotcom bust in 2001 and SARS in 2003-2004. Income growth then did not do very well. Median real income growth from 2001 to 2006 was 0.1% per annum. For those at the 20th percentile (P20), it was a negative 2.4% per annum. The Government agonised over our prospects, wondering how we could keep the economy growing so that we could provide jobs for our people. Opportunities opened up and we rode the wave. Businesses grew so that jobs were created for our people. Real incomes went up. And even though the world suffered an unprecedented recession, from which many countries have not fully recovered, it was on the back of the foundations laid that we bounced back to where we are today.

We have today a citizen unemployment rate of 3.1% – not 3.9%. 3.1% is seasonally adjusted in the second quarter. It is one of the lowest in the world. Seventy-seven percent of Singaporeans aged 25-64 were employed in 2010, that is one of the highest in the world. Income growth from 2006 to 2010 – the latter half of the decade – the period where we sought to put the economy back on track for our people, was 2.6% per annum for the median, after adjusting for inflation, and 3.1% per annum at the 20th percentile, again, adjusting for inflation. Figures, of course, when you compile over the decade, are 1.2% and flat, respectively.

Median household income saw 1.8% real growth at $1,520 per household member. At the P20 level, it was 0.8% real growth at $750 per member before Government transfers. Was it a mistake? Are these statistics good? Are they poor? To provide a perspective and backdrop, let me share the following: in June this year, the Financial Times carried an article "Spectre of Stagnating Incomes Stalks Globe". It basically outlined how median male real US earnings have not risen since 1975! In Japan and Germany, average real household incomes have also fallen.

A September issue of The Economist highlighted what the American economy is facing: "€¦ current incomes are at roughly the level of the late 1970s for those near the bottom of the income spectrum. From a real income perspective, the American economy has already experienced a lost decade, but for the median household the picture is one of a generation of stagnation." US unemployment is about 9.6%, UK's about 7.8%, Sweden 8.4%, Germany 6.9%. The NIEs are not doing too badly at 4% to 5%. Incomes too are also stagnating. I have shared these not so that we can feel better, but as a reference point because we do live in a real world that is connected. I wish we were disconnected, but we are not.

Are the sentiments expressed by Singaporeans real? They are. I hear them. All of us in this House hear them. And just because others are in worse shape does not change the fact that we need to improve the lot of our Singaporeans, especially the lot of those in the lower income groups and, indeed, for the middle incomes. We cannot eat statistics. The numbers in themselves, while meaningful, will not feed a hungry family.

When we consider how we did on a broader context, I think it is not too bad, but we should do better. For example, I am not happy that the median monthly wages for cleaners are $800. I met my resident who told me he works as a cleaner in Changi Airport purportedly for $650. This is not acceptable. Ms Denise Phua would be pleased to know that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does have a unit that is looking at improving the incomes of low-wage workers. In particular, we are looking at the cleaning and security industries as they employ a large number of low-wage workers. I believe there are meaningful things that we can do. How we best source is one way to shape things and I believe that Government can take the lead. And to my friend, Encik Zainal bin Sapari (In Malay): We will work hard together and we should be successful.

(In English): Employment is just part of the bigger picture. We have a whole-of-Government effort to look at complex socio-economic issues ranging from healthcare, housing, ageing and, of course, low-wage workers. We worked at keeping things afloat in the last few years. We introduced Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) in 2007. We had an unprecedented Jobs Credit Scheme to help keep workers in employment during the last recession. $4.3 billion was spent to save jobs by subsidising part of the employers' wage bills. We have also invested significantly in training to help our workers stay relevant and be employable. Workfare Training Support was introduced in 2010.

On healthcare, we have the 3Ms (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund). The Government has also been taking on a greater share of the healthcare burden, with Government expenditure on healthcare rising in proportion to national expenditure. And we will continue to invest in the healthcare of our Singaporeans. We are reviewing to improve MediShield and ElderShield.

On housing front – I do not need to say all these anymore since my Minister has spoken quite clearly and eloquently about our commitment to ramp up supply and keep housing affordable for all Singaporeans.

Indeed, perhaps, we could have invested more in our transport much earlier. But former Minister Raymond Lim did what he could during his tenure. It takes time, and there is a time lag for these to come online.

Could we have kept the access to foreign workers tighter? Perhaps. On hindsight, I think all of us are tremendously wise. But the demand was high from our companies, companies operating here, for these foreign workers went to our companies and these companies created jobs for Singaporeans, for which some of the data I have shared earlier.

We were aware, in fact, of the impact of the growing numbers and began calibrating to rein in the growth sometime in June 2009. There was another round in July 2010, and recently in July 2011 and the next point would be January 2012, where we have announced some of the measures. It is a combination of increasing levies, tightening entry and qualifications criteria, increasing qualifying salaries, and so on – to moderate foreign worker reliance and to ensure foreign workers continue to complement our local workforce. We will continue to watch this front closely.

On balance, I am glad that we managed to provide well for our people in this last decade amidst difficult circumstances. But I think perhaps we could do better dealing with the disamenities that come along with this growth. And we will make it right.

It is important that we look forward with hope. We cannot be saddled with the malaise afflicting many of the people in the countries we looked at earlier. Many Members would have read many of the headlines about the lost generation. If you were a young person growing up in Europe today, I think the future would seem rather bleak.

These are economic problems. But more fundamentally, the question being asked out there, in those countries and by observers is: "Is it a political problem? Is there a lack of political will to do what is right?" The political opponents there seem ready to pounce and to milk political points. But is it at the expense of their country and their people, so that they can gain votes and power? I think we here must figure out how best to avoid this and to forge a path that makes sense for us in Singapore.

Can we have a better life for our children and ourselves? We can, I know we can. We have had a remarkable run. Not perfect, but in the cold light of day, quite a significant achievement to be where we are presently. This Government is not perfect and there are things that we can do better and to improve and we will do our utmost to do that. But we stand for a belief that we will serve our people and our nation faithfully. To serve without fear or favour, and to have the courage to do what is right.

The inclusive growth that our President shared is really about all of us being in this together. To play a part and to fight the good fight as one nation, as one people. It is a journey that we must all walk together. Will there be tensions? Yes, and that is to be expected. It is important that our MPs challenge us as it keeps us on our toes and help distil better policies. In fact, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak shared, I am also hard-pressed at times, when we are not watching to distinguish friends from foe. But I think that is a good thing. Is it uncomfortable? Yes, but it is good for the country that we see this development, the debate and the challenging of ideas.

In a recent conference on biodiversity in NUS, I was struck by the passion shown by our young Singaporeans. I encouraged them to pursue their passion to care for and fight for the environment because these are a part of our heritage and history as well. I know that it will create tensions for us in MND because we need to deal with the development needs of our people. But I would rather have passionate Singaporeans than apathetic ones.

We are engaging stakeholders on issues like the future of our Rail Corridor, animal welfare matters, foreign domestic worker issues very early in the policy making process. The outcomes are still not fully determined. We have broad parameters but we want our people to co-create these policies. I believe that this makes sense and we need to see how this evolves over time. We need to continue to tap on the views of our stakeholders out there. Singaporeans. We need to co-create our own future in Singapore. Step forward, walk with us on this journey to build something special and meaningful for all Singaporeans.

In co-creating our future, we are also very much playing a part in nation building. Nations are not built by some big fancy notions of patriotism, but by the foundations laid when family units are strong, when neighbours look out for each other. Household by household, floor-by-floor, block-by-block, as we reach out, we begin to bridge the gaps that exist in society. I hope Singaporeans can step forward and make a difference to those in your neighbourhood. Come forward and help us at the MPS sessions, at our grassroots outreach to see how better we can coordinate our efforts to help those who are in need. And on my part, I thank many who have stepped forward, like those who came forward to help us distribute almost 8,000 kilograms of rice in Chai Chee.

This is when, I believe, a community grows and a nation is built and it will take time. When neighbours get to know each other and care for others, we know we will be getting somewhere. Schools play the most, I think, important role. Our principals must focus on the true spirit of education. Can they carry out the CIP programme, for example, in order to fulfil the full spirit and intent of the programme? I think it is a game changer. Can they lead, educate and inspire the teachers to do the same and avoid being overly anxious to score points, notwithstanding the pressures that come from parents and their expectations? Teachers can make a tremendous difference to the lives of all their students. Principals have a tremendous amount of autonomy to do the right thing and I urge them to be courageous in order to place the right emphasis.

As a former leader in the Army, I was clear that people are at the centre of everything. When you are able to earn their respect, you win over their hearts and minds, you nurture them to the best of your abilities, what is there that you cannot do? As a nation, the same applies, if not more so. If we get the people part right, I think many things will follow. After all, what is a nation but a community and society made up of people? It is about the society we are seeking to build. I call on Singaporeans to step forward, to decide what Singapore means to you, and what it means to be a Singaporean. Do not concede that space to those who may not represent what you believe in.

I believe that when we step forward, when we begin to care for different aspects in society, we will begin to grow as a people. What distinguishes us as humans is our capacity to love, care and respect. Which is why such avenues, be it with your cats and dogs, animals, our environment, and indeed with fellow humans, caring for the less privileged in society, respecting elders and being there for them in their twilight years after all their contributions throughout their lives – big or small – are critical in the building of our nation, and the forging of our heart and our soul.

Life cannot be whittled down into an efficient equation, however effective it may be. Not everything is an economic digit. Some of the most important things in life cannot be quantified. At the end of it all, it is really about us as Singaporeans, and the future we want to build for our children. And we as the Government must have the courage to play our role to lead, to decide and to do the right things.

Our responsibility as a Government is to earn your respect and trust because this is what gives us the moral authority to govern. We lead by listening with respect and to recognise the different views out there. We will care with compassion for those who are less able to fend for themselves, and we will have the courage to do what is right and to do it right.

Before I close, I commend Mr Yaw Shin Leong for his enthusiasm, his commitment. Although he did say that I was boasting about our figures, but it is okay. It is important not to be unnecessarily critical. I am grateful that he supports so many of our programmes. He urged us to be diligent, to explore all avenues. We do that. I do in turn urge him to read carefully all the programmes that we have and perhaps, imitation is the best form of flattery, but we thank him for the support for the many things that we are doing.

My last point, perhaps, and this is important regarding the future of our people, particularly with regard to CPF. Mr Yaw quoted the Mercer study. We are very familiar with the Mercer study. They have a slightly different approach. We have given feedback to them over the years, we do not totally agree with their approach. It is not about right or wrong, but they have a different way of assessing.

Mercer retained much of its methodology, with some adjustments. CPF is very different from many pension systems internationally. For one, they do not consider that we do have a large housing component. You could argue whether that is good or bad. If we did not have the ability to spend using our CPF monies on housing, I think the adequacy rate would be actually very good. But what we have is the ability to own a roof over our heads – something which many cities out there in this world cannot claim that, and that is important. That remains an option, at the point of retirement, with whatever you might have left as cash in your Ordinary Account (OA), Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts (SMRA), but you do have a piece of property which is by and large a decent hedge against inflation and the various schemes to monetise it, in different shapes and forms. We are working towards that.

It was interesting because when The Business Times published it, they did not enquire nor seek our comments, I think importantly we are quite well aware of the feedback and the observations and we track these very carefully. And we do continue to work hard to ensure that CPF remains important and viable.

Let me, in closing, just say this, it is my privilege to be a Member of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare not claim to be a patriot. It is, I think, too big a word certainly for myself. But I love my country and our people deeply, and have served faithfully my entire life and I look forward to continuing on this path. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I conclude by reiterating my support for the motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, before I touch on the President's Speech, I would like to add to the many references about Bhutan, as well as correct misconceptions that have arisen in this House. I happen to visit Bhutan just before this year's General Elections and am now involved actively in a non-profit education project for the country.

Mr Cedric Foo joked that Bhutanese are happy because they have only two elected Opposition Members. Bhutan's concept of happiness was implemented by the fourth King in the 1970s, long before they had parliamentary democracy in 2008. On my flight into Bhutan, I picked up this inflight magazine of Drukair, their national airline. This page [hon. Member showed the page to the House] showed the four most important persons in Bhutan – His Majesty the King, the Chief Abbot, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking with Bhutanese, I was amazed at the respect they accorded to the Opposition, as well as to the democracy process.

Just as Minister Khaw Boon Wan said that developing Bhutan wants to learn from Singapore, I believe there are certain valuable lessons from Bhutan. The concept of Gross National Happiness is not some fuzzy feel-good about individual happiness as some Members alluded to, but about collective happiness and long-term sustainability. It does measure economic indicators, like all other countries. It also measures three other important areas: Preservation of Culture, Preservation of the Environment and Good Governance. Bhutan chose to do so because it wanted to leave something for future generations, rather than mine natural resources for short-term immediate gains or destroy the culture that made them unique. We have seen measures to prop up our economy, like liberal immigration and the casinos, that may have brought immediate benefits but can lead to long-term problems. Are Singaporeans happy with headline-grabbing economic growth when their jobs have been impacted; or when they struggle with high cost of living; or if family members face chronic gambling problems?

Sir, I will now move to my main speech. I thank the President for reminding us to do our very best for our country and to make it the best home for all Singaporeans. I grew up in an independent Singapore. I have seen the changes we went through. Doing my best for Singapore is an aspiration that I share. Singapore is my home and my country.

The President touched on many issues. I will focus on education and the economy. First, I would like to declare that I have vested interest in the education space as an owner of several private companies offering education services, mostly to schools. Sir, the President said that we should have "a truly special Singapore, where our children can grow to be the best they can be".

The main form of our current mainstream education started with the bold 1979 Goh report by the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, then Minister for Education. It was to address the challenges of the day. Streaming was introduced. Singapore went for mass production to raise the overall level of students' performance. Schools were differentiated progressively from 1988. From 1992, they were ranked yearly by MOE and the rankings were published. Next, MOE published schools' actual versus expected performances. Ranking was later replaced with banding schools of similar range of students' academic performances together. Today, while schools are appraised in non-academic areas, they are still banded by academic results.

These changes have raised overall education levels, but they also created excessive anxieties for parents and students, and widened public's perception of quality between top and lower ranked schools.

An educator friend blogged that she had asked parents in workshops to draw their impression of our education system. One drew prison bars! There were similar drawings by other parents expressing helplessness at being trapped in the system. They felt helpless over the many high-stake examinations; and pressure to get children into good schools, failing which they deem the future of their children would be compromised.

In a recent 938LIVE radio talkshow, a caller whose daughter was taking the PSLE this year described how her family relationship became strained while preparing for the examinations. A friend shared that his daughter in a top school cries frequently just before examinations. I feel terrible hearing of children having their confidence crushed and growing up in fear of education. A former civil servant I met online wrote that he had migrated to Finland because he did not want to subject his son to the unhealthy system here. He wanted his son to simply love learning.

Today, there is over reliance on academic performance as a benchmark of success and meritocracy, a phenomenon I call hyper-meritocracy. Hyper-meritocracy has seen parents who could afford it, pack children's schedule with tuition. A good paper qualification is seen as a guarantee to a successful career. The safe thing to do in Singapore is to score in examinations, get a scholarship and land a secure good-paying job. This has led to a dearth of risk-taking and entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore.

I share Mr Teo Ser Luck's observation that risk aversion will be a key challenge for him to promote entrepreneurship. The problem of lack of entrepreneurs begins in school, where students are conditioned not to take risks and do not learn to handle ambiguity. In this aspect, I am happy to work with Mr Teo as I have been working with young entrepreneurs and students for quite some time now.

Sir, I am happy to note that MOE is looking into Character and Value-based education. Character and values are important guiding principles for life and must be imparted to students. However, schools are supposed to already have civics and moral education for years. MOE's 21st Century Skills framework, already included character and values development. Schools, preoccupied with measurable indicators of success, such as school ranking and academic grades, are known to have replaced civics period with mainstream subjects. This sends wrong signals to children that values are not important.

Schools pile homework on students and drill them for major examinations. I know of a top school which had three full-scale preliminary examinations in addition to mock examinations using preliminary papers of other schools, in order to prepare students for this year's "O" levels. Principals feel pressured into delivering academic results over other forms of holistic development.

We have had education policies with good intents before, but their effects are often muted because we do not address our examination culture. At the heart of the issue is what good education should be about. Do we sieve out academic performers through a series of examinations so that we can concentrate them together? Is this so because we believe we need to identify the top 5% of each cohort who will run our country and our top companies in the future?

Today, we face a totally different world where what we know can quickly become obsolete. Nimbleness to change is essential for survival. We do not churn out workers for the multinationals. We are competing against the world for investments, businesses and jobs. We need our people to be innovative and adaptable.

Mr Speaker, I hope two areas can be addressed. First, critically examine our intense examination culture. Can we cut down on streaming and do we need to start streaming so early?

Finland, a country with about the same population size as Singapore, went the opposite direction with their education reforms, equalising resources in schools and spreading talents across the system. They stream students only at 15 years old. Finnish students do well in international assessment benchmark. Notably, it has the shortest school hours in OECD countries and the narrowest gap between the high and low scorers, indicating education equality. Students hardly go for tuition. I feel it is useful to study their approach.

Secondly, broaden learning and seriously infuse character and values development. Already schools are reluctant to offer subjects that are important to broaden students' thinking, such as literature and history, as these subjects are difficult to score well in. Yet, they are important for students to appreciate diversity, handle ambiguity and to develop critical thinking.

We should further broaden learning to include political education so that our students can grow up with a wider spectrum of thoughts. Perhaps, they can then develop the Digital Quotient that Dr Lam Pin Min spoke about and can become responsible participants in our evolving parliamentary democracy.

Today, we appear more educated. However, I am not sure if we are more learned and more innovative, or we are simply more exam-smart. I would like to share a story with this House. Recently, I met a Singaporean couple who run an international school in Bangkok. They shared the experience of their daughter. Jazlina retained a place in a Singapore school under overseas leave of absence. She returned in Primary 6, took her PSLE and was admitted into an autonomous school. She spent her Secondary 2 in Singapore.

Jazlina is a bright and self-motivated girl who had thrived in school while in Thailand. But under our system, she felt constrained trying to conform to a rigid regime expecting standard answers. With a class size of over 40 students, her mother had to put her through tuition to keep pace with the class. Jazlina started to lose self-confidence and told her mother that "maybe I am not so smart after all". At Secondary 3, she was streamed into a subject combination that was not her passion. After fighting the system for a few more months, the family put her back into their own school in Thailand. Jazlina blossomed again. She now represents Thailand in international debating competitions, where she has won prizes. At this year's iGCSE Examinations, Jazlina aced all her subjects and scored 100% in two subjects, including for the subject that she was not selected to take in Singapore. Her mother shared that had they not brought her back into a more nurturing environment, her confidence would have plunged further. She felt that Singapore's system was not bringing out the best in Jazlina, but was instead drowning her.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's call for our children to "grow to be the best that they can be" is a great ideal. Like Mr Lawrence Wong, I believe that education should light up fires in children. We have to deal with many like Jazlina, who are talented and passionate, but constrained by the system. Instead of being obsessed about picking out winners, education should make winners out of the ordinary. We may have done well in the past. Based on that, we entrench our processes further without critically considering the changing environment or its negative effects. It has been 32 years since the Goh report. I believe it is time to make bolder evaluation of our mainstream education.

Sir, next, I like to talk about the economy. I feel the Government has become small in areas that it should be big in, and big in areas it should be small in. In the last decade, Singapore has adopted a free market approach for many Government services. Some areas like the provision of public housing, public transport and health care, which are essential social responsibilities of the Government, have gone this route too. My colleague, Gerald Giam, had touched extensively on the under-capacity of hospital beds, public transport and housing as a result of this policy. We outsource critical areas to the private sector and hence we had issues, such as DBSS, which had caused unhappiness due to public housing being pushed to unaffordable levels.

The Government chose to play a smaller role in the provision of essential services. It passed these responsibilities to the free market. With a free market mindset, the Government was not prepared to take risks. As a result, Singaporeans bore the cost of the under-provision. On the other hand, in areas that the Government should play a bigger role, it has instead grown smaller.

As our economy developed through the years, instead of letting private enterprises take more initiative of the economy, our Government's share of the economy has grown through its participation in Government Linked Companies (GLCs). This is in contrast to countries like South Korea or Taiwan whose government also had helped in pioneering some key businesses but progressively withdrew to let the private sector drive growth thereafter.

The NTUC group is a large cooperative with a stated US$3.5 billion annual turnover from its website. GLCs and cooperatives like NTUC inevitably compete with local enterprises, making the domestic market even smaller for them.

A writer to The Straits Times' Forum page wrote last week to share his experience as an entry-level entrepreneur in Chinatown Complex. In May this year, NEA engaged professional valuers to appraise the value of the complex. Rent went up by 71% to 100% as a result. Keeping rental cost manageable is important to the survival of small enterprises. In the past few years, JTC divested many of its properties to Real Estate Investment Trusts. I noted that rental cost of former JTC spaces has gone up as a result, an observation shared by SME leaders in an article in The Straits Times today. Hence, SMEs today struggle with high rental cost on top of challenging manpower cost.

SMEs sometimes also suffer in tenders due to risk aversion by Government officers who may shun smaller companies even if the solutions offered have met specifications at lower costs. To promote the growth of SMEs, the Government could look at ways to allow GLCs to participate only in tenders above certain minimum values. Or GLCs and cooperatives should withdraw totally from non-essential market segments if SMEs are capable of fulfilling local demands.

I believe there is merit in encouraging SMEs to develop themselves further with a mindset of professionalism, precision and perfection. In some developed economies like Germany and Switzerland, there are vibrant cottage industries comprising long-established family-run businesses. They have generations of know-how that have allowed their products to be sought after despite competition from lower-cost countries.

SMEs create jobs. Those that have succeeded locally could end up as global winners. In Singapore, we also have our cottage industries. I am happy to note that we have long-established food brands like Tee Yih Jia, Sin Hwa Dee, Polar Puffs and others that have been able to scale up globally. It is imperative that Singapore provides the conditions to develop more of such local enterprises. As we move forward to strengthen our economy, I hope the Government can consider right-sizing itself in the appropriate areas. I like to see it think big in providing essential social services. I like to see it become small in running domestic businesses and leave the space to grow our SMEs. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion of thanks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the hon. Member Mr Yee. When he referred to the NTUC group, was he saying that the NTUC group is a Government-linked company or a grouping?

I am not referring to NTUC as Government-linked. I am aware that it is Union's. I am mentioning in my point that it as "GLCs and cooperatives" competing with local enterprises. It is "and".

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I remind the hon. Member Mr Yee that NTUC is not the only organisation that can form cooperatives. Anybody can form cooperatives. It is a legal form of business, and you can also do that and compete on an equal basis. I just also to want ask Mr Yee whether he is aware that NTUC co-operatives do not enjoy any special privileges.

Mr Speaker, I beg to defer on some areas from Mr Heng. There are certain areas I am aware about that NTUC do have privileges; for example, in the industry that I am fairly well acquainted with, the pre-school industry. Childcare spaces are given to organisations like the NTUC at a very highly subsidised rent. So, it is not true to say there are absolutely no advantages at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to belabour the point but with regard to the NTUC co-operatives of any sort, I wish to ask Mr Yee whether he is aware that these co-operatives have all been set up in relation to societal needs that have to be addressed and that this has been the Labour movement's contribution to addressing and helping to address our nation's needs. Where he referred to any perceived privileges that co-operatives might enjoy, that is because certain conditions might have been placed for community organisations that meet certain criteria and that it is not unique to the NTUC.

Let me just clarify that I am very well aware of the progress of NTUC and how it has provided many businesses from cradle to grave literally. And it has benefited perhaps many citizens. Today, my speech is about the economy and about the impact on SMEs by organisations, such as GLCs and co-operatives. Sir, I will leave it to a future point where I will debate further about whether certain of these approaches by the co-operatives may be necessary. But today my speech is basically about the impact on SMEs and for the Government and even the co-operatives to consider whether they should play a smaller role in some of these areas because their presence has truly impacted SMEs.

Just two small points, Mr Speaker, on the impact of big government, small government. For HDB public housing, the Member cited the example of DBSS to illustrate how that has gone awry. I am indeed puzzled as DBSS forms a very small percentage of what we are providing. A large bulk of our public housing is provided by HDB. So, that is a small point of clarification.

The other one is a small point on healthcare. We can agree to disagree, but of the total expenditure on inpatient care for residents in 2009, for example, Medisave and MediShield financed 23%. About 51% was borne by Government, and the remaining 27% by employers and patients. We could disagree whether 51% is significant, big or small, but I think that is something that we are looking at and that is the commitment of the Government on some of these areas.

Mr Speaker, the essence of what I was trying to say is that, basically, over the last decade, the Government has deliberately chosen a free-market approach. Now, there are certain merits in whether we use a free-market approach or a planned, regulated approach as we had done so in the past.

By allowing the free economy to dictate things, you will over the long run let demand and supply sort itself out and things will eventually match up. But we have seen over the last few years that there are big problems in the three areas that I have just mentioned: housing, transport and healthcare. My premise for this is that when you leave things to the free market, things do not catch up and people may be unwilling to take risks because having unsold flats, for example, does not look too good, and you will be questioned by the Auditor-General and so on. So, yes, on the DBSS, I am aware that it is not a big portion. I am citing it as a case that when you go too far and let the private economy take over the running, then there will be at some point in time when the profit elements from the private developers will set in and push things up. I do recognise that HDB provides the bulk of housing. What I am saying is that there is not enough drive by the Government to take a bigger responsibility, to take bigger risks to absorb more of these things, to plan the capacity ahead of time, even if it means that it might not look so good on the books.

Mr Speaker, I think it is important to make this quite clear. Our commitment is to provide public housing for our people at affordable rates. We have acknowledged that demand exceeded supply in the last few years, and we will make that right and, indeed, with huge subsidies. The Government plays a significant role and I will speak on behalf of my colleagues in HDB who, I think, have done a fantastic job of housing the large bulk of our population in good quality housing. We stepped in to provide a whole range of subsidies for our people. That is not the market. If we were to leave it to the market, we should just take a step back, close down HDB, let the market decide and you pay whatever price you deem fit for our country and city. That is the basis upon which we are committed to providing for our people and that is important to clarify.

Sir, I would like to thank Brigadier-General for clarifying. Yes, I am heartened to know that HDB has indeed done more and I believe it reflects that the Government has started to listen to the voices of the people after the last General Elections.

I fail to understand how as a result of the Member's entry into Parliament, we suddenly started responding on that front. We have been providing good public housing for our people for many years. And, in the same vein as I responded earlier – perhaps imitation is the best form of flattery, and if you feel that it is important to take credit, it must be something good. So, thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may seek clarification from Mr Yee. If I am not mistaken, he mentioned earlier that GLCs have been growing in size in the economy and that is crowding out SMEs. I would like to know: first, what is the basis for saying that the GLCs' share of the economy has been growing over the years because the Government has been divesting? So, I would like to know what is his basis for saying that.

Secondly, because of the divestments, some things are now being done by the private sector but Mr Yee seems to think that that is not a very good thing and he cited the case of JTC Industrial Estates going out. He said that this is negative from the point of view of the SMEs. It seems to be conflicting because, on the one hand, Mr Yee advocates divestment, smaller GLCs, but on the other hand, when there are companies that are divested by the Government, Mr Yee mentions that it is not such a good thing. Perhaps he would like to clarify on these points.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Lawrence Wong for bringing up the case about JTC. I observed from JTC's website whom they have divested to. I noticed that it is mostly to Mapletree. When I checked the shareholding of Mapletree, I think I would consider it as also a GLC. Some of it may have gone to Ascendas. So, while we may have moved it off a statutory board, we have actually moved it into a Government-linked company of some sort.

The observations that I mentioned are just not my own observations. As far back as 2002, there was an Economic Review Committee that made various recommendations and I was very happy with those recommendations. But over time, I have not seen many of them implemented, especially in the SME space. I would like to see more aggressive moves to implement some of these measures. I am aware that perhaps a competition council has been set up. But in the areas of, for example, providing more support for the SMEs, I think that is also quite lacking. And the observation then in this report was that the GLCs have grown too big and that is also time for them to divest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Yee has not answered my first question: What is the basis for his claim that GLCs' share is growing? As he said in his speech, GLCs are growing in the economy and crowding out SMEs over time.

Sir, I think I have answered the question. It is not just my observation but in this particular report, it did mention that the role of GLC has grown big and it is time to divest. This is a Government Economic Review Committee report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the ERC was many, many years ago.

If the Member can share with me data perhaps at some other date, I would be happy to be proven wrong about GLCs not being big.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the clarification of JTC divesting its industrial properties. In the latest exercise that JTC did so, it was opened to everybody. JTC awarded half to Soilbuild, which is a private company, and the other half to Mapletree, which is also a private company.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Vice Chairman of COMPASS, I am always on the lookout for interesting new ideas from parents and the community about how we can improve our education. And I notice in the hon. Member Mr Yee's speech just now that he introduced several ideas which we have also heard from lots of parents. We share these concerns but one idea so far which I have not come across from parents is the introduction of political education in schools. I find this very interesting and I would like to seek a clarification. Does the hon. Member think that our schools are an appropriate platform for us to introduce politics and, if so, what form should such education take and from what age?

Mr Speaker, on the question of political education, I think something very simple that we can start with is, for example, to understand the Constitution. So, perhaps, at the secondary schools, we can start looking at what does our Constitution mean, what are the roles of the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. I am pretty surprised myself, talking to even students at university level where I used to teach at the start of my career, that there are actually many people who are totally politically apathetic about the environment. And one business leader I met several years back, who gives out scholarships, told me that he was rather disappointed with the quality of discussion with the university scholarship holders that his company has given out the scholarships to, because they cannot hold a proper discussion with him about ASEAN. So I feel that, yes, we should start. On which level – at secondary, it would be appropriate; at primary, perhaps, with some simple introduction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for finally giving me this opportunity to speak. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

Today, I would like to speak for two small but vulnerable groups of Singaporeans. They are our senior citizens who are poor or have no family, and persons with disabilities. Some of them stand at the fringes of society and they require more support from the Government and the community. So let me share some of my Ministry's plans to help them.

First, I wish to talk about our efforts to help our senior citizens. The current Ministerial Committee on Ageing, chaired by Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, is conducting a review on preparing our society for population ageing. MCYS is a key Ministry contributing to this work. One of our main tasks is on enhancing our home care and community-based services. This is to enable our senior citizens to "age in place" in familiar surroundings and with their friends. Another key thrust is to promote active ageing, so that our senior citizens can live healthy and active lives within the community.

In addition, we must do more for senior citizens who are poor, especially those with no families. Strong social relationships are crucial for the elderly, especially those who live alone or in poor health. Friendships, communal routines, simple chit-chat and even occasional mahjong sessions can actually prevent social isolation, and also encourage them to become part of the community.

Indeed, we should help our vulnerable seniors to be closely connected to service providers and the community. Currently, the Seniors Activity Centres serve this role. They reach out to vulnerable seniors in HDB rental flats and encourage them to interact with other seniors. All of them, whether vulnerable or not, can then bond and support one another.

Next year, MCYS will increase the funding for these Centres from 50% to 60%. On top of this 60%, we will introduce performance-based funding in the later part of next year to incentivise them to perform even better.

MCYS is also stepping up our investment in infrastructure. For instance, we are working closely with HDB to provide additional Seniors Activity Centres to serve new rental blocks. Within the next three years, we will build 14 new Centres. Our community partners, including VWOs and volunteers, play a very vital role in caring for our seniors. So, in that respect, I hope that more Singaporeans will step forward and join our efforts on successful ageing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now turn to our efforts to help persons with disabilities. We aim to help them maximise their potential and also to become integral members of society.

We are currently into the final year of the 2007-2011 Enabling Masterplan. We have made some headway. On caregiver support, we set up the Centre for Enabled Living as a first-stop information and referral centre for disability and elderly services. In employment, we introduced the Open Door Fund with WDA to help employers undertake workplace modification, job re-design and also to provide apprenticeship opportunities for the disabled. So far, more than 150 companies have joined the initiative, providing work opportunities for 480 persons with disabilities. Their contributions cannot be understated.

Going forward, we have set up a Steering Committee to develop a new Enabling Masterplan for 2012 to 2016. MCYS values inputs from stakeholders. This is why the Committee comprises members from the public, private and people sectors, including persons with disabilities themselves. It is supported by a resource panel comprising key officials from the relevant authorities, including MOE which oversees special education schools.

The Committee will focus on three areas, each representing a major stage of the life of a person with disabilities. Let me just lay out their broad objectives.

First, early intervention. We want to diagnose potential disabilities in children early, so that we can intervene earlier. We also aim to enhance our support during their transition from the preschool to the schooling years.

Second, on education, employment and healthy lifestyle. We will step up help for them to access education and employment opportunities. Our goal is to have more of them participate meaningfully in our society.

Lastly, we will enhance our adult care and caregiver support. We will expand the range of care options available to adults with disabilities. Many of them are cared for by family members. These caregivers are irreplaceable and we must do more to support them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee members have worked over the past few months to get the new Masterplan ready by early 2012. With the dedication of all the Committee members, including Members of this House like Ms Denise Phua and Mr Ang Wei Neng, I am confident that they will produce useful and practical ideas to better serve our community.

Sir, much work has been done to help our seniors and persons with disabilities. But there is much more that we can do and, together with our partners, we want to do more. And I am confident that we can build an inclusive society, one which encompasses Singaporeans of all ages, needs and abilities. Sir, I thank you, and I would like to speak in Mandarin now.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 326-328 for Vernacular Speeches .] Mr Speaker, Sir, since the end of the General Elections, I often meet friends, relatives and grassroots leaders who tell me, "Now, there are nine Opposition MPs in Parliament, the next Parliament sitting should be very good to watch!" From the short exchanges that we saw a while ago, it appears to be true.

After listening to such comments for a few times, I thought more deeply about the issue. There are two issues that we need to think about. Firstly, what is the purpose of the opposition in Parliament? Is it to go against the ruling party? Secondly, why must parliamentary debates be "good to watch"? What does it mean to be "good to watch"?

When I asked them these two questions, majority of the answers are: of course, the opposition party must oppose the Government! If not, why should they be called opposition parties? Another answer is, parliamentary debates have always been boring, with no fireworks. Now, several opposition party members have been voted in, when they lock horns during debate, it will definitely be very colourful.

In my opinion, a Parliament sitting is a very serious business. The purpose is not for it to be "good to watch", but to discuss important national issues. Hence, MPs should not be engaged in endless noisy squabbles, just for the sake of making it interesting. The parliamentary debates have been ongoing for two days. Indeed, there have been some views that are more offensive. On the other hand, the response from the other side has also been clear and animated. Both camps have guarded their territories firmly, not giving way to the other side.

The views of the opposition parties are mainly directed at Government policies and directions, and the side effects of the implementation of these policies. But we know that there is an ancient saying, "The wise man may have a thousand worries, but he may make one mistake." There is no perfection in life. If there is perfection, there will not be so many people who take up religion and cultivate themselves, with the hope that they will go to heaven when they die.

Since there is no perfect life, there is no perfect government and no perfect policy. Since policies are not perfect, the ruling party and the opposition party MPs have the right to point out the mistakes, make suggestions for the Government to consider. As the saying goes, "If there are mistakes, one should correct it; if there are no mistakes, one should be complimented". It is the responsibility of the Government to listen carefully, analyse in detail and execute carefully. But I must point out that criticising policies is not the exclusive right of the opposition parties. Sometimes, when the backbenchers of the ruling party "scold" the Government, they are even more "fierce" than opposition party MPs. It is this principle and attitude of placing "logic before kinship" that is one of the factors contributing to Singapore's success. The backbenchers of the ruling party are not merely "yes-men".

After listening to the debate in the last two days, I think the views expressed by MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao, have indeed brought about a fresh style. Actually, I feel that at the end of his speech, we should give him warmer applause. He quoted a Confucius saying, "Gentlemen promote harmony inspite of differences". And he has used another quotation from Confucius, to encourage the Government to be more tolerant. These words resound well and I agree. And, in fact, this has always been the policy of the PAP. "The sea accepts water from a hundred rivers", the ruling party has left no stone unturned in discovering new talents, and look for the best with capability to serve our nation. In the current Government and Parliament, there are Ministers and MPs who, before entering politics, disagreed with the Government's directions and policies, and would voice their views openly, for example, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, former Minister Mr Raymond Lim, etc. Furthermore, the Government amended the Constitution to allow Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated MPs to enter Parliament. So, we can see that the Government has adopted the attitude that "tolerance brings about greatness" and to "seek common ground while accepting differences".

Mr Chen, besides quoting from ancient history, has also quoted Mr Chen Duxiu, "if there is no party outside the party, this is emperor's mentality", to explain his views. With regard to this quote, I have a different interpretation. In the literal sense, the meaning of this quote is, "If there is only one party and no other parties, it is a feudalistic imperial mindset". In today's Singapore, besides the People's Action Party, there are more than 20 other political parties. Including Mr Chen Show Mao, all of them have the right to express a different viewpoint. In fact, this is a manifestation of our society's tolerance. So I believe that a better way to describe the political system of Singapore would be to say, "Parties outside the party, this is democratic mindset". But, since Mr Chen admired Mr Chen Duxiu, I would like to share with him some background of Mr Chen Duxiu. Mr Chen Duxiu was a former party leader in the Chinese Communist Party, but when his personal view deviated from the party's direction, he sought out people within the party who sympathised with him and formed his clique. In the end, he was expelled from his party. As to who was right and who was wrong, it is difficult for outsiders like us to know. However, Mr Chen Duxiu and other communist party members, perhaps, were lacking in tolerance for other views, and this was the reason why they could not tolerate each other, and this is a lesson we must learn from.

Singapore is a small island country, what we have today was achieved due to the combined effort of all Singaporeans and our willingness to work together, to advance together. Particularly, with the turbulent and uncertain international political and economic situation, we need to strengthen our core competitiveness, instead of having different opinions, and veer away from the objective of unity, as this may lead to division amongst our people.

In the Qing dynasty, during the period under Emperor Jiaqing, a governor of Yunnan and Guizhou by the name of Zhao Shentian wrote a couplet, "To be in politics, there is no need to talk too much, but you must always examine yourself and overcome your limitations; As an official, you must be aware of the big picture and be concerned about the people's livelihood." Its emphasis is on the fact that those in politics do not need to talk too much, but must be able to see the big picture.

I really appreciate this couplet, for the spirit it manifests. The meaning of the couplet is quite clear: those in politics must always "be diligent, be honest, be careful in talking", in another words, engage in less empty talk and do more. Do better things and exercise self-discipline, not pursue self-interest when considering all matters. Think of the big picture, and never forget the harmful effects of wrong policies on people's livelihood. As MP Chen says, the ruling party does not have special rights to be patriots. For the love of our country, regardless of whether one is the ruling party or opposition party, everyone should place national interest above all else, and regard promoting national cohesiveness as the main priority. Hence, I am most willing to share this couplet with both ruling party MPs and opposition party MPs the spirit that it manifests should be the aim that all of us pursue together.

In addition, MP Chen also mentioned that he would like to emulate Wei Zheng of the Tang Dynasty. Wei Zheng is one of the extraordinary Prime Ministers in the thousand-year history of China. He helped Emperor Tang Tai Zong create the historically renowned "era of Zhenguan". MP Chen has great ambition to emulate Wei Zheng and that is admirable. But I believe that MP Chen should also realise why Wei Zheng is special. Not only did he have special views, he was also fearless and he did not work for self-interest. I would like to talk about a story to illustrate the uniqueness of Wei Zheng.

It is written in classical Chinese, so I seek your tolerance. In the second year of Zhenguan, Emperor Tang Tai Zong asked Wei Zheng, "How do you define an enlightened Emperor? How do you define an ignorant Emperor?". Wei Zheng answered, "The enlightened Emperor listens to all sides; the ignorant Emperor listens only to one side." What this story means is, one day, Emperor Tang Tai Zong asked Wei Zheng, what does it mean to be a wise Emperor? Wei Zheng replied and said that a wise Emperor is one who is willing to listen to all views, while the Emperor who listens to only a small group of close aides is unwise. So there are two principles here. Although this is advice given to Emperor Tang Tai Zong, Wei Zheng himself put it into practice as well. As a dutiful and responsible official, one must ensure that one is fair and does not listen to one side.

So since MP Chen is using Wei Zheng as an example that he would like to emulate, when his view is different from that of his party, I hope he will be able to look at the big picture and express his view, and not be a "yes-men" to his party.

There is a saying by Confucius, "Do not do unto others what you do not wish others to do unto you". Whilst discussing the issue of tolerance, may I be bold enough to amend this phrase slightly, and say that "what you would wish, do it to others". If what you wish is other people's desire, then do it for others, that is real tolerance. So I hope that all of us will be tolerant and have the same mindset to work for our people, work for our society, bring about greater benefits to everybody.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start my speech, I want to make reference to what Mr Yee Jenn Jong has said just now. He made some statements about NTUC co-operatives, which I feel are rather negative. But certainly let me declare my interest as the CEO of NTUC FairPrice.

I am proud to work for NTUC FairPrice. It is a co-operative set up with a social mission. In fact, all NTUC co-operatives are set up with a social mission. In the case of NTUC FairPrice, it is to moderate the cost of living. We employ over 8,000 staff, largely local, nowhere near the foreign quota that we have. It is a deliberate policy. Our staff − a fair number of them are mature workers. Again, we are a big supporter of mature workers.

Contrary to what he has said, in fact, NTUC FairPrice is a big promoter of local SMEs. Talk to the farms in Singapore − eggs, vegetables and, more recently, fish farms. Fish farms which never existed but because two years ago, we talked to them, and there were a few entrepreneurs who were there and they formed a co-operative. We guaranteed to buy from them, and now they are thriving.

Look at the community efforts that we have put in, the millions of NTUC food vouchers that we give out each year to help the needy and the elderly. At the end of the year, we have a "Share-A-Textbook" programme which benefits thousands of students. I could go on and on, but I am conscious of time.

But it is perhaps how we respond to crisis that I think NTUC social enterprises make an important contribution to Singapore. Go back over the years − whether it is SARS, whether it is Bird Flu, whether it is rising prices in rice, and the list goes on − who came forth? If we left it to the open market, would things have happened the way they have? We were the first. And we always try to be the last retailer to have to raise prices but we strive to be the first one to drop prices.

As for the rice crisis, we took deliberate efforts, when we anticipated this was coming, to stock more and to hold off, and to keep the prices constant for as long as we could.

During the Bird Flu outbreak, egg prices were soaring. We took the deliberate decision to force prices down by dropping first and, as a result, others followed and every Singaporean, every consumer here benefited.

During the crisis, too, for SMEs that were our suppliers, we extended financial schemes to help them tide over this difficult period and they were thankful for it.

So I would just want to end this part of it by asking Mr Yee and, in fact, all Singaporeans, what if there were no NTUC co-operatives? Would all the parents of students who are currently enrolled in all the NTUC First Campus, childcare centres, be better off? Would all those who have taken up policies with NTUC INCOME be better off? Would all those who are currently shopping at NTUC FairPrice be better off? Would Singapore be better off without NTUC co-operatives?

Sir, I thank the President for his Address. Many have noted the continuity in the speech – the need for economic growth, the promise of better distribution, the call for unity. These are old parameters which Singapore has worked along, and they have served us well.

There are some who think it is dangerous to rely on induction – that what served us well in the past will do so in the future. They call this focus on economic growth the "rhetoric of crisis", that the Government perhaps is trying to scare us into doing what it wants.

It has done so many times in the past – forcing unpopular measures, such as CPF cuts, wage reductions, retrenchments which have been justified on economic grounds. That if we fail to take such measures, the economy will worsen and, as a whole, take a tailspin and the majority of us will be worse off going forward, and so on.

I admit, there is some truth in it, and a permanent state of being frightened is rather tiring. If this is indeed the basis on which policies have been approved, then, I say, it is not sustainable and let us have no more of it.

Still, I think that there is a difference between being aware and being "frightened" – I consider it the job of the Government to make us aware of the dangers and trade-offs of various possibilities, and to advocate for the one it strongly believes in. And I think most of us choose "informed" over "frightened" for our state of mind.

More importantly though, there is some force to induction – just because the sun has risen in the east in the past, it is not impossible for it to stop doing so tomorrow. But the force of reason is such that we must work and live and plan as if the sun will indeed rise from the east tomorrow; logical possibilities quite aside.

So while I do believe that we need new ideas, new processes and, indeed, a new model of politics in Singapore, let us not become completely new for the sake of being new, and throw away the lessons of the past four decades.

One of the key lessons has been to distribute the fruits of growth to all segments of the society – the most evident among these is the public housing programme. That, too, is the spread of wealth by means of good infrastructure, and increased security.

So while this notion of "inclusive growth" sounds new, it, in fact, has a traditional meaning within Singapore, and I think this meaning serves us well. There is, however, a way in which its meaning has changed – and by this I mean that growth now includes foreigners as well.

When we see Singapore growing, we know that it is not just growing for Singaporeans. In fact, it is growing for everyone who has a stake in, and benefits from its growth. This includes everyone who lives and works here – whatever the colour of their passports, whatever their accents when they speak. So we grow and grow and grow, and over the past few years, this growth has meant more crowded roads, more expensive homes and, probably, a bit of an exaggeration, less air for Singaporeans to breathe. At least, this is what it feels like. Sir, this is not a political rant, but I think we do want some answers. For one, what is the Government's long-term population policy for Singapore? I believe there are physical limits to growth, and I think that we are going to have to hit these limits at some point.

In the past, we had planned for year X, for four million people. Now, we do not have a year X but we say we have a planning parameter of 6.5 million population. Sir, what is the long-term population for Singapore that is planned? That is, the population at which we will say, "Thus far and no further, because there is no room". I know that innovation, ingenuity and so forth, can make a difference, but for the here and now, what are the plans? We had stated previously that 6.5 million was a planning guide. Is this what we are planning for?

What is the long-term target for reclaimed land for Singapore? We are now at 710 square kilometres. Is there room to grow by another 10%? More importantly, is this something we want? Or do we at 710 square kilometres say, "This is the steady state, let us keep it that way"?

Let us be the first country – because I do not think any country has stated it so far – to decide what our steady state is, and to say, "Look here is the physical limit for growth, and this is the population we ought to support". These are large questions, but valid ones, especially for a small country like ours.

But, Sir, today and for now, I have a more specific point. So, we have grown and will continue to do so, but is the growth for Singaporeans? The political answer is always yes, growth is for Singaporeans. But I would like to move beyond rhetoric and propose three specific ways to make growth real for Singaporeans from the lower half of the income bracket.

One, the fiction of a "Singaporean". When we say that growth needs to be real for every Singaporean, we need first to recognise that there is no such thing as a typical Singaporean. There is a father, struggling to feed his family of five on a salary of $1,500 a month; there is a single mother, who is angry and depressed that she cannot get maintenance payments; and then there are elderly parents, who go to the Tribunal of Maintenance of Parents to get their children to cough up $50, $100 for them. And then there are very difficult problems which money cannot solve – sportsmen who need time off from school or from National Service, young people who need to be weaned off their TVs, young girls who need help with eating disorders.

Sir, making growth real for each one of them does not always require a debate in Parliament. It requires us to fund and empower the many small and multifarious groups who are working on the ground. Within the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Community Development, Youth and Sports, we have actually organised ourselves into smaller groups to focus on certain broad areas covering various issues.

These broad areas include Helping the Needy and Persons at Risk, Caring for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, Strengthening Families, Promoting and Enabling Many Helping Hands, Strengthening Community, Fostering a Sporting People, and Developing and Engaging Youth. In each category, there will be a few of us looking into them in greater detail.

This is to recognise the very wide scope and portfolio that the Ministry covers and allows each member to also pursue the area they are passionate about. Sir, I would like the Government to identify the groups of people in most urgent need of help and to announce its targets to make economic growth real for them.

Second, distribute wealth better. Sir, in the West, the mega rich, led by Warren Buffet, have asked to be taxed more so that they can help their Government. Here, we do not see the same, perhaps our rich are not so rich, or our Government not so poor. But I would like to think that the rich did feel the same sense of duty to help those less well off than them, and the Government too feels the same need for fiscal prudence that some funds ought to come from the community.

In this sense, I urge the Government to give further incentives to the rich who donate. For example, donations to some institutions currently get double or 2.5 times tax deductions. Recently, the Government announced an extension of the increase of deductions to 2.5 times till 2015. Sir, can I ask the Finance Minister what the revenue implications of this increase is and, correspondingly, what is the increase in donations?

If this increase in tax deduction has been able to draw in more donations, is it revenue neutral from the Government's perspective? I suggest that the Finance Minister consider making this 2.5 times tax deduction a permanent one or even increase it to three times. This is because not all money is alike – there is a special effect when public utilities and social services are produced and provided by the community, and through self-help, rather than Government funding. There is heart as well as money in these efforts.

Sir, in the same vein, I propose that the Government funds sports differently. Yesterday, Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing said sports will be used as a strategy to bond communities. I fully support this. In fact, I want to make specific recommendation and propose that Government funds sports differently – I think we should care less for medals and more for heart – for the character development that sports can bring about. We should shift more funding and resources from sports excellence to sports for all.

Sir, like you, I had the chance to play many sports in school; many pretty badly, one or two quite well, but I enjoyed them all. Indeed, my favourite subject in primary school was PE. The lessons I learnt about endurance, being undaunted by defeat, being humble in victory, the notion of being "a good sport" is not just for the tennis, squash or badminton courts, or on the football field or the netball courts or the golf course but also in the boardroom and in Parliament.

Today, children are given too few opportunities to try out and experience sports that they are "not good" at. I remember one interview which an MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC – he is not here now – said that he had to play in the girls' softball team because he wanted very badly to play but he was not good enough for the boys' team. But since then, he has become a very good and active sportsman. I must congratulate him on this very innovative solution, but I think there are many other boys who may not have the same ingenuity nor courage.

The need to develop and strengthen the engagement with youths and getting them to take ownership is a challenge. They are an important group and they are our future. Sports is a great way to build character development in our youths and at the same time, a great way to bond communities. It requires both MCYS and MOE to work together on this front and I am sure they will. Sir, I ask then that we consider distributing wealth to build character through sports, not counting medals, but counting the healthy, happy and slightly less myopic kids we will have as a result.

Third, manpower for social services. Sir, the ageing population has been a challenge for Singapore for many years. I would like to identify what I believe to be one possible pressing problem – the lack of affordable and qualified manpower for nursing homes in Singapore. Up to 70% of the 4,000 formal long-term care workers in Singapore are foreigners – mainly from the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and they are doing a good job. Roughly a third of these foreign workers are registered nurses while the rest are healthcare attendants and nursing aides. Currently, not that many Singaporeans take up such jobs. Perhaps, it has to do with the perception of such jobs and maybe the skills set. This may take some time to change but we should ensure that these nursing homes are not under-staffed, especially as I expect the demand for their services to be higher.

So, for the immediate to medium term, I would like the Government to take steps to first encourage locals to take up these jobs, but if this is not forthcoming, then consider allowing more foreigners to go into this sector. It is an essential and crucial part of care for the elderly, who would otherwise be left dangerously alone.

Finally, Sir, our rapidly ageing population is a corollary to the falling fertility rate. Certainly, there is no silver bullet to solve these critical issues which many countries are facing. Our strength in the past has been long-term and integrated planning, as well as a cooperative spirit among our agencies. But in the past, we sailed in waters that others have gone before. We worked on the economy and we worked on national infrastructure. Now, we chart our own course, and we deal with perils that others have not encountered. Sir, now more than ever, we need to stand together and row and steer as one united people. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did the contrary. I wanted to join the Girl Guides but in my school, Girl Guides was not offered as a CCA, so I joined the Boy Scouts. This is indeed a new chapter for our Parliament with several key changes. I thank the President for his very encouraging speech that sets the stage for this session of Parliament.

I have interacted closely with many residents and business leaders and they share a litany of issues across various Government Ministries which I shall share with this House. These issues, some old and some new, deserve attention and there will be overlaps with some hon. Members' comments.

I shall dedicate the first part of my speech to how we should be helping the people to cope with the rising cost of living. First, cost of food. The recent announcement by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on reviving the building of hawker centres is indeed a welcoming move. As there are more and more Singaporeans eating out, the addition of more hawker centres will undoubtedly give Singaporeans more choices and, hopefully, more economical food. And I hope that out of the 10 new hawker centres, the Minister will put one in Nee Soon South. I am also heartened to hear from the Minister that the hawker centres will be non-profit oriented.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that only hawkers who are Singaporeans and who will operate the stalls themselves are allowed to lease the stalls. No subletting is allowed. This will provide Singaporeans with jobs and give them the opportunity to own their business and, at the same time, a way to ensure that our authentic dishes will not become extinct. Besides that, the design of hawker centres should incorporate the designated place for patrons of hawker centres to return the used bowls and cutlery. This habit has been practised in schools and army camps, but why is it not practised when we go out into the workforce? I would think that it is because of the design of the hawker centres.

Next, cost of housing. Housing is a hot topic in relation to living costs. Efforts in the past months to construct more BTO flats as well as raise the income ceiling for first-time flat buyers are commendable. We know that the queue is getting shorter and I have full confidence that the demand for the first timers will be fully met.

I am heartened to hear from the Minister that he will be looking into the needs of the vulnerable families. Within this group, I would like to urge the Minister to look into the single parents. Many of them are single not by choice but circumstances have forced them to get a divorce. For some, this also means the loss of a roof above their heads, loss of major income and they have to take care of the children by themselves. Sometimes, they are also stressed by fierce contests in courts. To many parents, a roof for them and their children can help them to take off some stress.

I know that the Minister is very compassionate. You were elected on 7 May. But very often, the civil servants follow very closely according to the book. Many of my residents tell me that for those who are involved in divorces, they are allowed to buy flats only upon completion of the divorce proceedings and normally this can take up to about a year or even longer. So, I hope the Minister will cut their waiting time.

The Minister may also want to consider making housing loans available for all first-time buyers. This will also take the stress off their parents. Otherwise, they may have to spend their lifetime savings to buy a new home for their children, instead of saving for their retirement.

In short, I hope HDB will re-focus its efforts on its mission, that is, to make readily available basic affordable housing for the people, that is, the working class families. There is no need for HDB to do iconic projects like Pinnacle@Duxton and Dawson, and these are the projects that I am very sure private sector developers are capable of doing it.

Next, cost of healthcare. The healthcare sector can expect greater demands on medical services. The Health Ministry has done a good job in some areas like awareness about mental health, making treatment for mental health problems more readily available and affordable.

I would like to suggest that we allow pregnant women to use their Baby Bonus for their pre-natal care as this will lighten their financial burden. It is not cheap to give birth in Singapore. The several thousand dollars can be several months of salary for some.

Still on healthcare issue, pensioners and their spouses are entitled to medical benefits for working in the civil service sector. When the pensioner passes on, the spouse is no longer entitled to the benefit. A big group of these are aged women. I hope the Government can be more sympathetic by extending to the surviving spouse a lifetime enjoyment of medical benefits. I believe this group is not big.

Last but not least, cost of transport. First, I would like to thank the Minister for reducing the hours of evening ERP for north bound CTE. I had spoken on this several times in Parliament in the past. I am glad that now, my residents can go home earlier.

I would like to urge the Minister to further consider cancelling the evening ERP and the ERP on Saturdays. As most people spend weekdays at work or at school, the only time to do family visitations and bonding activities is over the weekend. I think a little bit of traffic jam in the evening or weekend is acceptable.

Sir, for years, I have been appealing to the Minister to grant polytechnic students the same transport concession benefits as the junior college (JC) students. As more youths are turning to polytechnic as an alternative route to higher education, the transport concession can lighten the financial load of the parents.

Sir, besides transport concession, I would also like to see that MOE change its system to ensure that all pre-tertiary students can enjoy equal opportunities to go to university. Recently, I met a student who went to do "N" level, ITE and then polytechnic. He applied to a local university. He told me that his classmate in the polytechnic got a place in the local university, but not him, and they have exactly the same score. So I contacted the local university. To my surprise, I was told that the polytechnic GPA only contributes 80% of the total grades. Another 20% is the "O" level results. For the student who did not do "O" level, this is really unfair to them. These are the students who are late bloomers and if they can do equally well in the polytechnic, they should be given the same opportunity to go to university. I hope the Minister can review this.

I also would like to urge the Minister to create more university places for the polytechnic graduates as there are more and more students who choose to go to the polytechnics, instead of JCs. Yesterday, I am very happy to hear from Minister of State Lawrence Wong that there will be thousand more places in Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) next year. I would like to know how many places would be allocated to the polytechnic students.

Sir, we have heard many times the call for supporting Singaporeans, that is, Singaporeans first. I also support that. I would like to let you know the concern of another group of Singaporeans, that is, the SME employers whom we normally call them small towkays. Many businessmen have told me that the MOM's attempt to ensure employment of Singaporeans by increasing the costs of hiring foreign workers and reject many Work Pass renewal applications has caused a lot of hardship to the SMEs. They have trained up the workers and they have to send them back when their Work Pass renewal is rejected and then they have to hire more expensive, fresh foreign workers for those sectors that they really cannot find Singaporeans. There are also cases that businesses are facing the danger of closing down because their application for new foreign workers is not approved. I think we need to strike a balance. Yes, we need to be stringent for the applications of new foreign workers. However, when it comes to renewal of existing workers − they have to be in Singapore working for the last few years, have been trained and are familiar with the company operations − I think we need to be more helpful to these SMEs.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 329 for Vernacular Speeches .] Although the casinos provided many job opportunities during our last economic recession and boosted our tourism revenues, there has been an increase in cases such as illegal moneylending, problem gambling and cheating.

Recently, I received emails from residents in consecutive day. They were being harassed by loansharks. So, I went to find out from the Police on the recent happenings in Nee Soon South. According to the Police, from January to September 2011, there were 113 cases of illegal moneylending activities in Nee Soon South. During the same period in 2010, there were 112 cases. From January to June, there were more than 6,000 cases in the whole of Singapore. This is an alarming figure. It means that every other day, there is one case involving loansharks.

In addition, the negative repercussions brought about by the casinos also include family violence, broken families and emotional and mental stress brought upon both adults and children. Temptation is always difficult to resist when it is within reach.

Recently, a resident came to see me. She is a young female resident, married with a seven-year-old son. When she came to see me, she was very depressed. She said three to four years ago, her husband started gambling. Back then, when there were no casinos, he was involved in soccer betting. As a result, he owed a lot of debt. Recently, banks even came to their house to compile an inventory of their furniture. This made her and her son very stressed out. She said that she has decided to leave her husband. This is a real life example of the destructive nature of gambling.

The target customers of the casinos should be tourists and tycoons, not Singaporeans. I hope the Minister can impose more measures to prevent Singaporeans from gambling at the casinos. I think increasing the entrance levy and doing away with the annual pass are possible solutions. Perhaps, the $100 entry levy is not enough to deter Singaporeans from going to the casino. While others feel that since they have paid for the annual pass, they should go to the casino more often. In addition, we need to do more, in terms of education, so that from young, Singaporeans understand the evils of gambling and how to stay away from it.

Besides restricting Singaporeans from going to the casino, I think we should also restrict foreign workers from entering too. I heard from employers that their staff often visit the casinos and their productivity suffer. As some will feel happy after winning, they will keep thinking of when they can go to the casino again; while those who lost money will think of where to find the cash so that they can go back to the casino again to recoup their losses, to the extent that they lose interest in their work.

Can the Government tighten the issuance of licences to moneylenders? All these are the roots of temptation. My concern is that more and more Singaporeans will be affected adversely by these two casinos and some may even lose their home and family, a very dire situation indeed. Nine out of ten will lose in gambling. I hope the Government can deal with this social problem.

(In Malay): [P lease refer to Pg 330 for Vernacular Speeches .] Lastly, I would like to touch on smoking. We have over the years been trying to bring home the message to smokers as well as the young people that this habit is bad for their health. Somehow, it seems to fall on deaf ears. However, we should continue to press this message home. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider extending the non-smoking areas to include public parks, pavements, beaches, lift lobbies and building corridors. But what is important is enforcement. Otherwise, it will not be effective.

I often receive feedback from residents that there are those who smoke in playgrounds and bus stops, even though this is not allowed. I understand that the number of smokers has risen, especially among young people and also, according to figures, there are more Malay youths who smoke, compared to the other races. I am very concerned with this matter. For the sake of our health and our future generation, let us together create a smoke-free nation.

(In English): Sir, just now, Mr Yaw Shin Leong mentioned about workers' insurance. It sounds interesting. May I suggest Mr Yaw and the Workers' Party study this issue further, and perhaps share with us their proposal. If indeed it is workable, I would like to help him to promote it to my residents and would also help him to ask our Government to look into adopting it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in order for us to build an inclusive nation all can be proud of, let us tackle the cost of living and move towards a society that is free of gambling ills and smoker's smoke. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion to express our thanks to the President for his Speech made on behalf of the Government. The Government has set as its objective that, "We want to make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans. Its goal is to create a better life for all and the Government will seek inclusive growth that benefits all citizens."

Several of my parliamentary colleagues have spoken on some of the issues which they would like the Government to consider. Allow me to add to the issues which the Government should look into to achieve these objectives.

Let me first talk about education. Over the past months, I have met up with many residents and discussed issues about the education landscape in Singapore. Many parents have expressed their deep concern about the heavy workload and high stress level for their children in school. Sir, I know that Singapore has a highly regarded education system and our students have performed well in international rankings for Mathematics, Science and Reading.

But many parents are not concerned about the ranking. Their concern is about the welfare of their children. They basically want a better life and a less stressful life for their children. They ask whether MOE is trying to teach the children too much. Is there too much stress in the school system? Despite the "Teach less, Learn more" initiative, many parents feel that the schools are teaching anything but less. Feedback suggests that students in primary school are learning subjects which should be taught in secondary schools. The common complaint is that students are given far too many assignments or homework at a young age. Are we robbing our children of their childhood? Taking away their time of leisure and play?

Sir, I am not advocating no stress. Some stress is good for students. I look at my 12-year-old daughter who has just finished her PSLE earlier this month. Some stress is good to spur her and her classmates on, maybe not their parents. I think MOE should calibrate to balance having sufficient joy in learning versus too much stress in school.

Sir, I urge MOE to review the school curriculum. We should try to reduce the content of academic subjects being taught. Surely, some of the academic content can be taught at a later stage in school. We need to strike a right balance to ensure that children learn relevant skills in schools – eg, importance of lifelong learning, ability to be creative, ability to carry out research as well as learning interpersonal skills. To me, these are far more relevant than rote learning and accumulation of information.

MOE should also conduct a study to find out why is the tuition industry such a million dollar industry. If our school system is so well regarded, then why are so many students so reliant on tuition? MOE should assure parents that whatever is taught by the teachers in schools is adequate. If the parents are not convinced, then find out why. Are the teachers teaching too fast; is the school rushing to finish the syllabus? Do parents feel that their child is not receiving sufficient attention from the teacher? Why do they need additional help from the tuition centre? Would teachers be prepared to conduct more remedial classes for the weaker students? Could MOE set as a goal that no additional tuition should be required save in exceptional circumstances? Thus, after-school hours should be a time for children to rest or relax; or to pursue their own interest and dreams, and not to cramp more school-based work.

Sir, let me talk next about values. I support the decision of MOE to place more emphasis on inculcating strong values amongst students. This is an area in which I had expressed concern over for the past few years. I am always concerned that schools place more importance on academic achievement as compared to the importance of inculcating the right values for our younger generation. Values like kindness, consideration for others, being grateful and humility – if these values are properly imbibed in our students, they are demonstrated by our teachers in schools everyday, then these values will stay with our students for the rest of their lives. And this would help to make Singapore a more gracious society, a home that we can all be proud of.

Sir, let me talk about foreign students in schools. Many parents whom I spoke to have responded positively to the call for Singaporeans to build our future together. However, many have asked for more opportunities to share the fruits of their labour as they work with the Government to build up the country. In this regard, I would like to urge MOE to review the number of foreign students studying in our schools and our universities.

Singaporeans recognise that foreign students have a role to play in Singapore. They expand the Singapore network, they contribute to the diversity of views and, in many cases, they help to raise the academic standards of the entire class. But there has been frequent feedback that foreign students who receive scholarships to study in Singapore take advantage of the system. Some occupy scarce places in our schools and aim for a free ride to universities in other countries. In contrast, Singaporeans have to fight hard for limited places in good schools and in our local universities. Singaporeans who cannot secure places in our local universities are naturally unhappy that they have to pay high fees for overseas university education when there are places taken up by foreign students who do not appreciate these places. So, these Singapore students feel that the excessive intake of foreign students has taken away the limited places that could be given to them. I urge MOE to gradually reduce the number of foreign students to not more than 10% of each class in our schools or universities. And this is especially so for popular faculties like Medical school and Law school. This would allow entry for more Singaporeans. A review in this area, Sir, would help build confidence that our policies do benefit all Singaporeans.

As Singapore becomes more mature as a society, I urge the Government to consider doing more for the special needs education sector. I understand that MOE is conducting a review of the SPED schools and the hon. Member Ms Sim Ann is heading the MOE Committee on this matter. Sir, this is a step in the right direction and I urge the Government to devote more financial resources to this area. Students who have special needs can then have a better opportunity to share in the well-being of this country.

I next touch on the employment of seniors. Sir, I applaud the efforts by MOM to ensure that there is continual training for Singaporeans so that they will remain employed. However, for certain industries where we have shortfall of trained staff, eg, teachers and nurses, can the Government promote the re-hiring of retired staff so as to reduce our dependence on foreign workers. In fact, my colleague has just stated that 70% of healthcare workers are foreigners.

I have received feedback from retired nurses and teachers who feel that their jobs are being taken away by younger foreign staff who are less experienced but less expensive. Perhaps, the Government can consider creating more incentives for hospitals or nursing homes to re-hire retired nurses rather than allow market forces to dictate. Some of our more experienced retired staff will be more expensive. But we should send the right signal that we value our experienced staff by re-hiring them.

Next, Sir, about hawker centres. Earlier this year during the Committee of Supply debate, I called on the Government to reconsider its policy not to build any more hawker centres. And I am indeed happy to hear of MEWR's recent announcement that they plan to build more hawker centres over the next 10 years. Minister Vivian is not here but I am not appealing to him, as I have three hawker centres in my constituency. But I feel that hawker centres can help to keep costs of living lower because the cooked food or market produce sold can be priced lower. May I urge the Government to accelerate the building of the hawker centres. I also repeat my call to the Government not to tender these stalls at market prices, instead allocate them at subsidised rent to the lower income. This can be similar to the way that we deal with social enterprise. Let us keep the rental of these stalls low so that we can offer the less skilled, less educated, an opportunity to run their own business or become financially independent.

Next, Sir, on transport. A common bugbear from my residents is the irregularity and unreliability of bus services. To make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans, we need to do more to ensure that we have a more efficient, reliable bus system. I have waited at bus stops to personally experience the frustration of my residents waiting for a bus to bring them to work during morning peak hours. And the feedback is that the unreliability of the service is on a regular basis.

Sir, I know that the Minister for Transport is monitoring this closely. The Public Transport Operators (PTOs) are also doing their part to bring in more buses. I urge the PTOs to make more improvements in an expeditious manner so that Singaporeans can have access to a world-class standard of public transport. More buses ought to be provided for each service so that they can arrive in a timely and predictable manner most of the time.

I also have residents who have asked for new bus routes to be introduced to provide greater accessibility. I urge LTA to invite other operators to run a full service for the route if the existing PTOs decline to run the proposed service. This should not be seen as cherry-picking because the right of first refusal would have been given to the PTOs to operate the service.

Sir, HDB flats can be a source of great frustration for many. In particular, I have come across many singles who complain that they are unable to buy a flat directly from HDB. I urge a review of this policy. And I am glad the Minister earlier this afternoon has said that he will address the needs of this group more fully in due course. Singles contribute to the growth of Singapore and there is no reason why they should not be enjoying the better life which the Government promises to them.

For some Singaporeans who need to rent HDB flats, we should review our policies to expedite the supply of rental flats so that those in dire need for rental flats will be able to quickly find a roof over their head, instead of struggling and making repeated appeals whilst they find their own means to find a roof over their head.

Sir, I also wish to talk about engagement of stakeholders. The President in his Speech touched on the need for the Government to engage the citizens more extensively on issues. I agree and would urge the Government to listen more.

Recently, MCYS informed a VWO serving in my estate of its intent to reduce its funding. As the Adviser for the area, I have seen the excellent outreach by the VWO. It had utilised its resources to carry out plans to improve the lives of many residents in the area. Despite my appeal and the appeals by the VWO, MCYS decided that it will reduce funding because the emphasis on its objectives has changed. The VWO was asked to concentrate its efforts on a specific group.

Sir, the decisions made by the Ministries have huge impact on the lives of common people. As a result, the people perceive the Government as lacking in empathy, more concerned with figures than the impact on human lives. I urge the Government to do more to consult and engage the stakeholders in a meaningful manner. In this way, together, we can make Singapore the best home for all to live in.

Mr Deputy Speaker, having said all that, I would like to emphasise that my suggestions are intended to help the Government improve its policies to make Singapore the best home for all. I think, as parliamentarians, we do the Government an injustice if we merely criticise without giving credit to the excellent work done by the PAP Government since self-government.

I grew up in a 3-room rental flat shared by eight other persons in my family. Over time, my family gradually upgraded to a 4-room HDB flat and today, after marriage, I have my own property. My parents were hawkers who had no formal education. During the first 18 years of my life, I spent my after-school hours helping my parents to sell fruits. Today, I have the opportunity to be a lawyer and I have my own legal practice. It is a Singapore dream come true, not just for me but for many, many other Singaporeans, including Members of the Opposition parties who too have benefited from the system.

Overall, I believe that our Government has done well for most of us. A large majority of Singaporeans – the Minister says 92% − own their own homes; most are employed with secure and well-paying jobs. The Jobs Credit Scheme introduced in 2009 cost the Government $4.3 billion, benefited 100,000 employers, enabling them to retain many of their workers. I think no matter how we see it, we ought to give credit to the Government for helping to keep unemployment down during those times. Medical care, whilst not the cheapest, is affordable as long as we manage our expectation. Can we do more to manage the costs of living, to allow more Singaporeans to have a better life? Of course! Is there room for improvement? Definitely! This is what we are all here to do. There are many more things to be done, policies to be finetuned and improved upon. And it is incumbent upon us as representatives of the people to work constructively with the Government to make the lives of Singaporeans better.

Sir, as a backbencher, I have full confidence that every member of the Government is sincere in their desire to do better for Singapore and to ensure that all Singaporeans enjoy a better life. Sir, I affirm my support for the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion to thank the President for his Address and his call to rally Singaporeans together and building on our inclusiveness. Before I begin my speech, I would like to speak in response to Mr Yaw Shin Leong's speech earlier. My ears opened when he mentioned the four-letter word, NTUC. He suggested and commented that NTUC is following the Workers' Party's position and the divisiveness in opinions between the employers and NTUC in the area of Singaporeans first. I wish to clarify and state in lucid terms that NTUC has always been pro-worker and its mission has always been to help workers earn a better living and live a better life. NTUC has always been and will always be the voice of our workers in Singapore. There have been times when we, as a labour movement, disagree with our tripartite partners, especially when we echo and advocate the concerns and pains of our workers and unions. In the past, much of these diversity and differences in opinions have been the subject behind closed doors.

NTUC has since chosen to be transparent and float out debates, diversity and discussions in the open domain. However, Mr Yaw can rest assured that despite this diversity in views, the spirit of tripartism and our tripartite relationship has remained strong. Behind this diversity of views is a unity of purpose and vision because our tripartite partners – the Government, employers and unions – work in cooperation to shape Singapore's future together, forging consensus in developing strategies and taking action to achieve sustainable national growth and development for the benefit of workers, employers and society.

I joined the labour movement nine-and-a-half years ago in 2002. As an Industrial Relations Officer, I had the opportunity to witness for myself two major bouts of retrenchments, once in 2003 during the SARS outbreak and the other during the subprime crisis in 2008. During the 2003 downturn, many rank and file workers lost their jobs. I saw for myself how SIA and SATS staff, and the hotel and services industries being badly affected during the SARS outbreak. I saw workers who lost their jobs and had their wages cut. I recalled NTUC and our affiliated unions helping thousands to undergo training and many for career switches. I also recalled NTUC acting as a surrogate employer and helping almost 200 tourist guides to undergo skills redevelopment programme and upgrading as tourist arrivals came to a standstill and their incomes halted. During the end 2008 downturn, we had swift measures from a closely-knit tripartite effort to manage excess manpower and to upturn the downturn. We bounced back quickly. Thanks to the resolute efforts and tenacity of purpose by our tripartite partners from the unions, employers and Government.

Employers took pains to cut costs to save jobs. Unions and workers braced themselves to persevere and stood by their companies as the Government rolled out the resilience package tapping into our hard earned reserves. Although we bounced back very quickly by end 2009, that period also saw many job losses and institutions like several banks laying off staff often unannounced, and not reported publicly. During the 2008 downturn, I saw for myself increasingly more professionals, managers and executives, hereinafter referred to as PMEs for short, facing retrenchments. With the uncertain global economic conditions and outlook, we have to brace ourselves. In fact, just two weeks ago, we saw the first signs of the uncertain market conditions with the laying off of about 220 workers of United Test and Assembly. I am told almost 100 of them were PMEs, a group of them are currently undergoing skills training at Next U, the PME training arm of NTUC Learning Hub. They are re-skilling in various areas of computing such as autocad and host of other skills as many of those retrenched have engineering background.

The Ministry of Manpower had released an occasional paper last week and highlighted that the Singapore workforce has about half who belonged to this category called the PMETs. I would prefer to use the term "PMEs", as the "T" refers to technical officers and technicians who are these days generally considered rank and file workers. Since the Opening of Parliament, I have also posed several questions to ascertain the extent and accurate composition of the PME group of workers and the current demographic and industry profile, including their employment and unemployment rates which I hope, when answered, will throw more light to this growing segment of our working population. Based on extrapolation of the current labour market survey and reports, I am quite sure we would have about a third of our workers falling within this PME classification.

With rising affluence and educational qualifications and with a large proportion of our people embarking on tertiary education and entering the jobs in managerial and executive positions, it would not be long before this group of PMEs formed the greater majority of our workforce. What this means is that we need to focus and direct our efforts at all levels and at all fronts to support their personal growth and advancement, protect their welfare and interest and assist them when they need help, often times, well before they start asking for it. Our PME group of workers' concerns and challenges fall into various categories according to the life stage they are in and their nature of work. In the first instance, I share my parliamentary colleague, Ms Low Yen Ling's concern of those who are aged 40 years and above. From MOM's data, it has been clearly demonstrated that this segment requires a much longer period of time before they gain employment after retrenchment. In fact, I know of a resident who obtained a First Class Honours in engineering from NUS and worked as an engineer in a large MNC before he was retrenched during the last downturn in 2008. He was 40 years old at that time. He was out of job for more than nine months and finally landed a job in the Civil Service at much less than half his previous pay. He was fortunate in that his wife was working and that they had no major debts.

What I am sharing is a real concern amongst many Singaporean PMEs. This is regardless of whether they are earning $3,000, $6,000 or $9,000 per month. Many are already saddled with mortgages and vehicle loans. Those with families will be having young children and many have to support aged parents. To further exacerbate their burdens, many of these PMEs who are in their 40s would be an only child or have only one other sibling, and they were born during the time when measures were kicked in to get families to stop at two. Being retrenched is one thing, finding a job after that is going to be the next hurdle that we have to overcome after picking themselves up.

Looking back at the past decade, such economic swings are no longer once in 10 years like traditional economists used to articulate. I worry, and I repeat again, I worry for this group of PMEs at the next downturn. I am well aware that the Employment and Employability Institute has already started regular career fairs for PMEs since the last downturn and is ramping up on such fairs. Due to a very diverse and often specialised nature of PME jobs and PME interest, the amount of resources to upskill and reskill the PME and place him or her in the PME job requires a significantly larger amount of resources as compared to training and placing a worker in a rank and file job.

Many of our young these days are equipped with IT certificates, diplomas, degrees and postgraduate qualifications. Many of them start off their first career or job as executive or skilled professional. What do you think this segment of our PMEs is looking for? During a series of focus group discussions which I had with some PMEs, they are looking for good opportunities, good jobs, good career advancement, good treatment by employers, good worklife balance besides good remuneration. They also want to be well protected against unfair treatment, termination and job losses. Career progression and reconciling job satisfaction with personal aspirations have been a common concern. In the recent figures just released from the Council of Private Education which tracks student members in private schools, it showed student enrolment had reached 146,000 by the middle of this year for which 113,000 are Singaporeans. Most of them are aged below 30 years and diploma holders. This is in comparison to about 45,000 Singaporeans pursuing undergraduate degrees in our three local universities and the new Singapore Institute of Technology. With such large numbers graduating from private educational providers such as Singapore Institute of Management, Management Development Institute of Singapore, PSB Academy and other well-known providers in ties-up with foreign universities, the number of potential young PMEs entering the market or already in the market and upgrading themselves in the coming years will certainly increase tremendously. My serious worry for this group of young PMEs is whether there are good jobs for them to fulfil their aspirations and ambitions. We are well aware of growth in sectors such as biomedical, research and development, clean energy and several other professional services. The question is, whether these young PMEs have a passion or keenness to enter into some of these industries and whether employers will accept them with open arms.

For those who are keen and willing to upgrade and upskill themselves through such private education providers, many of whom are those who are unable to afford an overseas education. Are there other avenues where these young people can obtain assistance from the Government? I am aware of the Workforce Development Agency's Skills Training for Excellence Programme (STEP) which is outcome and industry based. However, many of these SIM and MDI students I spoke to, including some of my residents, hope to see the likes of UniSIM type of Government funding, or the likes of the Edusave Merit Bursary, or scholarships. In fact, last week, I chatted with one of my union leaders who is in his late 20s. He works as a technician. He completed an undergraduate programme in Business Management with one of our top private education providers last year. I asked him if he had received an enlargement of job scope or had his salary or job grade adjusted with his new degree qualification. He told me in a dismal, no. I believe there are many like him, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector. This begets the issue of under-employment of our PMEs. Many like this young union leader may have to move to another job to be promoted to an Executive. Some stay on bitterly. This is not a new phenomenon. Countries like the United States face similar challenges. Lower jobs taken on by highly or over qualified PMEs, thereby causing severe under-employment. This is an area which I feel we should take cognisance of despite the fact that we have relatively low youth unemployment compared to many developed countries. We should prepare ourselves.

In the same vein, many PMEs battle with having children and doing well or even keeping up with their careers at the same time. Whether male or female, they face a myriad of difficulties. I know of many PMEs who felt apprehensive and at times awfully guilty, having to leave their young children and infants at home with a domestic helper, or at the childcare, or infant care centre. The challenges of having to rush home before 7.00 pm to fetch or see their children; the plight of parents when their child falls ill; the prospect of the centre being shut down due to an outbreak of disease and having to make unplanned childcare arrangements, frighten many. How then can we create a better climate to mitigate these fears and worries?

Back-to-work female PMEs who stopped work for a period of time during the formative years of their children also face their own set of challenges. This includes being unable to return to jobs which they previously did and also joining organisations with little or no flexible work arrangements, or having sufficient family-friendly practices. There have been concerns and feedback from my union leaders, residents and Facebook friends about foreign PMEs competing and taking away jobs from Singaporean PMEs. We do not doubt the need for foreign PMEs in certain specialised and niche industries. Instead, we cannot and should not fall into a situation where employers can choose foreigners as an easy option when they fail to recruit Singaporeans.

There are several ways to mitigate this. As early as June and then in August this year, NTUC union leaders have mooted the idea of a foreign PME dependency ratio and also to put employers through labour-market testing before they engage foreign PMEs. The Manpower Ministry responded consequently by enhancing the Employment Pass requirements which take effect in January 2012. I await to see its overall effectiveness next year.

My fellow labour MP, Mr Alex Yam, on Monday's sitting, shared on the vulnerabilities of young PMEs who are on contract employment. This is indeed true. Not just the young, but the not-so-young PMEs are also affected by the perils of such contract employment.

Order. Mr Patrick Tay, please take your seat.

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes to facilitate the completion of business.

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In general, our Employment Act explicitly excludes managers and executives in its scope of coverage. The Act was amended on a few occasions since promulgation and updated to offer limited protection to lower-level executives. On 1 February this year, the tripartite mediation process was introduced to cover union members earning less than $4,500 for specific head of claims. To date, the tripartite mediation panel has successfully mediated three cases involving executives with employment-related claims. The Manpower Ministry also offers PMEs a voluntary mediation route. However, I am concerned about the ambit and coverage of the Employment Act to PMEs. As our median salaries increase year after year and PMEs employment terms and contracts become increasingly complex, sometimes involving transnational and cross-border issues, I therefore ask this House how effective our current Employment Act has been in protecting the interest and providing recourse to aggrieved PMEs. The meaning and intent of the word "executive", which was provided in the Employment Act when it was first promulgated in 1968, and the meaning of "executive" today, 43 years later, I submit, surely, is dissimilar.

By the same token, we are increasingly seeing an increase in what is commonly known as "freelancers". They are independent contractors who do not fall squarely into an employer/employee relationship and, therefore, not protected by our labour legislation. We see such workers in various sectors such as tourist guides, freelance trainers and those in the creative arts and entertainment industry. They will need help too.

I have shared earlier the concerns and challenges of PMEs. We have questions to ask ourselves. What works or does not work for PMEs? Where are the new jobs for PMEs? What capabilities should we develop? Why do employers prefer Employment Pass holders than engaging our local employees? We need to examine our current national programmes, initiatives and capabilities. Are they effective? What should be the way forward?

Mr Patrick Tay, you are approaching the end of your 20 minutes, please try to round up.

Yes, Sir. What more can we do for this ever-growing group of PMEs who will surely form the majority of our workforce?

I have several thoughts and suggestions. PMEs will need adequate support for the "Four Ups" – up their skills and knowledge, up their marketability and employability, up their protection and up the spread of jobs and employment opportunities. I opine that the Government should work closely with tripartite partners to set up a task force to address PMEs' concerns over and above those highlighted earlier. Greater research and studies need to be undertaken to examine the short- and long-term ramifications and challenges facing this growing segment of the workforce. The issues are wide ranging and will cover, amongst others, the unemployment, employment and underemployment of PMEs. We need to find counter measures and solutions to these issues which may well involve reviewing the current legislation. And, finally, there is an entire chain of activities in enhancing the employment and employability of PMEs.

Mr Patrick Tay, please end your speech.

Yes. We must be able to develop new capabilities to train and equip them and, therefore, I moot the possibility of creating a PME Capability Development Fund for this group of people.

Sir, in supporting the motion to thank the President, let me also call on all of us to turn any uncertainties and potential adversities to opportunities and to tap any opportunity to transform it to victory and harvest. We have so much going for us, for our fellow men and women, ourselves and for the sake of our children and their future, let us build on what we have to make Singapore a best place for all.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion to thank our President for his Address. The President spoke about inclusive growth, and laid out the vision of providing each Singaporean the necessary platforms and opportunities to realise their fullest potential.

Sir, this resonates with me strongly. People are the foundation of any nation, but especially so in resource- and land-scarce Singapore, where people are our only asset.

In my meetings with business leaders, I often hear them lament that despite the availability of growth opportunities in Singapore, the key constraint to realising these opportunities is neither capital nor ideas, but the availability of talent. This dearth of talent has led companies to curtail their expansion plans, and some even contemplating taking their business offshore.

In the past, foreign workers and professionals have augmented our local talent pool. However, there is a limit to how many foreigners our society and infrastructure can accommodate. The Government has stated clearly the share for foreign talent will be limited to one-third of the workforce.

As we approach this limit, it is important than ever to find ways to tap on the talents of every Singaporean. Furthermore, Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations and one of the lowest birth rates in the world. This highlights how critical it is for us to nurture every citizen and bring out the best in our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak today on how we can better support and nurture two groups of Singaporeans. First, I would like to begin with a subject that is close to my heart, that is how we can better utilise the potential of women in Singapore. Research has shown a clear link between gender equality and a country's economic strength. Indeed, Nordic countries that lead the world in many indicators of gender equality rank amongst the strongest global competitors with the highest standards of living.

The opportunity with women in Singapore was recognised early on. Back in 1975, our former Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said, and I quote, "Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women, are those which will be the worse off. Those that do, and face up to problems of new social and family relationships to help working wives to bring up the next generation, are those most likely to provide better lives for their people. We cannot not educate and use the energy and ability of our women."

Singaporean women today have more opportunities than in the past. We have seen more and more women leading in their respective fields. However, we still have 58,000 women with university degrees not working, three times more than men. And despite recent gains, women's labour force participation remains low at only 57% as compared to that of men at 77%. Amongst women who work, few make it to leadership positions. Women only occupy 27% of executive-level positions, and 6% of board-level positions in Singapore top listed companies. Singapore only ranked 56th out of 134 countries in Global Gender Gap Index by World Economic Forum.

Sir, employing more women in the workforce contributes far beyond having more pairs of hands, or achieving egalitarian ideals. Women bring unique – and I emphasise unique – talents, skill sets, life experiences and perspectives to the workplace. There is a body of research which suggests that companies with a strong women representation at board and top management roles are also the companies that perform best.

The challenge of women juggling work and family demands is the key reason for low women representation in our workforce as women continue to be the primary caregiver. Close to 90% of women stop work due to family responsibilities. Over the years, I myself have counselled many female colleagues who struggle with the choice of staying at home or continue working, usually after having children. They are typically at the prime of their careers. They feel a strong sense of guilt of not having enough time for the family, yet they feel a strong sense of loss for giving up the career they have built and the financial security that comes with it. Juggling work and family can be a delicate balance. I remember my own days as a young mother, rushing home to see my sons during lunch break, that was the best reward for my working day, and that was usually only 15 minutes before I had to dash off again to drive back to the office for the next meeting. Being away on business trips was often a very miserable experience.

Sir, in modern Singapore, women who choose to work should be supported so that they can work and take care of their families at the same time. But in order for this to happen, they need ready access to child and eldercare services, they need their husbands as joint partners in raising their families, and they also need employers and the Government to adopt family-friendly policies. We still have some way to go in providing these. For example, despite the many discussions I followed in this House around flexi-work arrangements, women here continue to struggle with the painful choice between full-time work or no work, as flexi-work and part-time work arrangements, including home-based work, are not readily available. Sixty one percent of women who are not working have indicated they would work if flexi- and part-time arrangements were made available. Sir, being one of the most highly connected, technologically advanced countries, Singapore has all the natural levers to support flexi-work. Not leveraging this to enable women to stay in the workforce is truly a missed opportunity.

In addition, more can be done to help women to go back to work, especially those in the lower income group, as this will mean helping their families with extra income to improve living standards.

NTUC's Back to Work programme has helped 8,000 women return to the workforce, but there are still more than 235,000 economically inactive women between the prime ages of 25-54 that could be re-inducted. I have met a number of female residents who are frustrated of not being able to even land a job interview despite pursuing numerous training programmes, having taken some time off work. The reason is very simple: employers are not confident about their ability to adapt to the work environment, especially older women who have stopped work for some time. So, in many cases, the employer's concerns have less to do with the applicant's relevant skills, but more about her fitting into the working environment.

Sir, taking inspiration from the successful Jobs Credit Scheme, can we not consider a special grant to encourage employers to offer re-induction to women returning to the workforce? Under this scheme, which I will call the Re-entry Scheme for the purposes of this discussion, companies can obtain a grant from the Government for a limited period of time, perhaps three to six months, for hiring women returning to the workforce. This is to ease the re-induction of women into the workplace by immersing themselves in the operating rhythm and orientating themselves to the rigour of a new job. The Re-entry Scheme will help offset the employer's cost for on-the-job training for these women as well as any redesign of work arrangements necessary. Yes, this will be an investment by the Government, but this is an investment that is completely – completely – targeted to developing the vocational skills of the worker for the task she is already hired to do, rather than training given in the hope she will find a job. I would further recommend that this scheme be extended to older workers for the same purposes.

Sir, the experience of other countries and our own suggests that meaningful changes will not occur naturally. Instead, they are the result of determined and sustained Government interventions, regulations and provisions. We have only seen a mere increase of 5% in women labour force participation in 20 years. In the meantime, our fertility rate has slid to a historic low of 1.

16. This contrasts starkly with countries such as Norway, where gender equality and female friendly employment policies make it easier for women to raise families whilst enjoying successful careers and financial security. Norway's women labour participation is at a high of 80%, and not surprisingly, the fertility rate at a respectable 1.

96. Our lack of progress in this field is all the more conspicuous when stacked up against our many achievements and progress in many other areas such as the economy, education, environment and health.

What does it take to keep this issue at the top of the political and social agenda, to drive it to resolute and urgent action? Today, the issues highlighted are spread across Government agencies co-ordinated by an "office" within MCYS, which itself oversees a wide range of concerns from social welfare, youth, sports, community bonding to ageing. Can women and family not be represented by a dedicated Ministry, as in the other countries such as Sweden, New Zealand and Malaysia? There should be enhanced levels of resources, a strong mandate and authority to prescribe and enforce, rather than be left to the best efforts of the occasional campaign or promotion by different agencies. The integration of work and family is a national concern, and deserves to be addressed with the right policies, and a comprehensive strategy. Society should be educated and stakeholders should be given clear targets to aspire to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is time for us to give this area the impetus it deserves. Our success in doing so will mean higher household incomes, more fulfilling lives and happier families. And very likely, it will mean more babies. And we will have provided employers in Singapore an enlarged pool of talent who brings unique skills. Sir, this is a win-win-win scenario for the country.

I would now like to address the issues faced by another group, Singapore's professionals, managers and executives which I should refer as PMEs. Hon. Member Patrick Tay has spoken at length about their plight. Let me just add to that speech that has given a lot of insights to what this group is facing. Riding the wave of our vibrant economy, many professionals and executives are going to places and I have seen many making the most of the many opportunities available to them. But I have also met many of my constituents that are also anxious, as mentioned by hon. Member Patrick Tay, about their access to quality jobs and career prospects. Some have shared their concerns of seeing large numbers of foreigners in their workplace. They fear being marginalised by the liberal inflow of foreigners and having their wages depressed.

The reality is that business is all about pragmatism – given a choice, businesses will tend towards the most expedient, convenient and cheapest options to fulfil its objectives. And with the trend of business cycles becoming shorter and more volatile, business leaders are focusing on immediate opportunities rather than on investing in long-term solutions. So if there is an easily accessible pool of well-qualified, low-cost foreigners to tap into, there is less urgency for employers to invest in grooming Singaporeans for the same jobs.

This concern is amplified by global trends that shift growth drivers from West to East. Whereas in the past, the competition for jobs had come primarily from lower cost Asian countries and primarily for lower-skilled opportunities, Singaporean executives now also encounter competition from developed but job-scarce nations of the Western hemisphere. Head-hunters tell me how attractive Singapore has become to qualified candidates from the US and Europe, willing even to take a pay cut to learn about Asia from the most cosmopolitan city – that is, Singapore! Sir, we are a small country with a limited number of jobs on offer, yet we have become a magnet for talent from all over the world. What measures do we have in place to ensure Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce?

Sir, let me be clear about the point I am making. It is not about Singapore's need to access a diverse, globally competitive pool of talent, about which there should be no doubt. My point is about (1) how do we ensure employers sustain a preference to employ "Singaporeans first"? and (2) where it is not possible, how do we persuade them to invest in developing Singaporeans with the necessary skills to step up to those jobs?

The recent changes to the Employment Pass (EP) scheme will help level the playing field on pay and increase the overall level in terms of the quality of EP holders. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but many asked, can we do more? I must say our Employment Pass system that is targeted at the executives and managers is one of the more liberal systems internationally which mainly focuses on qualifying entry salary and education levels.

Here, the questions that my residents often ask me: Will locals remain at the core of our workforce if employers are not subjected to quotas on their intake of foreigners? How can we be sure that employers adopt a "Singaporean first" policy by trying their best to employ local talent before hiring foreign talent? Where employers claim that it is not possible to hire a Singaporean because of the nature of the job, how can we be sure that those particular jobs are correctly specified or paid? If those skills are indeed so rare, how can we persuade employers to train Singaporeans to fill those jobs? Sir, I believe these are very valid and important questions and we must find a solution to address them in a systematic and thoughtful way. Many countries, even the Gulf States, which welcome foreigners to supplement locals, have put in place measures that deal with the issues highlighted. This allows the admission of high quality foreign talent without adversely affecting the job opportunities and wages of locals. The possible introduction of a quota system can also play a key role in protecting strategic industries and guard against vulnerability from over-reliance on foreigners in selected sectors.

Of course, Sir, it is also important we do not take any steps suddenly, as it may shake the confidence of companies that have invested in Singapore and adversely impact our global competitiveness. At the same time, we certainly should not wait till the situation becomes so dire that corrective action becomes necessary. Instead, the initiatives discussed above may be introduced in a gradual and phased manner, so as to allow businesses to adapt to the changes. But the message will be unmistakeable: That their human resource planning must adopt a "Singaporean first" policy and cater for the placement of Singaporeans at the core of their workforce. They can then take the gradual but resolute steps to systematically prepare Singaporeans for the best jobs.

Mdm Foo, you need to round up your speech. We are approaching the time.

Okay. Sir, I wish to also point out that employers stand to benefit significantly from this. It is a common practice from enlightened employers to groom local executives in their succession planning. They understand that having a strong local team enhances business continuity and operational resilience, as Singaporeans are here for the long term. They possess a special connection to the local community and a finely nuanced understanding of the local environment, a key lever for being competitive.

In conclusion, Sir, I recall once again, the President's call for us to help all Singaporeans realise their fullest potential. For the last 46 years, we have proven time and time again that whenever we put our minds and our collective will to surmounting a challenge, we can succeed. I believe that Singapore can also lead the way in realising the full potential that women can bring to society. I believe that we can, and we should give Singaporeans the first chance at the best jobs amidst globalisation. And I believe our best days lie ahead of us, Singapore will be a city of opportunities, where our people learn and grow, and be the best they can be. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on that note, I end my speech by re-affirming my support for the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can 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 Pin Min, resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

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

Adjourned accordingly at 7.28 pm.